Thanks for a sane viewpoint, this is about the only comment I came across with a rational description of HFT. Everyone just seems to convince themselves it must be bad because they don't see the point to ti...
I agree that QANTAS are stuck between a rock and a hard place, but seriously look at the evidence here. QANTAS are expensive, yes, but people chose them on their reputation as the safest airline in the world. Since QANTAS have embarked on their outsourcing operations we have witnessed a series of dramatic and damaging mishaps that have resulted in very nearly losing a couple of planes. This, I believe, is at the heart of the argument from the unions. QANTAS differentiated themselves and hence gained customers, think of them as the Apple inc. of the skies - you can't compete on a premium brand with the same shitty service as everyone else, and yet this is the strategy they have adopted.
The median wage in Australia is roughly $65k/year. That may sound like a lot but we have a very, very high cost of living in this country. Are the engineers asking for a median wage of $120k/year? I can tell you as someone who lives with a combined income of $70k before tax, we are not well off in the slightest.
China takes a roughly similar quantity of our exports as Japan, and is by no means our only customer. The mining sector in Australia accounts for roughly 6-7% of GDP, not exactly the dominant industry. The truth is Australia's economy is fairly diversified and our financial sector is well regulated, our government has comparatively low levels of debt. We also benefit from a close proximity to the worlds growth regions, not just China but all of Asia. It will be difficult for us if China slows, but people have been predicting that for ten years or so now. The truth is we are simply in a strong position.
Re:Not a Real Problem Unless Vacations Are Evil
on
The Real Job Threat
·
· Score: 1
You can't play much if you have no job to afford comforts in life.
I'v been pondering on this very issue a lot lately, and it seems to me that increased automation is a very real threat to the current status quo. How we deal with it going forward will have profound implications on social cohesion. Yes, for the most part we have seen jobs created by technology just as they are taken away, but who is to say these two are in balance? Hypothetically we aim to automate as much as we can, doesn't this lead ultimately to an automatic world in which people do not need to do as much work? So yeah, lets just play, but our current economic system simply will not allow that. This is a discussion I think we need to have sooner or later - the way we have our capitalist system set up will not function correctly in an automated future. There will be jobs for engineers, cashflow for business owners, and a limited number of service jobs, but what about everyone else? We are looking at a very real possibility for dramatic wealth imbalances that will bring the economy to a halt, we need consumers to drive demand for the things made by robots, otherwise even the factory owner won't be making a dime. The problem I see is that this unquestionably leads to greater social cooperation, as we will in all likelihood need to share the limited workloads and more effectively redistribute wealth. This is not a conversation (the USA at least) is remotely willing to engage in. I would go so far as to argue we are already witnessing the early effects of this trend with the dramatic increase in the 'casualisation' of the workforce.
Not trying to nitpick (well I am), but the current Macbook Pro and Air line have mouse buttons, two in fact, integrated into the trackpad itself. Yes there is tap to click and two finger tap, but there is also left and right physical click and yes they are distinct buttons under the trackpad.
I think this has to do with Microsoft's only true claim in the "linux infringes our IP" claim: FAT32, or patents relating to specific implementations of it. It sucks because FAT32 has become our de-facto standard for external storage, but it belongs to Microsoft. No as far as I'm aware, and quite contrary to certain claims in other comments, that is about it.
But life expectancy is increasing, and that is the killer. The dramatic increase in population today, and in years to come has far more to do with people staying alive longer than it has to do with more people being born.
You did say the UI was "stolen outright". That does kind of imply a certain level of "literally stole the UI".
I'm fine with Apple fans claiming iPhone shifted the landscape, paved the way for the modern smart phone. What I am not ok with is this bullshit claim that everyone is stealing from Apple.
Can you cite some examples of how the UI is stolen outright? Android uses widgets and a sort of desktop as the primary means of interfacing with the device. At the time iOS had a grid of icons which could not be manipulated. Android has context menus, iOS has a centralised menu area. Android has at least 3 dedicated buttons present at all times, be it hardware or capacitive - home, menu and back. iOS has one button and relies on software buttons for navigation, the idea of a dedicated menu button is foreign to the iOS design philosophy.
I don't understand how you figure it was "stolen outright" when so much is different? Inspired, copied certain elements, sure. But Android and iOS are night and day different to use, further to that Apple have been copying Android features for a couple of years now (image backgrounds, folders, moving your icons around, and now the notifications system and cloud syncing). How can Android simultaneously have "stolen" the iOS ui while at the same time iOS is adopting features from it...
You are comparing two handsets. Android is an OS. One of those handsets has a custom UI (which bears no resemblance to iOS), basically that article is a complete pile of shit and proves nothing. Interestingly the desktop on the 'before' image bears a remarkable similarity to modern Android, the desktop is simply devoid of widgets and such. If you look past the physical keyboard (which many Android phones still have) you see something which does not look at all like iOS but does actually look like a crude version of what Android is today.
It has a high volumetric efficiency and a very low thermal efficiency. It also has a very short lifespan. As a performance engine it is relatively good, it has other issues which make it short of being the best (seal issues - consumes oil) however as a consumer engine it is quite terrible.
I'm no a physicist, but I'm fairly certain that no matter where you place the thing in terms of the Earth's orbit, the second the Earth becomes the dominant gravitational force on the comet (as opposed to the sun) it switches from "two objects gently orbiting near each other" to "dropping a big fucking rock on the planet from 50,000 miles up".
Then clearly you are not even remotely a physicist. Keplers laws are about the balance between momentum forces and gravitational forces - by your analysis every single satellite in geosynchronous orbit should fall to earth, and yet they do not. The earth pulls a body in, the momentum of that body wants to trend in a straight line (Newtonian-ly speaking) - the solutions to this problem for two bodies are the classes of orbit, hyperbolic (fast entry fast escape), parabolic (entry/escape balanced), elliptic (most common type of orbit), and the much rarer circular orbit. Now elliptic orbits can be stable or degenerative and they can be set up to be degenerative in the positive sense from our point of view: body slowly spins in a wider arc until it manages to escape.
If anything the ribbon does exactly that. Do you know how many computer illiterates know about Word styles today, only because of the ribbon? Many. All documents should make use of styles, and the ribbon provides exactly the right kind of incentives for people to learn.
Why do you think your particular usage patterns are the most efficient for all users?
Biggest rebuttal: Why are power users even considering Word for documentation? At the very least a document editor should be WYSIWYM, (what you see is what you mean) such as LyX. Really though if you want a powerful tool use the best: LaTeX.
Ctrl-F is find, Ctrl-H is find and replace. You seriously moved to open office rather than just learn how to use the ribbon? Everything I do in Word is made faster by the ribbon (not a hotkey user). The equation editor in Word2007 is enough reason for me to use it. If I need to write a proper document with references, formulae, etc. I use the right tool: Latex.
So many people complaining about the ribbon, I see no examples of why it is less useful than nested drop-down menus? Can you provide some specific usage scenarios which illustrate why you hate it? Genuine question.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for a sane viewpoint, this is about the only comment I came across with a rational description of HFT. Everyone just seems to convince themselves it must be bad because they don't see the point to ti...
Or it would just not connect.
The Android scripting environment already gives you Python, and a bash shell. This article is completely retarded.
Gravity is not a constant, it is a function of mass/inertia. you may carry on now ;)
Damn, that's some serious coin. Seems everyone in this dispute is being incredibly belligerent.
I agree that QANTAS are stuck between a rock and a hard place, but seriously look at the evidence here. QANTAS are expensive, yes, but people chose them on their reputation as the safest airline in the world. Since QANTAS have embarked on their outsourcing operations we have witnessed a series of dramatic and damaging mishaps that have resulted in very nearly losing a couple of planes. This, I believe, is at the heart of the argument from the unions. QANTAS differentiated themselves and hence gained customers, think of them as the Apple inc. of the skies - you can't compete on a premium brand with the same shitty service as everyone else, and yet this is the strategy they have adopted.
They have been going back and forth doing exactly this for the past 6 months...
The median wage in Australia is roughly $65k/year. That may sound like a lot but we have a very, very high cost of living in this country. Are the engineers asking for a median wage of $120k/year? I can tell you as someone who lives with a combined income of $70k before tax, we are not well off in the slightest.
China takes a roughly similar quantity of our exports as Japan, and is by no means our only customer. The mining sector in Australia accounts for roughly 6-7% of GDP, not exactly the dominant industry. The truth is Australia's economy is fairly diversified and our financial sector is well regulated, our government has comparatively low levels of debt. We also benefit from a close proximity to the worlds growth regions, not just China but all of Asia. It will be difficult for us if China slows, but people have been predicting that for ten years or so now. The truth is we are simply in a strong position.
Bravo, exceptional analysis.
You can't play much if you have no job to afford comforts in life.
I'v been pondering on this very issue a lot lately, and it seems to me that increased automation is a very real threat to the current status quo. How we deal with it going forward will have profound implications on social cohesion. Yes, for the most part we have seen jobs created by technology just as they are taken away, but who is to say these two are in balance? Hypothetically we aim to automate as much as we can, doesn't this lead ultimately to an automatic world in which people do not need to do as much work? So yeah, lets just play, but our current economic system simply will not allow that. This is a discussion I think we need to have sooner or later - the way we have our capitalist system set up will not function correctly in an automated future. There will be jobs for engineers, cashflow for business owners, and a limited number of service jobs, but what about everyone else? We are looking at a very real possibility for dramatic wealth imbalances that will bring the economy to a halt, we need consumers to drive demand for the things made by robots, otherwise even the factory owner won't be making a dime. The problem I see is that this unquestionably leads to greater social cooperation, as we will in all likelihood need to share the limited workloads and more effectively redistribute wealth. This is not a conversation (the USA at least) is remotely willing to engage in. I would go so far as to argue we are already witnessing the early effects of this trend with the dramatic increase in the 'casualisation' of the workforce.
Not trying to nitpick (well I am), but the current Macbook Pro and Air line have mouse buttons, two in fact, integrated into the trackpad itself. Yes there is tap to click and two finger tap, but there is also left and right physical click and yes they are distinct buttons under the trackpad.
I think this has to do with Microsoft's only true claim in the "linux infringes our IP" claim: FAT32, or patents relating to specific implementations of it. It sucks because FAT32 has become our de-facto standard for external storage, but it belongs to Microsoft. No as far as I'm aware, and quite contrary to certain claims in other comments, that is about it.
But life expectancy is increasing, and that is the killer. The dramatic increase in population today, and in years to come has far more to do with people staying alive longer than it has to do with more people being born.
You did say the UI was "stolen outright". That does kind of imply a certain level of "literally stole the UI".
I'm fine with Apple fans claiming iPhone shifted the landscape, paved the way for the modern smart phone. What I am not ok with is this bullshit claim that everyone is stealing from Apple.
Can you cite some examples of how the UI is stolen outright? Android uses widgets and a sort of desktop as the primary means of interfacing with the device. At the time iOS had a grid of icons which could not be manipulated. Android has context menus, iOS has a centralised menu area. Android has at least 3 dedicated buttons present at all times, be it hardware or capacitive - home, menu and back. iOS has one button and relies on software buttons for navigation, the idea of a dedicated menu button is foreign to the iOS design philosophy.
I don't understand how you figure it was "stolen outright" when so much is different? Inspired, copied certain elements, sure. But Android and iOS are night and day different to use, further to that Apple have been copying Android features for a couple of years now (image backgrounds, folders, moving your icons around, and now the notifications system and cloud syncing). How can Android simultaneously have "stolen" the iOS ui while at the same time iOS is adopting features from it...
You are missing the context, in those days a smart phone was not a big touchscreen candybar.
You are comparing two handsets. Android is an OS. One of those handsets has a custom UI (which bears no resemblance to iOS), basically that article is a complete pile of shit and proves nothing. Interestingly the desktop on the 'before' image bears a remarkable similarity to modern Android, the desktop is simply devoid of widgets and such. If you look past the physical keyboard (which many Android phones still have) you see something which does not look at all like iOS but does actually look like a crude version of what Android is today.
It has a high volumetric efficiency and a very low thermal efficiency. It also has a very short lifespan. As a performance engine it is relatively good, it has other issues which make it short of being the best (seal issues - consumes oil) however as a consumer engine it is quite terrible.
Then clearly you are not even remotely a physicist. Keplers laws are about the balance between momentum forces and gravitational forces - by your analysis every single satellite in geosynchronous orbit should fall to earth, and yet they do not. The earth pulls a body in, the momentum of that body wants to trend in a straight line (Newtonian-ly speaking) - the solutions to this problem for two bodies are the classes of orbit, hyperbolic (fast entry fast escape), parabolic (entry/escape balanced), elliptic (most common type of orbit), and the much rarer circular orbit. Now elliptic orbits can be stable or degenerative and they can be set up to be degenerative in the positive sense from our point of view: body slowly spins in a wider arc until it manages to escape.
I gave up mod points for this, *sigh*.
If anything the ribbon does exactly that. Do you know how many computer illiterates know about Word styles today, only because of the ribbon? Many. All documents should make use of styles, and the ribbon provides exactly the right kind of incentives for people to learn.
Why do you think your particular usage patterns are the most efficient for all users?
Biggest rebuttal: Why are power users even considering Word for documentation? At the very least a document editor should be WYSIWYM, (what you see is what you mean) such as LyX. Really though if you want a powerful tool use the best: LaTeX.
I too said the same thing in a few comments. Latex all the way.
I already addressed this, use Latex. I could not even conceive of using Word for serious documentation, nothing beats Tex.
Ctrl-F is find, Ctrl-H is find and replace. You seriously moved to open office rather than just learn how to use the ribbon? Everything I do in Word is made faster by the ribbon (not a hotkey user). The equation editor in Word2007 is enough reason for me to use it. If I need to write a proper document with references, formulae, etc. I use the right tool: Latex.
So many people complaining about the ribbon, I see no examples of why it is less useful than nested drop-down menus? Can you provide some specific usage scenarios which illustrate why you hate it? Genuine question.