Sure we have $50,000 workstations but we had $8m supercomputers for people who needed more
That supercomputer (or an equivalent) is available for thousands of dollar today (or less, depending on how far back the original supercomputer is from).
The idea that you should be targeting an 8 year old laptop with a OS does not strike me as a sign of success
The idea that you can, is a sign of success.
And frankly there would be far more if customers hadn't been trained in a world where OS and the applications target the lowest common denominator
The lowest common denominator is equivalent to your supercomputer, or at least workstation. Are you telling that the guy with supercomputer / workstation never accomplished anything? Same can be accomplished with a few thousand dollar computer today. What better result could be of the hardware innovations, if not to put them into the hands of a lot of people to actually do something with them rather than just wanting more hardware for the sake of hardware itself.
Hardware is an enabling industry. People don't eat processors, nor do they enjoy the company of graphics cards. Things can be done with hardware which enable people to eat (better) or those things that are done with hardware can be enjoyed. Which is what is being done, for a lot cheaper.
Imagine a world where after 3 years the applications can't even run on your old system and you have to replace it to get new applications
The little all wheel drive SUVs and the 4x4 were by FAR the best vehicles in snow for both acceleration and stopping.
You don't rely on just the brakes, use the engine. Downshift!. The extra braking force applied through the second axle can make all the difference.*
Not for stopping. We are talking about snow - limiting factor in stopping is the friction between tyres and surface on which you are driving. Brakes are capable enough to send enough torque to tyres which the tyres are unable to pass on as braking force to the surface. Having extra stopping force applied on the tyres from the inside of the vehicle is doing exactly nothing.
It is like a chain with 2 links - 1. Tyre-surface 2. Tyre-vehicle
On snow, first link is weaker. Strengthening the second link will not do anything to increase the strength of the chain.
Second link can be strengthened by either or both of engine braking (through axle) and traditional brakes (through wheel). But the strength of this link of the chain is not what is deficient on snow.
Engine braking, to those who are used to it, is convenient to slow down, because when you downshift, the "braking" force applied to the tyres automatically stops when you have slowed down sufficiently for the gear you are in. With the traditional brakes, one has to remember to release the brakes after the desired speed has been achieved. Not a big deal in the effort of "remembering", but it is nice when you don't have to, using engine braking.
All this discussion is rubbish. The simple fact is that DHMO is a dangerous chemical that causes this, and many other kinds of disasters. What are we waiting for? It should have been banned, like, before the Roman empire!!
Yes, I know. Let's move on from that to the central discussion here:
Existence of Nexus devices renders your complete argument null and void.
But the other model -- closedness -- also made Apple a lot of money, and they still pour a lot of effort into their services.
Which you don't like, as much as Google's. So their effort is wasted, at least on you.
If every cable manufacturer becomes like Monster cable, they might reduce Monster cable's profit but most will end up losing profits. You haven't come up with any argument for Google increasing their own profits by becoming Apple, considering Google's other business and synergy (yuck) with that.
Don't know what you're getting at with the cheeseburgers. I am more than willing to pay for a closed Google ecosystem. I would pay even more for it, in terms of both money and freedom, than what I currently pay for Android.
That is not how payment works. You cannot tell McDonald's to accept your payment in the form of you performing dance for their shareholders / customers / management. You have to pay Google the way they ask you. Eating bad bread at McDonald's is a "payment" for eating their good cheese for example. There is the option to perform surgery on the burger - which is like installing CyanogenMod, tweaking it according to your liking, and then removing root abilities to make it "simple".
And yes, I am asking to deprive others of their freedoms, in the same manner that I wish all electronics chargers were standardized with a "good enough" system like MicroUSB. That may prevent better chargers from gaining a foothold, and it might make companies less money, but it adds to ease of use I feel the same way about mobile phone ecosystems: KISS, and enough is enough, and too much choice is meaningless for the consumer even if it benefits OEMs and Google
But the analogy works more like this : If MicroUSB could maintain compatibility while giving extra features (loved or hated). Example some cables jump at the slot and go insert themselves. Some come with Mickey Mouse image on them. Some have an integrated LCD screen.
Enough is enough, which is why Nexus devices exist. Not installing CyanogenMod on Nexus is not a punishable offence in any jurisdiction.
I'm saying yes it does, but at a cost to simplicity and usability
Unambiguously and demonstrably false. Not at the "cost" - because Nexus devices exist.
Still subject to the slower, carrier/OEM controlled updates relative to the Nexus line and iDevices.
Which is why I included Nexus devices in my statement. You have even quoted that, you could as well have read it.
Absolutely. Android fragmentation makes it harder
This is stupid. You like Google's services - and the reason why Google makes so much effort in those services is that they expect profit. Which is because Android devices can be sold to many different kinds of people. Which is BECAUSE of the "fragmentation". Some people want 3 inch screen, some want 6 inch screen. Some want IPS, some want OLED. All buy Android devices, all contribute to potential profit of Google, leading to Google doing a good job for their services.
Basically you want a cheeseburger and don't want to pay for it. Fragmentation is the payment for Google's services.
The fragmentation also affects software developers
If you feel Android doesn't have enough applications for it, you can buy other kind of phones. If you don't want that - you like the cheese of McDonalds, but the bread of Burger King. Yes, choice is tough, which is why most laws require adulthood to make non-trivial choices.
Don't really see how you're justifying this except by reiterating it as a tautology.
Justifying what? The statement is not a justification, but a statement of a reason why people needing micro-SD slots might find their phone of choice in the fragmented Android world, but not necessarily in the non-fragmented Android world that you propose. Not sure you know what a tautology means, so I'll let that go until you learn that.
It's just my opinion, man, not a dictation of universal morality
Of course it is. Even if you state someone else's opinion, it will be YOUR opinion of that someone else's opinion. You are incapable of stating someone else's opinion directly - just like me.
My question was about the non-justifiability of your opinion. Your wanting this means you wanting lack of choice for so many other people - just as some wanting McDonalds to give cheeseburgers free effectively means them wanting McDonalds closing thereby reducing choice for their (potential) customers.
I WISH Google would do this because I would prefer, yes.
Yes, most people WISH to have a cheeseburger without paying for it. Only they don't wrap it around half-truths to make it appear as if their wish is justified, or even worthy of consideration.
So yes, my ultimate gripe is with the carriers and the OEMs because they are the most direct villains, but Android's openness was the weak gate in Google's paradise that let them in.
Wrong. You are actually complaining about the carriers being left OUT or the carriers opted OUT - the carriers that you want. You don't realize, but the problem is NOT that they were let IN.
If Google had been less open, and say they would have left out the micro-SD card slot as they usually do. Customers wanting those slots would not have bought Google phones. So carriers wanting those customers would not have sold Google phones. Which could have been carriers that you want just as now the carriers you want don't sell Nexus devices.
No it doesn't make sense. If you want closed Google experience - you already have Nexus devices. Motorola devices are plain-old-Google too nowadays. Don't install the dialler replacements, messaging replacements, launcher replacements and you are good.
Does the existence of Samsung devices, with altered Google experience, which you don't have to buy - affect your enjoyment of the pure Google experience in Nexus / Motorola devices? No if you are sane.
But the open-ness has enabled other people, who do not want a pure Google experience, to also enjoy almost-Android. Which increases application sales. Which improves experience on pure Google devices ecosystem as well. For example I want micro-SD card support which Google refuses to provide so I shop elsewhere. Every person has different needs - openness provides for all to be happy.
Your wanting one thing doesn't make other people wanting other things any less important.
I don't see the sources of some nutrients the Soylent guy, with capital S, uses. I understand when he explains why he hasn't given the source for elemental / ionic nutrients, he could have provided the source for protein at least? Some (other) people have said his diet is vegan, but need to know what protein he is using. Are you vegetarian / vegan / otherwise restricted in your diet?
Do you feel your jaws get enough exercise? Never tried such liquid diets myself, but I am immensely interested in what people feel about their jaws after a long period of liquid diets. Even if weekends are exceptions.
About fibre - there are completely different functions of soluble and insoluble fibre. Soylent guy doesn't make it clear which kind he uses. What do you think about this? Depending on other ingredients of your food, maybe soluble fibre is less important for you and you do with only insoluble?
Stupid. Since many people who don't have symptoms are infectious, you can never "protect" others from the virus. In general, an easily transmitted virus cannot be avoided. You fight it, and most of your acquaintances need to too.
And guess what - fighting it makes you better at fighting another slightly different one, another day. So people out with flu are doing others a favour. Really.
It is people who are low at fighting ability who should stay at home. E.g. very young children, very old people, people with AIDS or heavy flu symptoms , people on extreme crash diets. This is economically less harmful because most such people are less productive economically anyway, and if they are productive, they need to exercise caution so that they remain productive.
Your solution needs altruism which is a rare commodity, and yet is worse than my solution which keeps incentives scenario manageable and yet is more effective by making healthy people more capable of fighting diseases than ever before.
Yes, but in their own way, they are making good quality drives more popular. This by your logic, which is sound, lowers their future prices.
They are also making bad quality drives less popular, increasing the chances of retailers / distributors or even Seagate itself making a distress sale. Who better than large buyers to make a distress sale to?
Yes, "their own way" is small. But it is better than nothing, for a low cost to do and report the study.
Depending on infrastructure, the hard drives being 4 TB (instead of less) also lowers costs. E.g. if they are short of SATA ports, 4TB can work without a costly upgrade to more SATA ports. Or if their logic to split data across drives is more efficient with larger individual drives.
Seagate 4 TB drives are widely available but WD ones aren't, yet.
You cannot bluff your way out of this blunder. In this post, I clearly mentioned the definitions I am using. In this reply you have given factually incorrect statements in the light of definitions I had declared.
You could have disagreed with the definitions, you could have proposed different definitions, you could have explicitly mentioned you don't want to define things concretely. But no. You made unambiguously incorrect statements. You can't change your definitions NOW with retrospective effect.
No, I explicitly said that I am considering the dominant definitions of "free market" and "communism" BECAUSE you do not define it yourself. You are of course free to use your own definitions, but you will be understood only if you either use dominant definitions or define the non-standard terms of discourse BEFORE the discourse.
A free market is a market (regardless how Adam Smith defines it)...
One of the most idiotic things I have heard in 2014. Good bye until you learn why. Above paragraph is recommended reading in the process.
No this is an extremely ignorant and simplistic view of both free markets and communism. "Means of production" as defined by commonly accepted communistic theories, under commonly accepted free market theories, must be privately owned under commonly accepted free market theories. Buying/selling of "means of production" as a whole and shares into them is a major vehicle of economic activity as defined by Smith himself and his "free market" followers.
Free market's Smith warned seriously about business influencing government, and the need to keep them distant. Communist thinkers have, on the other hand, argued about them being the same. Collusion that Smith warned multiple times against, cannot be prevented unless business is privately owned.
For a person making fun of American ignorance of communism, you seem to take pride in your ignorance and have none the less strong opinion for it. You could pass for an American in this department any day of the year.
I don't think physics has any headstart. Economics is at least as old as the time when our ancestors started living in groups / tribes. Physics is no older. If economics is the less "science" for it, it is fully deserved.
Yes, old people not progressing is a problem but it is in physics too. If economists have it in a greater degree, economics is the less "science" for it and quite deservedly.
Yes, testing hypothesis in macro - economics is somewhat like the problem astro-physics has. Only passive observation is feasible, not active experimentation. Actually economists have convinced governments to alter serious macro-economic policies, astro physicists have been able to do far far less active experimentation. My impression of lack of consensus in economists is that it is greater than that in astro-physicists. I could be wrong, though.
While I agree Americans have a skewed perception of communism - in not only what they know but hugely in what they feel about it.
But since you don't define communism yourself, publicly agreed upon definitions drawing from works of Marx, Lenin, possibly Mao will need to be taken as working definition. They completely don't go with free market, as defined by, say works of Adam Smith.
Democracy (in fact any *cracy) doesn't practically go with free market because the subject of the *cracy is the master, and can (and mostly will) force the markets to be non-free.
This has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Then your quotation has nothing to do with the topic that was being discussed. Question was What can humans do that robots can't?
To which you answered Feel a sense of accomplishment, followed by what now proves to be an irrelevant quote.
You are mistakenly believing that YOUR , or Banks' sense of what is "impressive" has anything to do with whether the "doer" itself feels a sense of accomplishment. That is false from your own reasoning outlined in this post of yours - that one has to believe one's own task "difficult" to get this sense of accomplishment. In believing one's own task difficult, humans are influenced by the thinking of their fellow humans - but that is far from a universal trait in humans themselves, to say nothing about non-human doers.
By this line of logic, what you are considering impossible for a robot is - to make YOU feel the robot's task was "impressive". I agree a robot might never be able to do that, but feeling a sense of accomplishment itself, by any reasonable definition, doesn't seem impossible at all.
c) an accomplishment is defined by the obstacles you overcome to achieve it, so it does not need to be special. You, as a human, faced the challenge with more obstacles than a purpose-built machine.
I don't agree with this line of argument. The perception of challenge is self-perceived. Program the robot to "deem" its own task "difficult", whatever it means. And then program it to "feel" a sense of accomplishment. You could define "difficult" again in the subjective way you define "feel a sense of accomplishment" but such a definition is useless as a functional definition for this discussion for the same reason I outlined in my last post.
There are two problems with your last paragraph:
I see them as proof you got the point rather than "problem". The "problem" is what I was trying to say.
a) How do you, personally, know that everyone around you isn't lying to your face about what they believe? Claiming AI would be non-genuine because you can't "detect" anything more is no different. There would be debugging procedures both equivalent to, and much more powerful than, the fMRI we currently use to detect (what we think are) genuine emotions in humans.
Exactly what I am saying. So your definition of "feel a sense of accomplishment" is useless, especially but not solely because it is in a context of non-humans as well as humans.
You also mistakenly believe there is any such thing as "genuine emotions" when talking together about human and non-human subjects.
b) It would be impossible to build an AI that behaved fully human without either copying a human template or understanding how it worked.
Correct, but it is necessary to to build robots like that only to prove people like you wrong - who feel robots cannot "feel a sense of accomplishment" - by either showing the definition of "feel a sense of accomplishment" useless or actually feeling it by your definition.
If the human template is copied, then the new model has no appreciable difference; if the AI built from scratch, we'd know for certain how experiences would affect its decision-making.
Well, "behave" fully human in this case is satisfied by being more than a human too. So it can still have appreciable "difference", the difference being of being "super-set". If the set of functions of the robot includes feeling a sense of accomplishment, your statement is proven false.
I'm asking about a working definition, which is possible to detect in something other than oneself. The way you are defining it, you can't even tell if another human being has it or not, even after conducting laboratory experiments on the said human.
So actually it is implementation specific - about some implementations (humans) you assume they are feeling it, without any scientific test, just because they behave in a certain way while actually possibly not feeling it. But for other implementations (robots) , you don't give any way they can "feel" as per your definition.
BTW does behaving as if they are feeling a sense of accomplishment count? That is all you can detect anyway. Robots could do that one day.
No one can stop him from ordering. If all else fails, he can create a website of his own from which to order.
Where the story stops making sense is the lack of motivation of any one to deliver. Or to make (and maintain) a machine to deliver. Or to make (and maintain) a machine to make (and maintain) a machine to deliver.
It is like asking show me a person above 80 kgs of weight who is simultaneously below 30 kgs of weight.
Communistic society and free market don't go together. Same as being lighter than 30 kg and heavier than 80 kgs don't go together.
Democratic government, with current human tendency, almost doesn't go with either of these, but that depends on what the particular set of voters vote for among other factors. So it is like saying show me a person which blood sugar level of above 400 mg/dL for 40 years and still has perfectly functioning kidneys, heart, brain and eyes. Possible, but highly unlikely.
Slashdot Mirror
By this logic, no one would buy insurance as all the "good" from insurance comes after the buyer is dead.
Have you not understood why people buy insurance too?
Sure we have $50,000 workstations but we had $8m supercomputers for people who needed more
That supercomputer (or an equivalent) is available for thousands of dollar today (or less, depending on how far back the original supercomputer is from).
The idea that you should be targeting an 8 year old laptop with a OS does not strike me as a sign of success
The idea that you can, is a sign of success.
And frankly there would be far more if customers hadn't been trained in a world where OS and the applications target the lowest common denominator
The lowest common denominator is equivalent to your supercomputer, or at least workstation. Are you telling that the guy with supercomputer / workstation never accomplished anything? Same can be accomplished with a few thousand dollar computer today. What better result could be of the hardware innovations, if not to put them into the hands of a lot of people to actually do something with them rather than just wanting more hardware for the sake of hardware itself.
Hardware is an enabling industry. People don't eat processors, nor do they enjoy the company of graphics cards. Things can be done with hardware which enable people to eat (better) or those things that are done with hardware can be enjoyed. Which is what is being done, for a lot cheaper.
Imagine a world where after 3 years the applications can't even run on your old system and you have to replace it to get new applications
Imagined (actually recalled). A dismal failure.
The little all wheel drive SUVs and the 4x4 were by FAR the best vehicles in snow for both acceleration and stopping.
You don't rely on just the brakes, use the engine. Downshift!. The extra braking force applied through the second axle can make all the difference.*
Not for stopping. We are talking about snow - limiting factor in stopping is the friction between tyres and surface on which you are driving. Brakes are capable enough to send enough torque to tyres which the tyres are unable to pass on as braking force to the surface. Having extra stopping force applied on the tyres from the inside of the vehicle is doing exactly nothing.
It is like a chain with 2 links -
1. Tyre-surface
2. Tyre-vehicle
On snow, first link is weaker. Strengthening the second link will not do anything to increase the strength of the chain.
Second link can be strengthened by either or both of engine braking (through axle) and traditional brakes (through wheel). But the strength of this link of the chain is not what is deficient on snow.
Engine braking, to those who are used to it, is convenient to slow down, because when you downshift, the "braking" force applied to the tyres automatically stops when you have slowed down sufficiently for the gear you are in. With the traditional brakes, one has to remember to release the brakes after the desired speed has been achieved. Not a big deal in the effort of "remembering", but it is nice when you don't have to, using engine braking.
All this discussion is rubbish. The simple fact is that DHMO is a dangerous chemical that causes this, and many other kinds of disasters. What are we waiting for? It should have been banned, like, before the Roman empire!!
Yes, I know. Let's move on from that to the central discussion here:
Existence of Nexus devices renders your complete argument null and void.
But the other model -- closedness -- also made Apple a lot of money, and they still pour a lot of effort into their services.
Which you don't like, as much as Google's. So their effort is wasted, at least on you.
If every cable manufacturer becomes like Monster cable, they might reduce Monster cable's profit but most will end up losing profits. You haven't come up with any argument for Google increasing their own profits by becoming Apple, considering Google's other business and synergy (yuck) with that.
Don't know what you're getting at with the cheeseburgers. I am more than willing to pay for a closed Google ecosystem. I would pay even more for it, in terms of both money and freedom, than what I currently pay for Android.
That is not how payment works. You cannot tell McDonald's to accept your payment in the form of you performing dance for their shareholders / customers / management. You have to pay Google the way they ask you. Eating bad bread at McDonald's is a "payment" for eating their good cheese for example. There is the option to perform surgery on the burger - which is like installing CyanogenMod, tweaking it according to your liking, and then removing root abilities to make it "simple".
And yes, I am asking to deprive others of their freedoms, in the same manner that I wish all electronics chargers were standardized with a "good enough" system like MicroUSB. That may prevent better chargers from gaining a foothold, and it might make companies less money, but it adds to ease of use I feel the same way about mobile phone ecosystems: KISS, and enough is enough, and too much choice is meaningless for the consumer even if it benefits OEMs and Google
But the analogy works more like this : If MicroUSB could maintain compatibility while giving extra features (loved or hated). Example some cables jump at the slot and go insert themselves. Some come with Mickey Mouse image on them. Some have an integrated LCD screen.
Enough is enough, which is why Nexus devices exist. Not installing CyanogenMod on Nexus is not a punishable offence in any jurisdiction.
I'm saying yes it does, but at a cost to simplicity and usability
Unambiguously and demonstrably false. Not at the "cost" - because Nexus devices exist.
not half the planets wealth as reported because of course the bottom 350000000 people don't own that much
Maybe it can be refactored as
(half the planet)'s wealth.
Half (the planet's wealth) is wrong, as you rightly mention.
Still subject to the slower, carrier/OEM controlled updates relative to the Nexus line and iDevices.
Which is why I included Nexus devices in my statement. You have even quoted that, you could as well have read it.
Absolutely. Android fragmentation makes it harder
This is stupid. You like Google's services - and the reason why Google makes so much effort in those services is that they expect profit. Which is because Android devices can be sold to many different kinds of people. Which is BECAUSE of the "fragmentation". Some people want 3 inch screen, some want 6 inch screen. Some want IPS, some want OLED. All buy Android devices, all contribute to potential profit of Google, leading to Google doing a good job for their services.
Basically you want a cheeseburger and don't want to pay for it. Fragmentation is the payment for Google's services.
The fragmentation also affects software developers
If you feel Android doesn't have enough applications for it, you can buy other kind of phones. If you don't want that - you like the cheese of McDonalds, but the bread of Burger King. Yes, choice is tough, which is why most laws require adulthood to make non-trivial choices.
Don't really see how you're justifying this except by reiterating it as a tautology.
Justifying what? The statement is not a justification, but a statement of a reason why people needing micro-SD slots might find their phone of choice in the fragmented Android world, but not necessarily in the non-fragmented Android world that you propose. Not sure you know what a tautology means, so I'll let that go until you learn that.
It's just my opinion, man, not a dictation of universal morality
Of course it is. Even if you state someone else's opinion, it will be YOUR opinion of that someone else's opinion. You are incapable of stating someone else's opinion directly - just like me.
My question was about the non-justifiability of your opinion. Your wanting this means you wanting lack of choice for so many other people - just as some wanting McDonalds to give cheeseburgers free effectively means them wanting McDonalds closing thereby reducing choice for their (potential) customers.
I WISH Google would do this because I would prefer, yes.
Yes, most people WISH to have a cheeseburger without paying for it. Only they don't wrap it around half-truths to make it appear as if their wish is justified, or even worthy of consideration.
So yes, my ultimate gripe is with the carriers and the OEMs because they are the most direct villains, but Android's openness was the weak gate in Google's paradise that let them in.
Wrong. You are actually complaining about the carriers being left OUT or the carriers opted OUT - the carriers that you want. You don't realize, but the problem is NOT that they were let IN.
If Google had been less open, and say they would have left out the micro-SD card slot as they usually do. Customers wanting those slots would not have bought Google phones. So carriers wanting those customers would not have sold Google phones. Which could have been carriers that you want just as now the carriers you want don't sell Nexus devices.
Openness is still an enabler - not an impediment.
No it doesn't make sense. If you want closed Google experience - you already have Nexus devices. Motorola devices are plain-old-Google too nowadays. Don't install the dialler replacements, messaging replacements, launcher replacements and you are good.
Does the existence of Samsung devices, with altered Google experience, which you don't have to buy - affect your enjoyment of the pure Google experience in Nexus / Motorola devices? No if you are sane.
But the open-ness has enabled other people, who do not want a pure Google experience, to also enjoy almost-Android. Which increases application sales. Which improves experience on pure Google devices ecosystem as well. For example I want micro-SD card support which Google refuses to provide so I shop elsewhere. Every person has different needs - openness provides for all to be happy.
Your wanting one thing doesn't make other people wanting other things any less important.
Thanks. The only details I saw were a vague list of sources of nutrients. Where did you see this recipe?
On record - I, for one, hated facebook before it was cool to hate it.
He says it is "delicious". Though I'm not sure if everyone will find it delicious. In what sense do you say nearly-unpalatable ?
Hi, thanks for your post.
I don't see the sources of some nutrients the Soylent guy, with capital S, uses. I understand when he explains why he hasn't given the source for elemental / ionic nutrients, he could have provided the source for protein at least? Some (other) people have said his diet is vegan, but need to know what protein he is using. Are you vegetarian / vegan / otherwise restricted in your diet?
Do you feel your jaws get enough exercise? Never tried such liquid diets myself, but I am immensely interested in what people feel about their jaws after a long period of liquid diets. Even if weekends are exceptions.
About fibre - there are completely different functions of soluble and insoluble fibre. Soylent guy doesn't make it clear which kind he uses. What do you think about this? Depending on other ingredients of your food, maybe soluble fibre is less important for you and you do with only insoluble?
Stupid. Since many people who don't have symptoms are infectious, you can never "protect" others from the virus. In general, an easily transmitted virus cannot be avoided. You fight it, and most of your acquaintances need to too.
And guess what - fighting it makes you better at fighting another slightly different one, another day. So people out with flu are doing others a favour. Really.
It is people who are low at fighting ability who should stay at home. E.g. very young children, very old people, people with AIDS or heavy flu symptoms , people on extreme crash diets. This is economically less harmful because most such people are less productive economically anyway, and if they are productive, they need to exercise caution so that they remain productive.
Your solution needs altruism which is a rare commodity, and yet is worse than my solution which keeps incentives scenario manageable and yet is more effective by making healthy people more capable of fighting diseases than ever before.
Yes, but in their own way, they are making good quality drives more popular. This by your logic, which is sound, lowers their future prices.
They are also making bad quality drives less popular, increasing the chances of retailers / distributors or even Seagate itself making a distress sale. Who better than large buyers to make a distress sale to?
Yes, "their own way" is small. But it is better than nothing, for a low cost to do and report the study.
Depending on infrastructure, the hard drives being 4 TB (instead of less) also lowers costs. E.g. if they are short of SATA ports, 4TB can work without a costly upgrade to more SATA ports. Or if their logic to split data across drives is more efficient with larger individual drives.
Seagate 4 TB drives are widely available but WD ones aren't, yet.
You cannot bluff your way out of this blunder. In this post, I clearly mentioned the definitions I am using. In this reply you have given factually incorrect statements in the light of definitions I had declared.
You could have disagreed with the definitions, you could have proposed different definitions, you could have explicitly mentioned you don't want to define things concretely. But no. You made unambiguously incorrect statements. You can't change your definitions NOW with retrospective effect.
No, I explicitly said that I am considering the dominant definitions of "free market" and "communism" BECAUSE you do not define it yourself. You are of course free to use your own definitions, but you will be understood only if you either use dominant definitions or define the non-standard terms of discourse BEFORE the discourse.
A free market is a market (regardless how Adam Smith defines it) ...
One of the most idiotic things I have heard in 2014. Good bye until you learn why. Above paragraph is recommended reading in the process.
No this is an extremely ignorant and simplistic view of both free markets and communism. "Means of production" as defined by commonly accepted communistic theories, under commonly accepted free market theories, must be privately owned under commonly accepted free market theories. Buying/selling of "means of production" as a whole and shares into them is a major vehicle of economic activity as defined by Smith himself and his "free market" followers.
Free market's Smith warned seriously about business influencing government, and the need to keep them distant. Communist thinkers have, on the other hand, argued about them being the same. Collusion that Smith warned multiple times against, cannot be prevented unless business is privately owned.
For a person making fun of American ignorance of communism, you seem to take pride in your ignorance and have none the less strong opinion for it. You could pass for an American in this department any day of the year.
I don't think physics has any headstart. Economics is at least as old as the time when our ancestors started living in groups / tribes. Physics is no older. If economics is the less "science" for it, it is fully deserved.
Yes, old people not progressing is a problem but it is in physics too. If economists have it in a greater degree, economics is the less "science" for it and quite deservedly.
Yes, testing hypothesis in macro - economics is somewhat like the problem astro-physics has. Only passive observation is feasible, not active experimentation. Actually economists have convinced governments to alter serious macro-economic policies, astro physicists have been able to do far far less active experimentation. My impression of lack of consensus in economists is that it is greater than that in astro-physicists. I could be wrong, though.
While I agree Americans have a skewed perception of communism - in not only what they know but hugely in what they feel about it.
But since you don't define communism yourself, publicly agreed upon definitions drawing from works of Marx, Lenin, possibly Mao will need to be taken as working definition. They completely don't go with free market, as defined by, say works of Adam Smith.
Democracy (in fact any *cracy) doesn't practically go with free market because the subject of the *cracy is the master, and can (and mostly will) force the markets to be non-free.
This has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Then your quotation has nothing to do with the topic that was being discussed. Question was
What can humans do that robots can't?
To which you answered Feel a sense of accomplishment, followed by what now proves to be an irrelevant quote.
You are mistakenly believing that YOUR , or Banks' sense of what is "impressive" has anything to do with whether the "doer" itself feels a sense of accomplishment. That is false from your own reasoning outlined in this post of yours - that one has to believe one's own task "difficult" to get this sense of accomplishment. In believing one's own task difficult, humans are influenced by the thinking of their fellow humans - but that is far from a universal trait in humans themselves, to say nothing about non-human doers.
By this line of logic, what you are considering impossible for a robot is - to make YOU feel the robot's task was "impressive". I agree a robot might never be able to do that, but feeling a sense of accomplishment itself, by any reasonable definition, doesn't seem impossible at all.
c) an accomplishment is defined by the obstacles you overcome to achieve it, so it does not need to be special. You, as a human, faced the challenge with more obstacles than a purpose-built machine.
I don't agree with this line of argument. The perception of challenge is self-perceived. Program the robot to "deem" its own task "difficult", whatever it means. And then program it to "feel" a sense of accomplishment. You could define "difficult" again in the subjective way you define "feel a sense of accomplishment" but such a definition is useless as a functional definition for this discussion for the same reason I outlined in my last post.
There are two problems with your last paragraph:
I see them as proof you got the point rather than "problem". The "problem" is what I was trying to say.
a) How do you, personally, know that everyone around you isn't lying to your face about what they believe? Claiming AI would be non-genuine because you can't "detect" anything more is no different. There would be debugging procedures both equivalent to, and much more powerful than, the fMRI we currently use to detect (what we think are) genuine emotions in humans.
Exactly what I am saying. So your definition of "feel a sense of accomplishment" is useless, especially but not solely because it is in a context of non-humans as well as humans.
You also mistakenly believe there is any such thing as "genuine emotions" when talking together about human and non-human subjects.
b) It would be impossible to build an AI that behaved fully human without either copying a human template or understanding how it worked.
Correct, but it is necessary to to build robots like that only to prove people like you wrong - who feel robots cannot "feel a sense of accomplishment" - by either showing the definition of "feel a sense of accomplishment" useless or actually feeling it by your definition.
If the human template is copied, then the new model has no appreciable difference; if the AI built from scratch, we'd know for certain how experiences would affect its decision-making.
Well, "behave" fully human in this case is satisfied by being more than a human too. So it can still have appreciable "difference", the difference being of being "super-set". If the set of functions of the robot includes feeling a sense of accomplishment, your statement is proven false.
I'm asking about a working definition, which is possible to detect in something other than oneself. The way you are defining it, you can't even tell if another human being has it or not, even after conducting laboratory experiments on the said human.
So actually it is implementation specific - about some implementations (humans) you assume they are feeling it, without any scientific test, just because they behave in a certain way while actually possibly not feeling it. But for other implementations (robots) , you don't give any way they can "feel" as per your definition.
BTW does behaving as if they are feeling a sense of accomplishment count? That is all you can detect anyway. Robots could do that one day.
No one can stop him from ordering. If all else fails, he can create a website of his own from which to order.
Where the story stops making sense is the lack of motivation of any one to deliver. Or to make (and maintain) a machine to deliver. Or to make (and maintain) a machine to make (and maintain) a machine to deliver.
It is like asking show me a person above 80 kgs of weight who is simultaneously below 30 kgs of weight.
Communistic society and free market don't go together. Same as being lighter than 30 kg and heavier than 80 kgs don't go together.
Democratic government, with current human tendency, almost doesn't go with either of these, but that depends on what the particular set of voters vote for among other factors. So it is like saying show me a person which blood sugar level of above 400 mg/dL for 40 years and still has perfectly functioning kidneys, heart, brain and eyes. Possible, but highly unlikely.