There is no reason in this day and age that it should take 10 or 20 seconds for a solid state device to turn on and present one with an image.
Easy for you to say. LCD TV's have to warm up just like CRT TV's did. That's why they are drawing a low current from the wall so they don't really ever turn all the way off. Instead of complaining, why don't you go invent a TV that does as you say, if you can.
The headline actually said that "Javascript [was] eating the world". Since Javascript is (a subset of) software and the auto industry is a subset of the world, this new headline contains no new information since the old one already subsumes it.
So basically nothing new on Slashdot for the past 20 years then?:)
So basically fuck the customers we'll do what's CHEAPEST for us.
Fixed it for you. lol
That is correct. When you are in business, you have a thing called a BUDGET. You have to spend it wisely in the best way possible. You can't accumulate an infinite amount of debt to make your company meet ridiculous idealist standards. Try running a business some time, you'll get it very quickly. It's easy to sit on the sideline and call business owners stupid when you have no idea how to start one let alone run one.
Man, which company's call center do you work for? I want to make sure I never do business with them.
You won't be doing business with much of anybody then. You'll cut off your nose to spite your face. I'll quote the song Cracker: "Get off this, get on with it, if you want to change the world, shut your mouth and start to spin it." You want to change the customer care landscape, get involved and change it then. Until you do that, I dismiss your rhetoric as comments from the peanut gallery.
Obviously you should follow your own advice. Customer retention is probably one of the highest priorities of a call center especially for smaller businesses. If ditching the no-reply helps me keep my customers, then BYE.
And we did. instead we use logic and filters to direct emails to the people who can provide the best answers. 20% growth over the past 4 years must mean something is working.
I didn't criticize you, I criticized the blog post that was obviously written by someone who probably has no clue what a CRM system is let alone how to configure it effectively. Did you actually TFBP? You obviously have somewhat of a clue. I know every business is different that's why CRM's like Salesforce are very customizable to meet those needs. The author of the blog post has no clue about any of that though. They are just complaining about no reply emails because they just apparently don't like them yet offer NOTHING in the way of how to pragmatically change CRM to accommodate that change.
Obviously, the author of this nonsense doesn't 1) Understand b2c communication and 2) Doesn't understand how to run a customer care center.
Take off your rose colored glasses for minute. First of all, no-reply emails are a means to notify a customer of something. They are one-way. They are not meant to be responded to like text message notifications of upcoming appointments or Amazon shipping notifications. Second, actually learn about call centers and customer care teams. You obviously have no clue. It's a lot harder than you think. Most call centers are fielding a variety of customer interactions like phone calls, emails and chat. They are also usually understaffed due to cost constraints. Before you write about something like you have no clue what you're talking about go learn what it takes to run one of these. If you do that, then you might not just complain about a lack of something, you might also have a suggestion as to how what you want ought to be done. Good luck
Because then this wouldn't be on Slashdot. The only reason this story is interesting is the porn angle. Look at the posts so far: 90% are about porn and maybe 5% are about cloud storage.
It's not fair to allow consumers to sue merchants for payment card data breaches who, due to market forces, are forced to accept payments via the deeply flawed, archaic payment card processing paradigm we have today.
It's not fair for me to exercise my rights in the legal system? I can file a motion to sue whoever I want thank you very much. Now whether the judge would or should rule against the defendant that's a different question.
Both Sony and XBox One are interested in selling Playstation Plus and Xbox Live subscriptions to access online game play elements and additional content. The cross-platform multiplayer design runs directly counter against that business model. It's all about money. Nothing new.
Well, it is fairly easy to reduce factoring to an NP-complete problem (in P-time), but what you cannot do is reduce an NP-complete problem to factoring (that we know of at least). Thusly factoring has not been proven to be NP-complete. However if you can prove that P != NP-complete you're at least halfway there. If you could prove that P = NP-complete then factoring would be hopelessly broken.
Thank you for bringing some intelligence to this discussion. Cheers!
And you have the added bonus of not learning anything! What was the point again?
The point is to get the correct result. Do you think I need to understand the Laws of Thermodynamics and the inner workings of the combustion engine to drive my car?
If I recall that when I touched a hot stove, it burned and hurt that makes me want to avoid doing it again in the future. We are animals. Everything we think, do, etc. has a survival motive even fear. I seriously doubt that scientists will discover a way to make us into a better evolutionary hot mess. It's more likely they will cause more harm than good by trying.
"There's no reason that Winamp couldn't be in the position that iTunes is in today if not for a few layers of mismanagement by AOL that started immediately upon acquisition," their first general manager told Ars Technica in 2012.
You mean it could be a fat, bloated piece of shit with a miserable, fucked-up design and a craptastic UI?
For whatever reason even with all its UX flaws, iTunes is accessible to younger kids and Grandma. Winamp was always for the power user. Power user software always loses even if the competitors are technically inferior. It's all about catering to the lowest common denominator and the bar there is usually set quite low.
I tried to teach some Javascript game programming to a teen, but the lack of geometry skills (e.g. sin(), cos()) and physics ( e.g. d=at^2/2) made it tough going to fire cannonballs around. There is most likely a library that could hide it all, but why would you?
Keep in mind, these are not programming languages but with Hopscotch for example it gets kids familiar with programming concepts like variables, looping and flow control in a fun way.
That is only because factoring is not known to be (and probably isn't) NP-complete.
The best we can say is it is unknowable based on the information that we have today. We could attempt to try to calculate a probability about this but I'm fairly certain it wouldn't be accurate nor would it be useful. Let me pose a similar question, can you prove there is no diamond in my back yard? (borrowed from Sam Harris). It is similar to prove for the set of all possible algorithms that there exists 0 algorithms that could factor integers to determine whether they are prime in polynomial time. This is all about proving a negative.
Money is always a distraction from real economic questions.
I think you just lost all credibility there I'm sad to say. There is no such thing in the world apart from maybe a few third world countries where the exists a concept of economy that is separate from money. An example of that would be bartering. What percentage of the world does not measure economic value in terms of money? I'm not sure how we can have any type of production conversation on this topic because my understanding of reality and yours is very different obviously. I strive very much to understand the world from an objective, materialist point of view. Not everyone does that and those that don't are hard to collaborate with because they have a tendency to talk about and define problems that don't exist meanwhile there are real problems that are independent of us that have consequences of not acknowledging them and not doing something about them. It's not surprising though, that's never been a strength of the cognitive capabilities of the human race unfortunately.
Since P != NP is the expected answer, is this news really that exciting? Evidence that P = NP is the one that would actually be exciting, since it would suggest the existence of an unknown algorithm that handles certain problems far more efficiently than the currently known alternatives.
Can you prove primes can't be factored in polynomial time? That is can you conclusively say that you've tried every logically possible algorithm to rule them all out? See, we're still where we always were on this question: we lack sufficient information to say one way or the other. Nothing really new here. Must be a slow news day on slashdot again.
So, the right question is, what kind of useful, productive work can most people do as automation replaces jobs.
I'm sorry that's the wrong question. Do you not agree that automation is going to increase in terms of the rate of displacement of workers? The research suggests the answer is yes.
The problem actually is we won't be able to supply enough "useful" work. We will largely be creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs that don't add any to anything. Like inspectors to inspect the inspectors using devices invented by people to help inspectors inspect inspectors. You see what I mean? That's not a valuable use of human capital.
Now let me ask you a real question, who do you think is most qualified to determine what the best use of the human capital we have is? The government? The corporations? The human capital themselves? I'm very interested in your perspective.
Also when we refer to "jobs" we are talking about paying "jobs" right? I don't think it's hard for humans to find "work" to do. The problem is finding work that can be exchanged for money to satisfy mandatory expenses and usury. The very definition of wage slavery. You see the whole concept of valuable work doesn't real have any relationship to compensation. Again, I think you're missing the point.
We know how many jobs will be lost. Do we know how many workers will benefit from a $1 per hour increase? I think that number will be larger than the number of jobs lost.
I don't think that's a relevant question anymore. Your assumption is that every citizen is required to work because there is a job that needs to be done by every citizen for the benefit of society. When we start seeing things like automation what that does is it lowers the number of jobs that need to be done because some jobs are now being done by robots instead of manual labor.
I mean we knew this day was coming at some point with our ever increasing technology right? Isn't this what we wanted? Less need for manual labor so that we can make the most of our lives?
If we agree on that then the next step is to fundamentally question this wage slavery/usury economic system we have. In a world where we had a job for everyone to do, it made sense to provide some strict incentives to do manual labor for our civilization to thrive. But what about a system where we can automate manual labor to satisfy that need that has a decreasing number of jobs to be done? What do you do there? Well, I would argue one thing you don't do is adopt a policy of throwing all the people who can't find a job to do onto the street because they can't pay for mandatory financial obligations. That's absurd.
ZOMG - Redbull and Rockstar are gateway drugs that ultimately lead to heroin abuse. Quick, add that to the list of illegal substances! Think of the children.
Consider me a cultist follower of your hypothesis. 20 years in CS, the last 10 I have seen it take a sharp dive. The only explanation I have is the explosion over 15 years ago in OSS and that what you espouse is true: Everyone thinks they can develop or engineer, because the code is tied up in nice little solution blocks.
Our education system is broken. Not many developers have Computer Science degrees because that's actually a had degree to achieve. A lot of them have some type of Computer Science lite degree like Information Technology or something like that. I don't see it getting any better. Insisting it should is unfortunately wishful thinking at this point. Some people value the field of Computer SCIENCE. Some people are just in it for the money.
No. Where did I say all climate change is natural? You are actually engaged in a cognitive bias thinking that I claimed something that I didn't because you are inferring something about what I'm thinking without actually knowing what I'm thinking.
Some climate change is natural, and in fact we've been experiencing natural cooling climatic conditions for 8000 years. The current climate change is not likely to be natural, is likely to be costly to adapt to, and may induce changes to the climate which are very damaging.
The way I read this particular bit "The current climate change is not likely to be natural" you can re-word it like so "At some point climate change became all unnatural and is no longer natural." The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim true. I would say it's more likely that our current climate change trends have a variety of factors including natural and unnatural and by unnatural I believe you mean is "man-made". You should be more specific about your claim so we can understand it better.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no reason in this day and age that it should take 10 or 20 seconds for a solid state device to turn on and present one with an image.
Easy for you to say. LCD TV's have to warm up just like CRT TV's did. That's why they are drawing a low current from the wall so they don't really ever turn all the way off. Instead of complaining, why don't you go invent a TV that does as you say, if you can.
The headline actually said that "Javascript [was] eating the world". Since Javascript is (a subset of) software and the auto industry is a subset of the world, this new headline contains no new information since the old one already subsumes it.
So basically nothing new on Slashdot for the past 20 years then? :)
So basically fuck the customers we'll do what's CHEAPEST for us.
Fixed it for you. lol
That is correct. When you are in business, you have a thing called a BUDGET. You have to spend it wisely in the best way possible. You can't accumulate an infinite amount of debt to make your company meet ridiculous idealist standards. Try running a business some time, you'll get it very quickly. It's easy to sit on the sideline and call business owners stupid when you have no idea how to start one let alone run one.
Man, which company's call center do you work for? I want to make sure I never do business with them.
You won't be doing business with much of anybody then. You'll cut off your nose to spite your face. I'll quote the song Cracker: "Get off this, get on with it, if you want to change the world, shut your mouth and start to spin it." You want to change the customer care landscape, get involved and change it then. Until you do that, I dismiss your rhetoric as comments from the peanut gallery.
Obviously you should follow your own advice. Customer retention is probably one of the highest priorities of a call center especially for smaller businesses. If ditching the no-reply helps me keep my customers, then BYE. And we did. instead we use logic and filters to direct emails to the people who can provide the best answers. 20% growth over the past 4 years must mean something is working.
I didn't criticize you, I criticized the blog post that was obviously written by someone who probably has no clue what a CRM system is let alone how to configure it effectively. Did you actually TFBP? You obviously have somewhat of a clue. I know every business is different that's why CRM's like Salesforce are very customizable to meet those needs. The author of the blog post has no clue about any of that though. They are just complaining about no reply emails because they just apparently don't like them yet offer NOTHING in the way of how to pragmatically change CRM to accommodate that change.
Obviously, the author of this nonsense doesn't 1) Understand b2c communication and 2) Doesn't understand how to run a customer care center.
Take off your rose colored glasses for minute. First of all, no-reply emails are a means to notify a customer of something. They are one-way. They are not meant to be responded to like text message notifications of upcoming appointments or Amazon shipping notifications. Second, actually learn about call centers and customer care teams. You obviously have no clue. It's a lot harder than you think. Most call centers are fielding a variety of customer interactions like phone calls, emails and chat. They are also usually understaffed due to cost constraints. Before you write about something like you have no clue what you're talking about go learn what it takes to run one of these. If you do that, then you might not just complain about a lack of something, you might also have a suggestion as to how what you want ought to be done. Good luck
why not just randomly generate various files.
Because then this wouldn't be on Slashdot. The only reason this story is interesting is the porn angle. Look at the posts so far: 90% are about porn and maybe 5% are about cloud storage.
What about procedurally generated porn? :)
It's not fair to allow consumers to sue merchants for payment card data breaches who, due to market forces, are forced to accept payments via the deeply flawed, archaic payment card processing paradigm we have today.
It's not fair for me to exercise my rights in the legal system? I can file a motion to sue whoever I want thank you very much. Now whether the judge would or should rule against the defendant that's a different question.
Corporations wanted to be considered people and that means they can sue or be sued.
Both Sony and XBox One are interested in selling Playstation Plus and Xbox Live subscriptions to access online game play elements and additional content. The cross-platform multiplayer design runs directly counter against that business model. It's all about money. Nothing new.
Well, it is fairly easy to reduce factoring to an NP-complete problem (in P-time), but what you cannot do is reduce an NP-complete problem to factoring (that we know of at least). Thusly factoring has not been proven to be NP-complete. However if you can prove that P != NP-complete you're at least halfway there. If you could prove that P = NP-complete then factoring would be hopelessly broken.
Thank you for bringing some intelligence to this discussion. Cheers!
Because re-inventing the wheel is efficient?
And you have the added bonus of not learning anything! What was the point again?
The point is to get the correct result. Do you think I need to understand the Laws of Thermodynamics and the inner workings of the combustion engine to drive my car?
If I recall that when I touched a hot stove, it burned and hurt that makes me want to avoid doing it again in the future. We are animals. Everything we think, do, etc. has a survival motive even fear. I seriously doubt that scientists will discover a way to make us into a better evolutionary hot mess. It's more likely they will cause more harm than good by trying.
"There's no reason that Winamp couldn't be in the position that iTunes is in today if not for a few layers of mismanagement by AOL that started immediately upon acquisition," their first general manager told Ars Technica in 2012.
You mean it could be a fat, bloated piece of shit with a miserable, fucked-up design and a craptastic UI?
For whatever reason even with all its UX flaws, iTunes is accessible to younger kids and Grandma. Winamp was always for the power user. Power user software always loses even if the competitors are technically inferior. It's all about catering to the lowest common denominator and the bar there is usually set quite low.
...that's what happened.
I tried to teach some Javascript game programming to a teen, but the lack of geometry skills (e.g. sin(), cos()) and physics ( e.g. d=at^2/2) made it tough going to fire cannonballs around. There is most likely a library that could hide it all, but why would you?
Because re-inventing the wheel is efficient?
They did this at my daughter's school. There is also ClickTeam Fusion as well.
Hopscotch
ClickTeam Fusion
Keep in mind, these are not programming languages but with Hopscotch for example it gets kids familiar with programming concepts like variables, looping and flow control in a fun way.
That is only because factoring is not known to be (and probably isn't) NP-complete.
The best we can say is it is unknowable based on the information that we have today. We could attempt to try to calculate a probability about this but I'm fairly certain it wouldn't be accurate nor would it be useful. Let me pose a similar question, can you prove there is no diamond in my back yard? (borrowed from Sam Harris). It is similar to prove for the set of all possible algorithms that there exists 0 algorithms that could factor integers to determine whether they are prime in polynomial time. This is all about proving a negative.
Money is always a distraction from real economic questions.
I think you just lost all credibility there I'm sad to say. There is no such thing in the world apart from maybe a few third world countries where the exists a concept of economy that is separate from money. An example of that would be bartering. What percentage of the world does not measure economic value in terms of money? I'm not sure how we can have any type of production conversation on this topic because my understanding of reality and yours is very different obviously. I strive very much to understand the world from an objective, materialist point of view. Not everyone does that and those that don't are hard to collaborate with because they have a tendency to talk about and define problems that don't exist meanwhile there are real problems that are independent of us that have consequences of not acknowledging them and not doing something about them. It's not surprising though, that's never been a strength of the cognitive capabilities of the human race unfortunately.
Since P != NP is the expected answer, is this news really that exciting? Evidence that P = NP is the one that would actually be exciting, since it would suggest the existence of an unknown algorithm that handles certain problems far more efficiently than the currently known alternatives.
Can you prove primes can't be factored in polynomial time? That is can you conclusively say that you've tried every logically possible algorithm to rule them all out? See, we're still where we always were on this question: we lack sufficient information to say one way or the other. Nothing really new here. Must be a slow news day on slashdot again.
So, the right question is, what kind of useful, productive work can most people do as automation replaces jobs.
I'm sorry that's the wrong question. Do you not agree that automation is going to increase in terms of the rate of displacement of workers? The research suggests the answer is yes.
The problem actually is we won't be able to supply enough "useful" work. We will largely be creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs that don't add any to anything. Like inspectors to inspect the inspectors using devices invented by people to help inspectors inspect inspectors. You see what I mean? That's not a valuable use of human capital.
Now let me ask you a real question, who do you think is most qualified to determine what the best use of the human capital we have is? The government? The corporations? The human capital themselves? I'm very interested in your perspective.
Also when we refer to "jobs" we are talking about paying "jobs" right? I don't think it's hard for humans to find "work" to do. The problem is finding work that can be exchanged for money to satisfy mandatory expenses and usury. The very definition of wage slavery. You see the whole concept of valuable work doesn't real have any relationship to compensation. Again, I think you're missing the point.
We know how many jobs will be lost. Do we know how many workers will benefit from a $1 per hour increase? I think that number will be larger than the number of jobs lost.
I don't think that's a relevant question anymore. Your assumption is that every citizen is required to work because there is a job that needs to be done by every citizen for the benefit of society. When we start seeing things like automation what that does is it lowers the number of jobs that need to be done because some jobs are now being done by robots instead of manual labor.
I mean we knew this day was coming at some point with our ever increasing technology right? Isn't this what we wanted? Less need for manual labor so that we can make the most of our lives?
If we agree on that then the next step is to fundamentally question this wage slavery/usury economic system we have. In a world where we had a job for everyone to do, it made sense to provide some strict incentives to do manual labor for our civilization to thrive. But what about a system where we can automate manual labor to satisfy that need that has a decreasing number of jobs to be done? What do you do there? Well, I would argue one thing you don't do is adopt a policy of throwing all the people who can't find a job to do onto the street because they can't pay for mandatory financial obligations. That's absurd.
ZOMG - Redbull and Rockstar are gateway drugs that ultimately lead to heroin abuse. Quick, add that to the list of illegal substances! Think of the children.
Consider me a cultist follower of your hypothesis. 20 years in CS, the last 10 I have seen it take a sharp dive. The only explanation I have is the explosion over 15 years ago in OSS and that what you espouse is true: Everyone thinks they can develop or engineer, because the code is tied up in nice little solution blocks.
Our education system is broken. Not many developers have Computer Science degrees because that's actually a had degree to achieve. A lot of them have some type of Computer Science lite degree like Information Technology or something like that. I don't see it getting any better. Insisting it should is unfortunately wishful thinking at this point. Some people value the field of Computer SCIENCE. Some people are just in it for the money.
You are engaging in a logical fallacy.
No. Where did I say all climate change is natural? You are actually engaged in a cognitive bias thinking that I claimed something that I didn't because you are inferring something about what I'm thinking without actually knowing what I'm thinking.
Some climate change is natural, and in fact we've been experiencing natural cooling climatic conditions for 8000 years. The current climate change is not likely to be natural, is likely to be costly to adapt to, and may induce changes to the climate which are very damaging.
The way I read this particular bit "The current climate change is not likely to be natural" you can re-word it like so "At some point climate change became all unnatural and is no longer natural." The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim true. I would say it's more likely that our current climate change trends have a variety of factors including natural and unnatural and by unnatural I believe you mean is "man-made". You should be more specific about your claim so we can understand it better.