This will allow ISP's to increase their revenue and use that money to improve and expand their infrastructure.
I'm actually for reduced latency and increased bandwidth, unlike many here it seems.
I wonder how many more millions it will take to effectively combat the blind ignorance you've demonstrated here...
To be clear no one has ever questioned the American healthcare's efficacy at keeping people physically healthy.
The American healthcare system is not responsible for keeping people physically healthy. People are. The healthcare system has been reduced to dealing with people who are too damn lazy to maintain their health, which creates a multitude of issues to treat.
The only black mark against it is it not only fails to keep them financially healthy but it is outright financially crippling.
If the American healthcare system were not as obscenely profitable as it is, then it would be utter shit. That black mark tends to say a lot about its efficacy. The most efficient machines in the world are those that make a shitload of money.
Like everything in America, fantastic if you have the privilege. Now give me another prescription, I have insurance baby!
Putting up with obscene costs isn't a viable long-term solution, especially when even having insurance won't always prevent you from being financially crippled. You'll need your money to take care of your aging parents as well, for all the costs insurance doesn't cover.
The problem is that too many American's let their health go to shit and then demand some kind of pill to fix the problem.
Hate to point out the obvious, but the true problem is Americans being too fucking lazy to maintain their health through diet and exercise. If they simply did this, there would be no reason to be demanding magical pills to fix a preventable problem.
High blood pressure is something that can be treated with changes to diet and exercise for the vast majority of people. Using medication should only be reserved for a very limited number of cases or for people who have particular medical conditions that make other approaches impossible.
Those making these guideline changes already know that Americans aren't going make any changes to diet and exercise. They rarely do it no matter how life-threatening the prognosis is. I fully believe this new guideline was driven by Big Pharma who will rake in obscene profits by perpetually prescribing more pills to the additional 14% of the population who are now diagnosed with Stage-1 hypertension.
People like to complain about how awful the American health care system is, but I'd argue that it's easily one of the best in the world. I can't imagine many other systems that could manage to keep alive a group of people as chronically unhealthy as the Americans. That the first thought is that this is being done so that there can be more prescriptions handed out for medication shows just how unhealthy the thinking about health care in America has become. The summary even ends by stating that medication isn't recommended for people who now fall into this new category of high blood pressure, but the first thought is to reach for a pill to fix things.
It's one of the best in the world for one reason; Obscene Profits.
The point is that small organizations don't usually allow for specialization of duties, and that means less brains working on different aspects of IT.
The additional expense of maintaining staff or services that mitigate the risk of your business getting ass-raped by malware is either worth it to a business owner, or it's not. Small organizations that choose the latter usually become victims. Fuck 'em if they can't learn from best practice.
No one can do it all, it's similar to medicine - no doctor does all parts. It takes about 250 specialists to comprise all aspects of medicine, and that number is increasing daily.
See? There are areas of business that value risk mitigation. 250 specialists exist because when someone in medicine tries to "do it all", it usually ends with a wrongful death lawsuit. Medicine was forced to learn the value of specialists, much like ignorant small business owners are doing today.
currently, we know how to make a massive number of different types of chemical weapons, but the vast majority of countries have none in their arsenals.
Tobacco kills 7 million people worldwide every year.
Alcohol kills over 3 million people worldwide every year.
Countless other harmful yet legal chemicals used in pesticides and food additives. Cancer affects 1 in 3 humans.
Every battlefield humans have ever stepped on cannot even try to compare to these statistics.
Perhaps we need to understand that chemical warfare is a lot more fucking subtle these days.
Learn to read better. The economic conditions required for large tractor trailer style trucks to be the best options must be satisfied or there are cheaper options.
Speaking of reading, the Tesla post from yesterday stated that 80% of US truck routes are 250 miles or less. That is well within the range of the Tesla solution, which was probably a justification to build the damn thing. Today, there are over 130 million trucks registered for commercial use in the US (not including personal trucks which are considered SUVs by DOT).
They can be used but it is not the most efficient cost effective option, and in business controllable costs must be minimized or you will not last long.
Mega-corps are becoming a rather dominant force in business, and those mega-corps build mega-stores. The kind of stores that justify larger truck haulers. When you provide an all-electric option with a million-mile warranty, that tends to be one hell of a justification for those "business controllable costs."
Tell me again how the Too-Big-To-Fail competition is still alive today? How quickly we forget about fucking bailouts. This excuse is growing old and tiresome. You may boycott Tesla, but are a shitload of subsidized industries which you probably continue to support every day by buying their products. Start putting your wallet where your mouth is.
Tax breaks for rich people sit poorly with the working class.
Not having "gasoline" in your budget and emissions pollution your lungs are breaks Musk is trying to deliver to you and the rest of the planet, along with breaks in your electric costs (solar), and in other tax-funded programs (NASA). By comparison, at least there seems to be a return on my "subsidized" investment.
The car, its speed or acceleration are not the problem. The problem is that people who should not have a driving license are allowed to take control of vehicles.
The problem is the vehicle. Take the most experienced car, mini-van, or truck driver and strap them into something that can pull sub 2-second 0-60 times, and I can assure you they will be nervous. Inexperienced or unqualified drivers only exacerbate that core issue.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be built. I'm saying they should probably stay on a race track where they belong. This dick-measuring race between hypercar builders is pointless and dangerous, particularly on public roads.
Imagine what happens when Bugatti make an electric hypercar, which is probably what they will do next.
Personally I'm not championing even this round of Roadster advancement by Tesla.
Spoiled children who have spent more time in a dentist chair than behind the wheel of a car. The wealthy elderly who probably should have had their license taken away years ago. These are your future Tesla hypercar owners. Do you honestly think we're going to feel safe as a driver or pedestrian with them driving a car capable of 0-manslaughter in less than 2 seconds?
Sorry, but this race to ludicrous speed really needs to stop until they create more rules around ownership and licensing. Should we be restricting hypercars to a race track when they make a NASCAR vehicle look like a skateboard? Should we require advanced licensing and testing to own and operate such a vehicle?
Whenever there has been too much bad news for a while, they announce some pie-in-the-sky plan or they 'launch' a product that probably won't ever exist, just to get some positive buzz and to deflect attention from their major problems.
Give me a fucking break. I've lost count of the number of "concept" vehicles that have been paraded around by every other auto manufacturer for the last half-century that never made it to an assembly line, and often served as nothing more than marketing hype.
The Bugatti Chiron can do 250 now, and they claim that after eventual fettling and tuning they will get it to do 300.
It might be the quickest production car, though, which is not the same as fastest.
Bugatti - Spends two years and thousands of man-hours on developing an internal combustion engine and transmission to squeeze a gain of 25MPH faster than the previous model. Eventually becomes a not-so-useful one-seater that runs out of gas in 3 minutes at top speed.
Tesla - Slaps in a bigger battery. Tells customers to hold on tight.
Yeah, I think we know how this race is gonna end...
(FYI, Koenigsegg Agera RS tops out at over 280MPH, so Bugatti already has some catching up to do.)
who wants an "always listening" microphone connected to a for-profit corporation sitting on their desk listening to EVERYTHING, every idle thought spoken out loud, every private conversation between two people be it, spouses, lovers, friends, business partners, siblings, etc.. all to be commoditized and used to advertise to you or sold to who knows what
Based on the number of "always listening" devices sold to date, I'd say millions of people do.
fuck that, amazon, google and microsoft can go to hell because i refuse to consent to that
Amazon, Google, and Microsoft no longer give a fuck what you think. Refuse all you want. You and the other 1% of consumers will be ignored.
I've no interest whatsoever in coming come to a burnt-out shell that used to be my apartment because some script kiddy wants to show off his 1337 5k111z on my "smart" oven. None.
Manufacturers no longer give a fuck what you want. You'll get what makes them the most money.
And no, the 1% fighting against that won't change a damn thing.
Good luck finding anyone selling a "dumb" appliance 10 years from now.
The "average person" is out there customizing Twitter pages, building business websites on Facebook, and creating videos riddled with special effects for a YouTube channel. They happily take the time to learn all that, but ensuring their devices are secure and they adhere to best practice? Nope, fuck that. Too much time and effort. It also might exacerbate FOMO and infringe on their right to YOLO. Strong passwords and MFA? Ain't nobody got time for dat!
Sorry, but the average person is a techie; a techie that cannot be bothered with the burden of privacy or security. The mantra of IDGAF says it all.
Smartphones are no better... but their privacy-undermining technologies are not explained in simple language to consumers.
They're explained to consumers every time a data store gets hacked.
They're explained to consumers every time a "bug" exposes data.
They're explained to consumers every time a vulnerability is exploited on their perpetually unpatched hardware.
Sorry, but I'm fucking done with the excuse that consumers somehow don't know. They know. They just don't care. Security is not worth the hassle to the masses.
The title of my post was extracted from TFA, so no, consumers are not worried about the security risks. At least not worried enough to prevent them from buying it.
It's also rather ironic that we're touting security as some kind of sudden concern with consumers when they already carry around the device that is "exposing too much about their daily lives", which they carry on them at all times.
A piece of wood did not displace 90% of the workforce.
Neither will this, it's a load of hyperbole. I bet that in the 80s you'd make the case that 90% of all occupations were somehow affected by PCs. And in the dotcom boom that 90% of the economy was affected by the Internet. Computers are great for solving problems, but a vast numbers of jobs involve a lot of figuring out what the problem actually is. I've no doubt that you can build an electrician-bot to do to the actual wiring, can it talk to the customer and figure out what he wants and needs?
Since when does the electrician talk to the customer? They're told what to install, by the foreman or GC. Much like an electrician-bot will, thus replacing thousands of human workers. And soon, the foreman or GC will be replaced in favor of click-to-order designs, with no need for a human to be involved.
Why do people hire interior decorators when they got a zillion choices on Amazon? I'd love to see an AI try to figure out what my business users want, it'd probably short circuit and they'd ask if there's not some cheap Indian outsourcing company we could use instead.
If you're running a business on the internet and not using analytics at this point, you're probably doing it wrong. You're probably already using Google. Or Amazon. Or some other data miner that provides useful analytics to help drive your business. That used to be a human doing that analysis. Not anymore.
Maybe I wouldn't actually be writing code anymore, but I think a human-AI translator is a pretty lasting profession. Pretty sure doctors and nurses will be around in 100 years, even if they got exoskeletons and tele-presence.
100 years ago very few people were driving around in a vehicle powered by internal combustion. We had barely gotten off the ground with flying. We hadn't even figured out how good penicillin really was in combating disease. We've done a fucking lot in the last 100 years. One would be foolish and stupid to even try and predict the next 100 years. If you would have spouted off about landing on the moon in a few decades back in 1917, you would be hauled off to the insane asylum.
Yeah if you imagine far enough into the future maybe we'll have an auto-doc or the EMT from Voyager or the cure-all machine from Elysium but... fantasy. There will be jobs for humans and if we really start running short make some draconian anti-overtime laws so they'll have to spread them thin like say +100% bonus pay past 30 hrs/week. That way there'll probably be some work for everyone...
My previous comments highlight our inability to predict the future. You cannot even imagine where we will be in the next few decades. 20 years ago the majority of society were still using modems to dial up to the internet, and no one would have predicted 1Gb speeds over fiber in your home within the next two decades. And yet, here we are.
Humans think they can predict the future, but have proven time and time again that they actually suck at it. You are no exception. Your "future" is closer than you could ever imagine. And the impact will be as unpredictable.
If faced with being tossed to the local airport police and dragged off for a stint in the local pokey for a bit, most people will give up their devices.
Ah, so threat of becoming a criminal with a record is now the only thing that would actually separate a human from their can't-live-without-it smartphone.
Nope, no addiction to see here...everyone is fine...move along...
That's right: it's always coming for everyone's jobs.
No, not quite.
A piece of wood did not displace 90% of the workforce.
All of the Authorizors Assistants, Accountants, and Market Traders in the world do not affect 90% of all jobs in the economy.
THAT is the key difference when trying to compare the disruptors of yesteryear to what lies ahead.
Next-gent automation is not just targeting the lowly unskilled worker we dismissed with the 100-year old "go get an education" mantra. Automation and good-enough AI is looking to replace highly-skilled and educated jobs.
This story may sound redundant, but it's rather necessary, since most people still don't get it, and hold on to some bullshit It'll-never-happen-to-me mentality.
When someone says automation, think massive impact.
Easy answer. No computing or radio devices permitted as carry on luggage. No laptops, cell phones, media players, medical equipment documented ahead of time and itemized.
We can't even get social media addicts to put their phone down to prevent killing people on the road, and you call this an "easy" answer?
This article claims that one line of code costs a million dollars to fix and would "bankrupt" Southwest.
News flash: Southwest wouldn't be the ones fixing the fucking code! It would be the manufacturer who would then absorb that cost, not the airline. Besides, if this problem is valid the FAA and other regulators will be involved to force the manufacturer to address the issue.
This article is a perfect example of why journalism is headed for self-destruction.
OK, let's make the manufacturer fix this then.
Effective immediately, 90% of US airline fleets are hereby grounded as they are unsafe. They are now part of a manufacturer recall.
Hope that clarifies the impact.
Oh, and speaking of self-destruction, airlines would most likely be bankrupt as a result of that course of action.
And what's the price of a crash caused by hackers? Oh, right, that's not the same thing, the cost of a security fix is something you have to pay right now, while the price of a crash is only a potential cost in the future. Who cares about the latter even if it's orders of magnitude higher, right?
It's one thing when the first plane is hacked, and it results in a crash. It's another thing entirely when the 5th plane goes down within a week. Who needs a box cutter when you can terrorize using "typical stuff that could get through security".
Not to mention the financial impact when no one in their right mind would fly on 90% of airline inventory . It would probably take less than a month to bankrupt most airlines in a scenario like that, along with a rather massive ripple effect crippling US Capitalism that relies on moving humans and cargo efficiently.
Oh, and airline insurance companies? Yeah, they went bankrupt too.
Sadly, people don't even remember the fact that new iPhones used to be heavily discounted at $199 when you signed up for a 2-year agreement.
That's not a discount, that's a payment plan. If you are paying the same monthly bill, you may need to shop around.
Wrong. It was an actual discount off the MSRP,, if you agreed to a 2-year contract for phone service. For some fucking reason, we've gotten completely away from any discounts in the last few releases of iPhones, and customers are NOW forced to pay the FULL MSRP on a (you guessed it) payment plan. Hell, cell providers are still charging the full $500+ MSRP to buy an iPhone 6S, a model that was released over 2 years ago.
And no, most people are not paying the same monthly bill when compared to five years ago. They're paying a hell of a lot more.
Slashdot Mirror
This will allow ISP's to increase their revenue and use that money to improve and expand their infrastructure. I'm actually for reduced latency and increased bandwidth, unlike many here it seems.
I wonder how many more millions it will take to effectively combat the blind ignorance you've demonstrated here...
To be clear no one has ever questioned the American healthcare's efficacy at keeping people physically healthy.
The American healthcare system is not responsible for keeping people physically healthy. People are. The healthcare system has been reduced to dealing with people who are too damn lazy to maintain their health, which creates a multitude of issues to treat.
The only black mark against it is it not only fails to keep them financially healthy but it is outright financially crippling.
If the American healthcare system were not as obscenely profitable as it is, then it would be utter shit. That black mark tends to say a lot about its efficacy. The most efficient machines in the world are those that make a shitload of money.
Like everything in America, fantastic if you have the privilege. Now give me another prescription, I have insurance baby!
Putting up with obscene costs isn't a viable long-term solution, especially when even having insurance won't always prevent you from being financially crippled. You'll need your money to take care of your aging parents as well, for all the costs insurance doesn't cover.
The problem is that too many American's let their health go to shit and then demand some kind of pill to fix the problem.
Hate to point out the obvious, but the true problem is Americans being too fucking lazy to maintain their health through diet and exercise. If they simply did this, there would be no reason to be demanding magical pills to fix a preventable problem.
High blood pressure is something that can be treated with changes to diet and exercise for the vast majority of people. Using medication should only be reserved for a very limited number of cases or for people who have particular medical conditions that make other approaches impossible.
Those making these guideline changes already know that Americans aren't going make any changes to diet and exercise. They rarely do it no matter how life-threatening the prognosis is. I fully believe this new guideline was driven by Big Pharma who will rake in obscene profits by perpetually prescribing more pills to the additional 14% of the population who are now diagnosed with Stage-1 hypertension.
People like to complain about how awful the American health care system is, but I'd argue that it's easily one of the best in the world. I can't imagine many other systems that could manage to keep alive a group of people as chronically unhealthy as the Americans. That the first thought is that this is being done so that there can be more prescriptions handed out for medication shows just how unhealthy the thinking about health care in America has become. The summary even ends by stating that medication isn't recommended for people who now fall into this new category of high blood pressure, but the first thought is to reach for a pill to fix things.
It's one of the best in the world for one reason; Obscene Profits.
If it were not for that, it would be shit.
The point is that small organizations don't usually allow for specialization of duties, and that means less brains working on different aspects of IT.
The additional expense of maintaining staff or services that mitigate the risk of your business getting ass-raped by malware is either worth it to a business owner, or it's not. Small organizations that choose the latter usually become victims. Fuck 'em if they can't learn from best practice.
No one can do it all, it's similar to medicine - no doctor does all parts. It takes about 250 specialists to comprise all aspects of medicine, and that number is increasing daily.
See? There are areas of business that value risk mitigation. 250 specialists exist because when someone in medicine tries to "do it all", it usually ends with a wrongful death lawsuit. Medicine was forced to learn the value of specialists, much like ignorant small business owners are doing today.
currently, we know how to make a massive number of different types of chemical weapons, but the vast majority of countries have none in their arsenals.
Tobacco kills 7 million people worldwide every year.
Alcohol kills over 3 million people worldwide every year.
Countless other harmful yet legal chemicals used in pesticides and food additives. Cancer affects 1 in 3 humans.
Every battlefield humans have ever stepped on cannot even try to compare to these statistics.
Perhaps we need to understand that chemical warfare is a lot more fucking subtle these days.
Learn to read better. The economic conditions required for large tractor trailer style trucks to be the best options must be satisfied or there are cheaper options.
Speaking of reading, the Tesla post from yesterday stated that 80% of US truck routes are 250 miles or less. That is well within the range of the Tesla solution, which was probably a justification to build the damn thing. Today, there are over 130 million trucks registered for commercial use in the US (not including personal trucks which are considered SUVs by DOT).
They can be used but it is not the most efficient cost effective option, and in business controllable costs must be minimized or you will not last long.
Mega-corps are becoming a rather dominant force in business, and those mega-corps build mega-stores. The kind of stores that justify larger truck haulers. When you provide an all-electric option with a million-mile warranty, that tends to be one hell of a justification for those "business controllable costs."
Because they're subsidized out of our wallet.
Tell me again how the Too-Big-To-Fail competition is still alive today? How quickly we forget about fucking bailouts. This excuse is growing old and tiresome. You may boycott Tesla, but are a shitload of subsidized industries which you probably continue to support every day by buying their products. Start putting your wallet where your mouth is.
Tax breaks for rich people sit poorly with the working class.
Not having "gasoline" in your budget and emissions pollution your lungs are breaks Musk is trying to deliver to you and the rest of the planet, along with breaks in your electric costs (solar), and in other tax-funded programs (NASA). By comparison, at least there seems to be a return on my "subsidized" investment.
The car, its speed or acceleration are not the problem. The problem is that people who should not have a driving license are allowed to take control of vehicles.
The problem is the vehicle. Take the most experienced car, mini-van, or truck driver and strap them into something that can pull sub 2-second 0-60 times, and I can assure you they will be nervous. Inexperienced or unqualified drivers only exacerbate that core issue.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be built. I'm saying they should probably stay on a race track where they belong. This dick-measuring race between hypercar builders is pointless and dangerous, particularly on public roads.
Imagine what happens when Bugatti make an electric hypercar, which is probably what they will do next.
Personally I'm not championing even this round of Roadster advancement by Tesla.
Spoiled children who have spent more time in a dentist chair than behind the wheel of a car. The wealthy elderly who probably should have had their license taken away years ago. These are your future Tesla hypercar owners. Do you honestly think we're going to feel safe as a driver or pedestrian with them driving a car capable of 0-manslaughter in less than 2 seconds?
Sorry, but this race to ludicrous speed really needs to stop until they create more rules around ownership and licensing. Should we be restricting hypercars to a race track when they make a NASCAR vehicle look like a skateboard? Should we require advanced licensing and testing to own and operate such a vehicle?
Yes, we probably should.
Whenever there has been too much bad news for a while, they announce some pie-in-the-sky plan or they 'launch' a product that probably won't ever exist, just to get some positive buzz and to deflect attention from their major problems.
Give me a fucking break. I've lost count of the number of "concept" vehicles that have been paraded around by every other auto manufacturer for the last half-century that never made it to an assembly line, and often served as nothing more than marketing hype.
This concept is hardly new or unique to Tesla.
The Bugatti Chiron can do 250 now, and they claim that after eventual fettling and tuning they will get it to do 300.
It might be the quickest production car, though, which is not the same as fastest.
Bugatti - Spends two years and thousands of man-hours on developing an internal combustion engine and transmission to squeeze a gain of 25MPH faster than the previous model. Eventually becomes a not-so-useful one-seater that runs out of gas in 3 minutes at top speed.
Tesla - Slaps in a bigger battery. Tells customers to hold on tight.
Yeah, I think we know how this race is gonna end...
(FYI, Koenigsegg Agera RS tops out at over 280MPH, so Bugatti already has some catching up to do.)
(Circa 2014)
Manufacturer - "Our phone comes with a headphone jack."
Customer - "Uhhh, no shit. Why are you even telling me this?"
(Circa 2017)
Manufacturer - "Our phone comes with a headphone jack."
Customer - "Ballsy move man. I'm impressed by your courage."
who wants an "always listening" microphone connected to a for-profit corporation sitting on their desk listening to EVERYTHING, every idle thought spoken out loud, every private conversation between two people be it, spouses, lovers, friends, business partners, siblings, etc.. all to be commoditized and used to advertise to you or sold to who knows what
Based on the number of "always listening" devices sold to date, I'd say millions of people do.
fuck that, amazon, google and microsoft can go to hell because i refuse to consent to that
Amazon, Google, and Microsoft no longer give a fuck what you think. Refuse all you want. You and the other 1% of consumers will be ignored.
I've no interest whatsoever in coming come to a burnt-out shell that used to be my apartment because some script kiddy wants to show off his 1337 5k111z on my "smart" oven. None.
Manufacturers no longer give a fuck what you want. You'll get what makes them the most money.
And no, the 1% fighting against that won't change a damn thing.
Good luck finding anyone selling a "dumb" appliance 10 years from now.
The average person is also not a techie...
The "average person" is out there customizing Twitter pages, building business websites on Facebook, and creating videos riddled with special effects for a YouTube channel. They happily take the time to learn all that, but ensuring their devices are secure and they adhere to best practice? Nope, fuck that. Too much time and effort. It also might exacerbate FOMO and infringe on their right to YOLO. Strong passwords and MFA? Ain't nobody got time for dat!
Sorry, but the average person is a techie; a techie that cannot be bothered with the burden of privacy or security. The mantra of IDGAF says it all.
Smartphones are no better... but their privacy-undermining technologies are not explained in simple language to consumers.
They're explained to consumers every time a data store gets hacked.
They're explained to consumers every time a "bug" exposes data.
They're explained to consumers every time a vulnerability is exploited on their perpetually unpatched hardware.
Sorry, but I'm fucking done with the excuse that consumers somehow don't know. They know. They just don't care. Security is not worth the hassle to the masses.
The title of my post was extracted from TFA, so no, consumers are not worried about the security risks. At least not worried enough to prevent them from buying it.
It's also rather ironic that we're touting security as some kind of sudden concern with consumers when they already carry around the device that is "exposing too much about their daily lives", which they carry on them at all times.
A piece of wood did not displace 90% of the workforce.
Neither will this, it's a load of hyperbole. I bet that in the 80s you'd make the case that 90% of all occupations were somehow affected by PCs. And in the dotcom boom that 90% of the economy was affected by the Internet. Computers are great for solving problems, but a vast numbers of jobs involve a lot of figuring out what the problem actually is. I've no doubt that you can build an electrician-bot to do to the actual wiring, can it talk to the customer and figure out what he wants and needs?
Since when does the electrician talk to the customer? They're told what to install, by the foreman or GC. Much like an electrician-bot will, thus replacing thousands of human workers. And soon, the foreman or GC will be replaced in favor of click-to-order designs, with no need for a human to be involved.
Why do people hire interior decorators when they got a zillion choices on Amazon? I'd love to see an AI try to figure out what my business users want, it'd probably short circuit and they'd ask if there's not some cheap Indian outsourcing company we could use instead.
If you're running a business on the internet and not using analytics at this point, you're probably doing it wrong. You're probably already using Google. Or Amazon. Or some other data miner that provides useful analytics to help drive your business. That used to be a human doing that analysis. Not anymore.
Maybe I wouldn't actually be writing code anymore, but I think a human-AI translator is a pretty lasting profession. Pretty sure doctors and nurses will be around in 100 years, even if they got exoskeletons and tele-presence.
100 years ago very few people were driving around in a vehicle powered by internal combustion. We had barely gotten off the ground with flying. We hadn't even figured out how good penicillin really was in combating disease. We've done a fucking lot in the last 100 years. One would be foolish and stupid to even try and predict the next 100 years. If you would have spouted off about landing on the moon in a few decades back in 1917, you would be hauled off to the insane asylum.
Yeah if you imagine far enough into the future maybe we'll have an auto-doc or the EMT from Voyager or the cure-all machine from Elysium but... fantasy. There will be jobs for humans and if we really start running short make some draconian anti-overtime laws so they'll have to spread them thin like say +100% bonus pay past 30 hrs/week. That way there'll probably be some work for everyone...
My previous comments highlight our inability to predict the future. You cannot even imagine where we will be in the next few decades. 20 years ago the majority of society were still using modems to dial up to the internet, and no one would have predicted 1Gb speeds over fiber in your home within the next two decades. And yet, here we are.
Humans think they can predict the future, but have proven time and time again that they actually suck at it. You are no exception. Your "future" is closer than you could ever imagine. And the impact will be as unpredictable.
You don't take away basic civil rights to placate megacorporations...
Someone should probably tell our elected officials that.
About thirty fucking years ago.
If faced with being tossed to the local airport police and dragged off for a stint in the local pokey for a bit, most people will give up their devices.
Ah, so threat of becoming a criminal with a record is now the only thing that would actually separate a human from their can't-live-without-it smartphone.
Nope, no addiction to see here...everyone is fine...move along...
That's right: it's always coming for everyone's jobs.
No, not quite.
A piece of wood did not displace 90% of the workforce.
All of the Authorizors Assistants, Accountants, and Market Traders in the world do not affect 90% of all jobs in the economy.
THAT is the key difference when trying to compare the disruptors of yesteryear to what lies ahead.
Next-gent automation is not just targeting the lowly unskilled worker we dismissed with the 100-year old "go get an education" mantra. Automation and good-enough AI is looking to replace highly-skilled and educated jobs.
This story may sound redundant, but it's rather necessary, since most people still don't get it, and hold on to some bullshit It'll-never-happen-to-me mentality.
When someone says automation, think massive impact.
Easy answer. No computing or radio devices permitted as carry on luggage. No laptops, cell phones, media players, medical equipment documented ahead of time and itemized.
We can't even get social media addicts to put their phone down to prevent killing people on the road, and you call this an "easy" answer?
Good fucking luck with that.
This article claims that one line of code costs a million dollars to fix and would "bankrupt" Southwest.
News flash: Southwest wouldn't be the ones fixing the fucking code! It would be the manufacturer who would then absorb that cost, not the airline. Besides, if this problem is valid the FAA and other regulators will be involved to force the manufacturer to address the issue.
This article is a perfect example of why journalism is headed for self-destruction.
OK, let's make the manufacturer fix this then.
Effective immediately, 90% of US airline fleets are hereby grounded as they are unsafe. They are now part of a manufacturer recall.
Hope that clarifies the impact.
Oh, and speaking of self-destruction, airlines would most likely be bankrupt as a result of that course of action.
And what's the price of a crash caused by hackers? Oh, right, that's not the same thing, the cost of a security fix is something you have to pay right now, while the price of a crash is only a potential cost in the future. Who cares about the latter even if it's orders of magnitude higher, right?
It's one thing when the first plane is hacked, and it results in a crash. It's another thing entirely when the 5th plane goes down within a week. Who needs a box cutter when you can terrorize using "typical stuff that could get through security".
Not to mention the financial impact when no one in their right mind would fly on 90% of airline inventory . It would probably take less than a month to bankrupt most airlines in a scenario like that, along with a rather massive ripple effect crippling US Capitalism that relies on moving humans and cargo efficiently.
Oh, and airline insurance companies? Yeah, they went bankrupt too.
Sadly, people don't even remember the fact that new iPhones used to be heavily discounted at $199 when you signed up for a 2-year agreement.
That's not a discount, that's a payment plan. If you are paying the same monthly bill, you may need to shop around.
Wrong. It was an actual discount off the MSRP,, if you agreed to a 2-year contract for phone service. For some fucking reason, we've gotten completely away from any discounts in the last few releases of iPhones, and customers are NOW forced to pay the FULL MSRP on a (you guessed it) payment plan. Hell, cell providers are still charging the full $500+ MSRP to buy an iPhone 6S, a model that was released over 2 years ago.
And no, most people are not paying the same monthly bill when compared to five years ago. They're paying a hell of a lot more.