Really? I can't do any useful professional work on a phone, except to phone people. I can't use the tablet to write software, interface with lab equipment, and it reduces my typing words-per-minute to single digits. The tablet can however be used to read some simple emails, useful for trips to the loo. On a computer I can do real work. I can't imagine how these will converge unless every human becomes merely a content consumer.
Does Alexa have a comprehensive set of options to limit how much information it can use and share? With my phone I can turn off GPS, turn off ads, and so forth. The phone is not always listening, presumably, and I have to turn it on before I can interact with it. Alexa, by design and user interface, is always on.
That'd be Intel, AMD, Microsoft, and all the people/companies behind Linux. Android (Google)/iOS (Apple) don't run the world. Nor do Facebook or Twitter.
Well, the first list of companies I would call "tech" companies. The last group are not at all tech in anyw ay, they're social media. The middle group is half-and-half although they lean heavily towards merely being advertising companies.
There are companies shipping products with zero security, because they think it impacts time to market. There are products that NEED security that don't have it. There are also products that advertise having good security that actually have substandard security.
Yes, hire a former criminal to head up a crime task force, only how do you know they really are reformed or not? Being a lobbyist automatically makes me think the person is badly biased, and also wasn't very good at finding a real job.
Still supported. Yet another reason to not upgrade yet. I don't understand the need for some people to upgrade instantly when there's a newer product when the older one is still working just fine. People act like Windows 7 is archaic and ready to fall apart... I did see some major companies start swapping to Windows 10 the first month is was available, which seems highly risky to me.
Meanwhile, we're told at work by IT to not upgrade to OSX High Sierra because of known issues. Why in the Mac world is it ok to hold off, but in the Windows world the IT knee jerk response is to obey Microsoft's every whim?
Ya, a lot of systems running XP and Windows 7 are not on a network, don't even have the horsepower to upgrade in many cases. Doesn't stop the IT crowd from insisting they need upgrading.
It works and it keeps working. Changing is expensive and time consuming - training, upgrading machines, getting new software, finding replacements for old software, etc. So Microsoft needs to supply a REASON to upgrade here, something in the new version that is worth the time and effort.
Especially for those who aren't Enterprise or Pro who have to put up with all the nasty tricks Microsoft loves to pull on its customers.
It's a nightmare in some medical systems too. There was one project after I left a company where they went from a stable and reliable RTOS to embedded Windows NT, all because some high level component was mandated and that component was built on top of MFC. So rip out all the stuff that's working, spend a few years trying to shoehorn in stuff that doesn't fit the purpose.
However mostly when I see Windows in medical equipment it's not mission-critical equipment. They're in record keeping, monitors, stuff like that. Ie, a PC running turnkey applications. There are exceptions though, companies who think they can't hire any developers unless the product is windows-based. Consider things like MRI machines; big, bulky, expensive - so you put Windows on the front-end, basically a mini-PC shoved into a corner but the actual back end guts are not Windows based. One machine I worked on briefly literally put a Macintosh inside to handle files, storage, and removable media, and the cost was just a small fraction of the machine.
TPP did have flaws. But they weren't unsurmountable flaws, and politicians across the board eventually decided that they would re-investigate it to remove some of those flaws. Free trade means more money for everyone, only Trump doesn't believe that. When Republicans were pushing back on Trump claiming that the tariffs would cause harm, it was not because they were the mainstream elite or dupes of mass media.
How exactly did we give away our wealth to everyone and anyone? An analysis of the effects from NAFTA resulted in slightly more money per US resident overall. Even though some people lost jobs it was balanced by other people gaining jobs. It was not the huge sucking sound as predicted and most definitely not the worst deal ever as Trump likes to claim. We had a *great* trading relationship with Canada, and the few small areas of disagreement we had were not worth scuttling the entire relationship over.
Trump's idea of a good deal is when one side is a loser, he does not fundamentally understand the concept of a win-win deal.
People please use some thinking skills. Just because Trump says things were completely terrible and a disaster before he showed up does not mean you have to believe it.
In the meantime our agricultural customers will figure out new supply chains and by food from somewhere else. By the time the tariffs are lifted the customers will have new suppliers and the market will have to slowly rebuild itself.
Meanwhile, the $billions set aside to compensate farms won't count for very much at all once spread around evenly. It's like when I was laid off and I got unemployment insurance that amounted to about $350 a week, which wasn't much of a compensation.
I guarantee that whatever lottery numbers I choose will not be a winner. If I do win then I'll publicly say I'm sorry and pay you $100 (or the first person I meet who claims to be an Anonymous Coward).
Both parties have seemed concerned over the debt at various times, and both parties have completely ignored the debt at other times.
Right now Republicans don't seem concerned about the debt and are putting their fiscal conservative sides in the freezer for now so that their social conservatives sides can run rampant. This is why you need more than 2 parties (ideally should have 4 or more). When one's view about abortion is a key indicator about how one feels about economic policy, then it's clear the system is screwed up.
It won't recover really. While tarriffs are active, China will look for other trading partners, new supply chains, and so forth. When tarriffs are lifted, China is not going to suddenly abandon this and go back to how things were.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? I can't do any useful professional work on a phone, except to phone people. I can't use the tablet to write software, interface with lab equipment, and it reduces my typing words-per-minute to single digits. The tablet can however be used to read some simple emails, useful for trips to the loo. On a computer I can do real work. I can't imagine how these will converge unless every human becomes merely a content consumer.
Standard business practices.
Alexa should be able to respond to other words, like "honey", "sweetie", and "darling".
Does Alexa have a comprehensive set of options to limit how much information it can use and share? With my phone I can turn off GPS, turn off ads, and so forth. The phone is not always listening, presumably, and I have to turn it on before I can interact with it. Alexa, by design and user interface, is always on.
That'd be Intel, AMD, Microsoft, and all the people/companies behind Linux. Android (Google)/iOS (Apple) don't run the world. Nor do Facebook or Twitter.
Well, the first list of companies I would call "tech" companies. The last group are not at all tech in anyw ay, they're social media. The middle group is half-and-half although they lean heavily towards merely being advertising companies.
There are companies shipping products with zero security, because they think it impacts time to market. There are products that NEED security that don't have it. There are also products that advertise having good security that actually have substandard security.
Yes, hire a former criminal to head up a crime task force, only how do you know they really are reformed or not? Being a lobbyist automatically makes me think the person is badly biased, and also wasn't very good at finding a real job.
Desiring an expert on corporations to be attorney general is like wanting a mafia don to be attorney general since they'd know all about crime.
So many things in Microsoft the last few years that I really think they've downsized the few things they were doing right.
Still supported. Yet another reason to not upgrade yet. I don't understand the need for some people to upgrade instantly when there's a newer product when the older one is still working just fine. People act like Windows 7 is archaic and ready to fall apart... I did see some major companies start swapping to Windows 10 the first month is was available, which seems highly risky to me.
Meanwhile, we're told at work by IT to not upgrade to OSX High Sierra because of known issues. Why in the Mac world is it ok to hold off, but in the Windows world the IT knee jerk response is to obey Microsoft's every whim?
Ya, a lot of systems running XP and Windows 7 are not on a network, don't even have the horsepower to upgrade in many cases. Doesn't stop the IT crowd from insisting they need upgrading.
It works and it keeps working. Changing is expensive and time consuming - training, upgrading machines, getting new software, finding replacements for old software, etc. So Microsoft needs to supply a REASON to upgrade here, something in the new version that is worth the time and effort.
Especially for those who aren't Enterprise or Pro who have to put up with all the nasty tricks Microsoft loves to pull on its customers.
Well, they could open source it and then enterprises can hire contractors to maintain it.
But NT4 in my experience was much better than Windows 2000. I'm glad w2k was short lived.
It's a nightmare in some medical systems too. There was one project after I left a company where they went from a stable and reliable RTOS to embedded Windows NT, all because some high level component was mandated and that component was built on top of MFC. So rip out all the stuff that's working, spend a few years trying to shoehorn in stuff that doesn't fit the purpose.
However mostly when I see Windows in medical equipment it's not mission-critical equipment. They're in record keeping, monitors, stuff like that. Ie, a PC running turnkey applications. There are exceptions though, companies who think they can't hire any developers unless the product is windows-based. Consider things like MRI machines; big, bulky, expensive - so you put Windows on the front-end, basically a mini-PC shoved into a corner but the actual back end guts are not Windows based. One machine I worked on briefly literally put a Macintosh inside to handle files, storage, and removable media, and the cost was just a small fraction of the machine.
But what about actual imposters? There are a lot of them in tech.
I'm still working on my perpetual motion machine.
TPP did have flaws. But they weren't unsurmountable flaws, and politicians across the board eventually decided that they would re-investigate it to remove some of those flaws. Free trade means more money for everyone, only Trump doesn't believe that. When Republicans were pushing back on Trump claiming that the tariffs would cause harm, it was not because they were the mainstream elite or dupes of mass media.
How exactly did we give away our wealth to everyone and anyone? An analysis of the effects from NAFTA resulted in slightly more money per US resident overall. Even though some people lost jobs it was balanced by other people gaining jobs. It was not the huge sucking sound as predicted and most definitely not the worst deal ever as Trump likes to claim. We had a *great* trading relationship with Canada, and the few small areas of disagreement we had were not worth scuttling the entire relationship over.
Trump's idea of a good deal is when one side is a loser, he does not fundamentally understand the concept of a win-win deal.
People please use some thinking skills. Just because Trump says things were completely terrible and a disaster before he showed up does not mean you have to believe it.
In the meantime our agricultural customers will figure out new supply chains and by food from somewhere else. By the time the tariffs are lifted the customers will have new suppliers and the market will have to slowly rebuild itself.
Meanwhile, the $billions set aside to compensate farms won't count for very much at all once spread around evenly. It's like when I was laid off and I got unemployment insurance that amounted to about $350 a week, which wasn't much of a compensation.
A helicopter parent sounds like it wasn't an easy birth.
I guarantee that whatever lottery numbers I choose will not be a winner. If I do win then I'll publicly say I'm sorry and pay you $100 (or the first person I meet who claims to be an Anonymous Coward).
It shouldn't matter how you translate from the original Latin.
Both parties have seemed concerned over the debt at various times, and both parties have completely ignored the debt at other times.
Right now Republicans don't seem concerned about the debt and are putting their fiscal conservative sides in the freezer for now so that their social conservatives sides can run rampant. This is why you need more than 2 parties (ideally should have 4 or more). When one's view about abortion is a key indicator about how one feels about economic policy, then it's clear the system is screwed up.
It won't recover really. While tarriffs are active, China will look for other trading partners, new supply chains, and so forth. When tarriffs are lifted, China is not going to suddenly abandon this and go back to how things were.