There is an important distinction between independent gadgets responding to simple environmental conditions, and the pervasive information architecture shared across ubiquitous computing devices. The latter can be loosely described as systems that continuously record metrics about you and your tasks, then interact with disjoint systems to establish needs or contribute to goals.
Imagine this hypothetical scenario. Your car measures engine performance, tire wear, oil quality (and so on) to determine when maintenance is necessary. It also learns your route habits and shares that information with automotive shops which may provide the necessary service. Those shops can then respond with offers to win your business and—perhaps—preemptively order whatever parts and materials are necessary. Following acceptance, computers on behalf of both parties will arrange optimal schedule blocks based on previous trends (e.g., where you go and when, spatially proximate tasks, historical service times).
It helps to think of this in terms of “what you see is what you need” as applicable to all actors. Your information is ever-present and optionally shared, with other agents in such an environment doing the same. With intelligent use of that data, interactions may emerge organically and with little or no effort on the part of the participants.
At the moment, this is far outside our technological reach, and goes well beyond gimmicky talking umbrellas.
Those who restrict themselves will simply be selected against, soon being replaced by future generations who have no qualms about selfishly grabbing as much of the Earth as they can.
Your point is taken; I understand the evolutionary implications. The problem of resource availability remains. Organisms that reproduce too rapidly doom themselves to some form of starvation in the long term.
People have been saying that since Malthus and predicting a massive population collapse. The funny thing is, civilization keeps finding ways to accommodate larger numbers.
Agreed, but that does not mean it always can. So long as all our eggs are in one basket, we are constrained with finite space, and therefore, finite resources. With unchecked population increase, consumption will inevitably overtake maximum production limits, likely resulting in precipitous—and immensely uncomfortable—population decline.
The quantitative questions are being addressed. (What is that upper limit? When will we reach it?) However, whether will we choose wise reproductive habits receives much less attention. I think we would rather not find ourselves under the hardships of overpopulation.
You should also note that most industrialized countries are pretty close to zero-population growth without immigration
While the first two questions remain outstanding, it appears we may be deciding favorably on the qualitative point, and my angst may be for nothing. Global population increase is slowing; the trend of declining birth rates is not limited to industrialized nations.
In general, if you have data to be structured and serialized, XML is one way to do it. If you think XML a poor choice, then could you suggest an alternative? Incidentally, that suggestion should not imply that everyone reinvent their own formats (again).
[N]ot only does Java represent a poor trade off between the annoyances of a strongly typed language and the speed of a dynamic interpreted one...
Would you provide evidence aside from personal anecdotes, and possibly consider evidence to the contrary?
[Java] has a horrible mess of dependency issues that nobody really solves besides.
Perhaps you meant “modern software” instead. Any complex application these days relies on dozens of libraries and services to perform tasks. Not quite sure where exactly you are having difficulties, so I cannot elaborate further.
[XML] is too ugly and unreadable... But as a general tool for Internet plumbing it's awful.
XML is intended for consumption by machines first, people second. You might also argue that in-memory data structures are ugly and unreadable.
Do we follow Russia's laws, copyright or otherwise? Hell no. Who the hell do we in the US think we are?
People pushing for these laws tend to apply flawed common-sense reasoning that intellectual property is strictly analogous to physical property, and then build anachronistic business models around it. The United States economy consists largely (if not mostly) of immaterial goods and services these days, and many believe copying that property is tantamount to stealing goods from factories, for example. You can see how they might believe their interests are threatened and why they incorrectly resort to calling this “theft”, which differs subtly from infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you care to provide facts or figures supporting your claim?
I believe there is only one woman who qualifies for the lead role. See search the search results for clarification.
There is an important distinction between independent gadgets responding to simple environmental conditions, and the pervasive information architecture shared across ubiquitous computing devices. The latter can be loosely described as systems that continuously record metrics about you and your tasks, then interact with disjoint systems to establish needs or contribute to goals.
Imagine this hypothetical scenario. Your car measures engine performance, tire wear, oil quality (and so on) to determine when maintenance is necessary. It also learns your route habits and shares that information with automotive shops which may provide the necessary service. Those shops can then respond with offers to win your business and—perhaps—preemptively order whatever parts and materials are necessary. Following acceptance, computers on behalf of both parties will arrange optimal schedule blocks based on previous trends (e.g., where you go and when, spatially proximate tasks, historical service times).
It helps to think of this in terms of “what you see is what you need” as applicable to all actors. Your information is ever-present and optionally shared, with other agents in such an environment doing the same. With intelligent use of that data, interactions may emerge organically and with little or no effort on the part of the participants.
At the moment, this is far outside our technological reach, and goes well beyond gimmicky talking umbrellas.
Your point is taken; I understand the evolutionary implications. The problem of resource availability remains. Organisms that reproduce too rapidly doom themselves to some form of starvation in the long term.
Agreed, but that does not mean it always can. So long as all our eggs are in one basket, we are constrained with finite space, and therefore, finite resources. With unchecked population increase, consumption will inevitably overtake maximum production limits, likely resulting in precipitous—and immensely uncomfortable—population decline.
The quantitative questions are being addressed. (What is that upper limit? When will we reach it?) However, whether will we choose wise reproductive habits receives much less attention. I think we would rather not find ourselves under the hardships of overpopulation.
While the first two questions remain outstanding, it appears we may be deciding favorably on the qualitative point, and my angst may be for nothing. Global population increase is slowing; the trend of declining birth rates is not limited to industrialized nations.
In general, if you have data to be structured and serialized, XML is one way to do it. If you think XML a poor choice, then could you suggest an alternative? Incidentally, that suggestion should not imply that everyone reinvent their own formats (again).
Would you provide evidence aside from personal anecdotes, and possibly consider evidence to the contrary?
Perhaps you meant “modern software” instead. Any complex application these days relies on dozens of libraries and services to perform tasks. Not quite sure where exactly you are having difficulties, so I cannot elaborate further.
XML is intended for consumption by machines first, people second. You might also argue that in-memory data structures are ugly and unreadable.
People pushing for these laws tend to apply flawed common-sense reasoning that intellectual property is strictly analogous to physical property, and then build anachronistic business models around it. The United States economy consists largely (if not mostly) of immaterial goods and services these days, and many believe copying that property is tantamount to stealing goods from factories, for example. You can see how they might believe their interests are threatened and why they incorrectly resort to calling this “theft”, which differs subtly from infringement.