Does that matter? Google has maps for other things that don't exist. Google used to have a map of Middle Earth. This Kurdistan map wasn't actually Google's official world map, but a custom service on mymaps.google.com. And on that service you can find all sort of things, historical, fictional, informative, etc.
Google only took down this one map to appease the Turkish government, and not just within Turkey itself.
And it's not even a story. 30 years ago most larger tech campuses had cafeterias, it's not a new phenomena. Smaller places often only had 1 place nearby that served sandwiches, and possibly a traveling roach coach. Street food was a non-existent item when tech was newer since that existed only in the city hubs and tech was not in the city hubs.
Ah, but those previous researchers didn't know what they were doing. These parachute researchers did know, and they were intentionally pointing out flaws in many studies in a humorous way.
This was done as an example to the medical community on problems with research studies and results. A teaching moment rather than an actual study with practical outcomes.
Another reason not to have e-sports, it's just not a very mature industry. What if balls suddenly deflated during a game. Oh wait...
But seriously, like normal sports, e-sports should uphold a certain set of standards. Be independent of the game publishers, create a strict set of standards for equipment, and so on. If PUBG has problems then remove PUBG from the competition.
Right now this is much closer to entertainment than to sports.
For me, if I have to live in an apartment building it had better not be downtown! That place sucks; bad air, litter on the street, drunks sleeping in your doorway, high crime rates, endless noise, and even worse, hipsters. I'd want to get out of that even without the extra space. Besides, most of the higher paying jobs are NOT in downtown areas in the Bay Area. San Francisco itself seems to have turned into a bedroom community since so many people commute out of it to the less dense and more affordable areas.
Except that the dense housing is very expensive. Some cities are becoming more dense, by building upscale dense apartments. Several newish ones in San Jose, with rents in the $3000/mo and up.
Some of this is that economies of building don't scale that well, a two or three story apartment building is common but the high rises are extremely expensive to build and maintain. You need infrastructure, parking, better mass transit options (and no, uber doesn't count). There seems to be an endless supply of people willing to buy or rent at the inflated rates. I suspect a lot of twenty somethings honestly think that spending half of of your take home pay on rent is a good deal.
The real problem is that there are essentially too many people in a too tiny space. Why not create more jobs in other parts of the country?
A university can teach people with skills to improve those skills or learn how to gain new skills. It's like a gym, you go there and sweat a lot and come out better at the end. Doesn't mean the end result is a perfect athletic body, just that it's better than it was.
And I think this is part of what's broken in much of US expectations of colleges and universities. They're not supposed to be job factories. They can certainly help with jobs and they can provide certain types of skills necessary for some jobs, but their primary jobs are to teach the student to learn, provide an environment where the student can learn, and especially to enable learning something that has never been known before.
Remember that "jobs that don't exist yet" are invented by people who did not learn those skills in school. What they actually learned was how to do more than just the stuff they knew in school.
Somewhere along the way there was a lot of pressure from parents to start creating more focused degrees, more job ready graduates, and so on. I definitely saw this when I was in school; pressure to stop teaching intro courses in Pascal because it wasn't used in many jobs, and to turn theory classes turned into electives, etc.
Was it clear that this sort of computing was going to be directly for commerce? Many computers were bieng used for academic or research purposes at the time. For Englebart's presentation it was about making the office more efficient, which is indirectly related to revenue. Today's world has many computers as a primary advertising revenue stream or as a direct entertainment device. Would anyone at that original demo have imagined that the most profitable US industries today would be in advertising?
I would hear people laugh at Amiga for not having "standard" methods of doing video or audio or for becoming obsolete, but then they would also use PC add in cards that grew obsolete in only a couple of years or so.
I got a lot of Amiga software from usenet. The parts of the internet were already in place, it just wasn't in the mainstream. As for software, I felt the same about the Apple II - I didn't know any stores that sold it, and the people I knew who had one would buy the software mail-order through magazines.
The marketing push for the PC worked in the business world - but not the home market. IBM didn't market it to the home user. It only showed up there by trickling in. The software for PCs were very expensive when they were new, they might have been in some stores but the typical home user wasn't buying them. PCs had a lot of piracy in the early days, in the sense of buying one and then installing software from work on them or from a friend.
Given popularity numbers, most people prefer McDonald's, Starbucks, and Kanye. Why on Slashdot of all places would someone want to play the popularity card?
For "traditionalists"? Programming on the Amiga felt easy because it was how you programmed in the real computing world with Unix, VMS, or whatever other operating system you were on. It only felt weird to be on an OS if your only exposure to computers was Apple II, IBM-PC, Commodore 64, or other microcomputers.
To be fair, every offering to the general home user was a decade or two behind computing in the commercial and academic worlds. Amiga was only ahead of it's time in the microcomputer arena. Whereas at the same time you had Unix workstations being the thing professionals wanted on their desks in R&D, there were Lisp Machines, giant timeshare computers running a full company, and so forth.
At the time it wasn't clear that the PC was really going to take off. It was expensive for the home market, and rather dull, and didn't have a lot to offer the larger corporation. The PC's niche seemed to be the small or home business market. Now the PC hardware wasn't bad (we were using a networked file system with an integrated IDE on the PC in 1982) it's just that DOS was so plainly awful and couldn't be easily ditched because of the backwards compatibility ball and chain.
Slashdot Mirror
How did you live before smartphones? Were you constantly waving down police to ask them for directions?
People can be retrained to become humans again.
Anyone who says that they can't live without their smartphone needs to seek medical attention immediately.
Does that matter? Google has maps for other things that don't exist. Google used to have a map of Middle Earth. This Kurdistan map wasn't actually Google's official world map, but a custom service on mymaps.google.com. And on that service you can find all sort of things, historical, fictional, informative, etc.
Google only took down this one map to appease the Turkish government, and not just within Turkey itself.
And it's not even a story. 30 years ago most larger tech campuses had cafeterias, it's not a new phenomena. Smaller places often only had 1 place nearby that served sandwiches, and possibly a traveling roach coach. Street food was a non-existent item when tech was newer since that existed only in the city hubs and tech was not in the city hubs.
To be honest, no one in Japan likes eating whale. They only do whaling to prove that they can.
Clearly you didn't read the article either.
Ah, but those previous researchers didn't know what they were doing. These parachute researchers did know, and they were intentionally pointing out flaws in many studies in a humorous way.
This was done as an example to the medical community on problems with research studies and results. A teaching moment rather than an actual study with practical outcomes.
Another reason not to have e-sports, it's just not a very mature industry. What if balls suddenly deflated during a game. Oh wait...
But seriously, like normal sports, e-sports should uphold a certain set of standards. Be independent of the game publishers, create a strict set of standards for equipment, and so on. If PUBG has problems then remove PUBG from the competition.
Right now this is much closer to entertainment than to sports.
Also pros should compete in designated locations, not from home and not with their own equipment. Otherwise it's unfair and encourages cheating. duh.
For me, if I have to live in an apartment building it had better not be downtown! That place sucks; bad air, litter on the street, drunks sleeping in your doorway, high crime rates, endless noise, and even worse, hipsters. I'd want to get out of that even without the extra space. Besides, most of the higher paying jobs are NOT in downtown areas in the Bay Area. San Francisco itself seems to have turned into a bedroom community since so many people commute out of it to the less dense and more affordable areas.
Except that the dense housing is very expensive. Some cities are becoming more dense, by building upscale dense apartments. Several newish ones in San Jose, with rents in the $3000/mo and up.
Some of this is that economies of building don't scale that well, a two or three story apartment building is common but the high rises are extremely expensive to build and maintain. You need infrastructure, parking, better mass transit options (and no, uber doesn't count). There seems to be an endless supply of people willing to buy or rent at the inflated rates. I suspect a lot of twenty somethings honestly think that spending half of of your take home pay on rent is a good deal.
The real problem is that there are essentially too many people in a too tiny space. Why not create more jobs in other parts of the country?
A university can teach people with skills to improve those skills or learn how to gain new skills. It's like a gym, you go there and sweat a lot and come out better at the end. Doesn't mean the end result is a perfect athletic body, just that it's better than it was.
And I think this is part of what's broken in much of US expectations of colleges and universities. They're not supposed to be job factories. They can certainly help with jobs and they can provide certain types of skills necessary for some jobs, but their primary jobs are to teach the student to learn, provide an environment where the student can learn, and especially to enable learning something that has never been known before.
Remember that "jobs that don't exist yet" are invented by people who did not learn those skills in school. What they actually learned was how to do more than just the stuff they knew in school.
Somewhere along the way there was a lot of pressure from parents to start creating more focused degrees, more job ready graduates, and so on. I definitely saw this when I was in school; pressure to stop teaching intro courses in Pascal because it wasn't used in many jobs, and to turn theory classes turned into electives, etc.
Was it clear that this sort of computing was going to be directly for commerce? Many computers were bieng used for academic or research purposes at the time. For Englebart's presentation it was about making the office more efficient, which is indirectly related to revenue. Today's world has many computers as a primary advertising revenue stream or as a direct entertainment device. Would anyone at that original demo have imagined that the most profitable US industries today would be in advertising?
No, that was charge back from departments to the company, even if the company owned the mainframe rather than leased it
Englebart also failed to predict that the majority of computer capabilities would be intended to monetize the user.
I would hear people laugh at Amiga for not having "standard" methods of doing video or audio or for becoming obsolete, but then they would also use PC add in cards that grew obsolete in only a couple of years or so.
True, there were a lot of programmers on Amiga that treated it like just another micro, especially on the games side. Probably old habits.
I got a lot of Amiga software from usenet. The parts of the internet were already in place, it just wasn't in the mainstream. As for software, I felt the same about the Apple II - I didn't know any stores that sold it, and the people I knew who had one would buy the software mail-order through magazines.
The marketing push for the PC worked in the business world - but not the home market. IBM didn't market it to the home user. It only showed up there by trickling in. The software for PCs were very expensive when they were new, they might have been in some stores but the typical home user wasn't buying them. PCs had a lot of piracy in the early days, in the sense of buying one and then installing software from work on them or from a friend.
Given popularity numbers, most people prefer McDonald's, Starbucks, and Kanye. Why on Slashdot of all places would someone want to play the popularity card?
For "traditionalists"? Programming on the Amiga felt easy because it was how you programmed in the real computing world with Unix, VMS, or whatever other operating system you were on. It only felt weird to be on an OS if your only exposure to computers was Apple II, IBM-PC, Commodore 64, or other microcomputers.
To be fair, every offering to the general home user was a decade or two behind computing in the commercial and academic worlds. Amiga was only ahead of it's time in the microcomputer arena. Whereas at the same time you had Unix workstations being the thing professionals wanted on their desks in R&D, there were Lisp Machines, giant timeshare computers running a full company, and so forth.
At the time it wasn't clear that the PC was really going to take off. It was expensive for the home market, and rather dull, and didn't have a lot to offer the larger corporation. The PC's niche seemed to be the small or home business market. Now the PC hardware wasn't bad (we were using a networked file system with an integrated IDE on the PC in 1982) it's just that DOS was so plainly awful and couldn't be easily ditched because of the backwards compatibility ball and chain.
That was a nice machine, but very rare in the US.