Well, hopefully all the pieces will be there and it will be affordable for most by then. We're getting there.
I've dreamed of electric vehicles since I was a kid; nothing against them. I do have something against commissars ordering me into one though.
Looks like they'll in reality eventually become pervasive by actually being better, not truly by fiat, which is good. 12 years from now they'll either be actually affordable and have all the pieces in place, or else the deadline will get moved out again.
The article is unclear on what it means by "Windows as a service", and also on how the problems described would relate to that.
Are Windows 10 home users paying via subscription or something? That's what I would think of as "Windows as a service".
There have always been Windows activation issues, auto-update issues, etc.
So - yes, Windows bad, etc. But because "Windows as a service"? If anything, the article itself sort of implies that business customers (who often/usually are effectively "Windows as a service") have it better (comparatively, anyway) than Windows home users.
I'm all for security, but this is getting almost comically fine grained.
Phone companies collaborating with sleazy online marketers to add charges to their customers' phone bills without their explicit consent, and the solution is to get sporadic and intrusive warnings about impending transactions from an advertising company.
What is comical about that?
That someone is building defenses against it into a browser?
Defense that "detects that there is insufficient mobile subscription information available to the user"?
Sure, anything could be useful, but it's not as though Chrome tries to detect if the web page gives me insufficient information before I enter a credit card, for example.
However, the amount of power from fossil fuels was still greater over the quarter, at about 40% of electricity generation compared with 28% for renewable sources. In total, 57% of electricity generation was low carbon over the period, produced either by renewables or nuclear power stations.
Even just 50 years ago, the concept was one of if someone wanted to obtain such information, they would have to really want/need it and commit themselves to it.... they would have to perhaps get in a vehicle, travel to some records place or courthouse, fill out forms, and wait a long time to then retrieve information that would be in non-machine format (paper with no OCR), and often pay some type of processing and location and duplication fees.
Depends on the information.
Your house and how much you paid for it, and of course, who you are, were public then, and well before too. I think even printed it in newspapers.
It was a kind of funky backup to deeds... the transaction was literally public, so that it was much harder for someone to cry foul later.
I'm in Canada. We have universal healthcare and we FORBID the private sector from operating a competing health care system.
Would this kind of situation be forbidden by the EU?
How about that, huh?
It's almost like EU politics is arbitrary and about whatever signals the most virtue.
Hungary of course is also eeeevil because they don't want to be overrun by culturally incompatible immigrants. I'm sure that has nothing to do with sticking it to them.
...I think Jerome Bixby, the science fiction author of "It's a GOOD life," the story of the evil little boy with god-like powers, made into memorable Twilight Zone segments twice.
Maybe not the association you should be aiming for, unless you want to be wished into the cornfield...
Makes me think of Bill Bixby, AKA TV's The Incredible Hulk.
Just don't make him angry... you wouldn't like him when he's angry...
This all starts from the "every zygote is sacred" mentality -- when you prevent abortion, someone has to pay for all the costs of supporting the resulting child. The more children, the more jobs are needed. That pushes more people to the bottom wages and increases living costs as more have to share.
These decisions are causing future problems -- and guess what? The future is now. It has been for many years.
Who is preventing abortions in America? Sure there are heated debates, but where is abortion banned in America? And for many years?
Just asking for a friend.
Good question.
In fact, abortion was legalized by fiat in the early 70s... shot up in numbers through the 70s and 80s.
If his theory was right we should be in homeless-free utopia by now.
This all starts from the "every zygote is sacred" mentality -- when you prevent abortion, someone has to pay for all the costs of supporting the resulting child. The more children, the more jobs are needed. That pushes more people to the bottom wages and increases living costs as more have to share.
These decisions are causing future problems -- and guess what? The future is now. It has been for many years.
When people have true control over their reproductive rights, fewer children are brought into society and those competitive costs decrease... which means fewer homeless people.
Anon because some religious cultists have attacked clinics and doctors in the past for simply helping people. Don't get me started on the fuckery that is religion and it's incredibly harmful effects on society.
You do realize that when abortion was mostly illegal and quite rare, that we didn't have this vast homeless problem.
Someone's religious beliefs are involved here, but they ain't ours...
This all starts from the "every zygote is sacred" mentality -- when you prevent abortion, someone has to pay for all the costs of supporting the resulting child. The more children, the more jobs are needed. That pushes more people to the bottom wages and increases living costs as more have to share.
Bizarre.
So these are humans, but it's OK to kill them when they are babies? That's the real problem, that we didn't do that?
Meanwhile, your party is importing people as fast as they possibly can, because future votes. But rather than stop that, you'd rather kill babies so they won't grow up and compete for jobs?
If you say "pen" in a sentence referring to a pig, sheep etc. then we naturally tend to assume pen=small field. There is no reason that an AI cannot learn that through better pattern recognition i.e. more training with better algorithms.
That's just an assertion. How do you know there is no reason? We don't even know how the human brain does it.
The compsci department round the corner has colleagues working on text and speech recognition and I'm sure this type of thing is something they are dealing with and I doubt Google translate is that close to state-of-the-art.
Not so sure about that. Now that consumer text and speech recognition is on the server, I have no reason to think that super lucrative commercial applications of text and speech recognition (like getting people to embrace your ad and tracking behemoth) are going to be half arsed.
Slashdot Mirror
... tell me where in this brain to cut next.
The contrast between the soothing voice and the sinister behavior was the most frightening thing about the movie.
It always seems to be 12 years off ...
Well, hopefully all the pieces will be there and it will be affordable for most by then. We're getting there.
I've dreamed of electric vehicles since I was a kid; nothing against them. I do have something against commissars ordering me into one though.
Looks like they'll in reality eventually become pervasive by actually being better, not truly by fiat, which is good. 12 years from now they'll either be actually affordable and have all the pieces in place, or else the deadline will get moved out again.
Only in the US. Here in Spain, Prime Video has basically only old crap no one else wanted, and Amazon Originals.
Ah, but that's my secret, I like the "old crap no one else wanted".
WSJ:
My options are preposterously good—this is the Golden Age of Television, after all.
By what insane standard?
I haven't found Amazon Prime Video to be "very limited". There's a vast catalog, from every genre imaginable, more than I could ever watch.
Now sure, if you absolutely must have {something that Prime doesn't have}, then you'll need to add something else. And that's your choice.
But "doesn't have everything on earth" != "very limited"
The article is unclear on what it means by "Windows as a service", and also on how the problems described would relate to that.
Are Windows 10 home users paying via subscription or something? That's what I would think of as "Windows as a service".
There have always been Windows activation issues, auto-update issues, etc.
So - yes, Windows bad, etc. But because "Windows as a service"? If anything, the article itself sort of implies that business customers (who often/usually are effectively "Windows as a service") have it better (comparatively, anyway) than Windows home users.
Or he could just license his voice - his past voice most likely - to be used by an AI voiceover agent.
I'm all for security, but this is getting almost comically fine grained.
Phone companies collaborating with sleazy online marketers to add charges to their customers' phone bills without their explicit consent, and the solution is to get sporadic and intrusive warnings about impending transactions from an advertising company.
What is comical about that?
That someone is building defenses against it into a browser?
Defense that "detects that there is insufficient mobile subscription information available to the user"?
Sure, anything could be useful, but it's not as though Chrome tries to detect if the web page gives me insufficient information before I enter a credit card, for example.
I'm all for security, but this is getting almost comically fine grained.
However, the amount of power from fossil fuels was still greater over the quarter, at about 40% of electricity generation compared with 28% for renewable sources. In total, 57% of electricity generation was low carbon over the period, produced either by renewables or nuclear power stations.
So by "surpasses" you mean "didn't surpass"?
Even just 50 years ago, the concept was one of if someone wanted to obtain such information, they would have to really want/need it and commit themselves to it.... they would have to perhaps get in a vehicle, travel to some records place or courthouse, fill out forms, and wait a long time to then retrieve information that would be in non-machine format (paper with no OCR), and often pay some type of processing and location and duplication fees.
Depends on the information.
Your house and how much you paid for it, and of course, who you are, were public then, and well before too. I think even printed it in newspapers.
It was a kind of funky backup to deeds ... the transaction was literally public, so that it was much harder for someone to cry foul later.
I think it's still done that way?
I'm in Canada. We have universal healthcare and we FORBID the private sector from operating a competing health care system.
Would this kind of situation be forbidden by the EU?
How about that, huh?
It's almost like EU politics is arbitrary and about whatever signals the most virtue.
Hungary of course is also eeeevil because they don't want to be overrun by culturally incompatible immigrants. I'm sure that has nothing to do with sticking it to them.
Sort of an Ender's Game ...
You are way out of line!
...I think Jerome Bixby, the science fiction author of "It's a GOOD life," the story of the evil little boy with god-like powers, made into memorable Twilight Zone segments twice.
Maybe not the association you should be aiming for, unless you want to be wished into the cornfield...
Makes me think of Bill Bixby, AKA TV's The Incredible Hulk.
Just don't make him angry ... you wouldn't like him when he's angry ...
"I only do eyes!"
This all starts from the "every zygote is sacred" mentality -- when you prevent abortion, someone has to pay for all the costs of supporting the resulting child. The more children, the more jobs are needed. That pushes more people to the bottom wages and increases living costs as more have to share. These decisions are causing future problems -- and guess what? The future is now. It has been for many years.
Who is preventing abortions in America? Sure there are heated debates, but where is abortion banned in America? And for many years?
Just asking for a friend.
Good question.
In fact, abortion was legalized by fiat in the early 70s ... shot up in numbers through the 70s and 80s.
If his theory was right we should be in homeless-free utopia by now.
This all starts from the "every zygote is sacred" mentality -- when you prevent abortion, someone has to pay for all the costs of supporting the resulting child. The more children, the more jobs are needed. That pushes more people to the bottom wages and increases living costs as more have to share. These decisions are causing future problems -- and guess what? The future is now. It has been for many years. When people have true control over their reproductive rights, fewer children are brought into society and those competitive costs decrease... which means fewer homeless people. Anon because some religious cultists have attacked clinics and doctors in the past for simply helping people. Don't get me started on the fuckery that is religion and it's incredibly harmful effects on society.
You do realize that when abortion was mostly illegal and quite rare, that we didn't have this vast homeless problem.
Someone's religious beliefs are involved here, but they ain't ours ...
This all starts from the "every zygote is sacred" mentality -- when you prevent abortion, someone has to pay for all the costs of supporting the resulting child. The more children, the more jobs are needed. That pushes more people to the bottom wages and increases living costs as more have to share.
Bizarre.
So these are humans, but it's OK to kill them when they are babies? That's the real problem, that we didn't do that?
Meanwhile, your party is importing people as fast as they possibly can, because future votes. But rather than stop that, you'd rather kill babies so they won't grow up and compete for jobs?
WTH?
I wouldn't either, even were I pure as the driven snow.
I have no love for Zuck or FB, but it's hard to see this as anything but a dog and pony show, or a kangaroo court.
There's no benefit to him, and plenty of potential downside. Why would he show up?
If you say "pen" in a sentence referring to a pig, sheep etc. then we naturally tend to assume pen=small field. There is no reason that an AI cannot learn that through better pattern recognition i.e. more training with better algorithms.
That's just an assertion. How do you know there is no reason? We don't even know how the human brain does it.
The compsci department round the corner has colleagues working on text and speech recognition and I'm sure this type of thing is something they are dealing with and I doubt Google translate is that close to state-of-the-art.
Not so sure about that. Now that consumer text and speech recognition is on the server, I have no reason to think that super lucrative commercial applications of text and speech recognition (like getting people to embrace your ad and tracking behemoth) are going to be half arsed.
With friends like that, who need enemies?
. . . they're probably not the kind of person that should be voting anyway.
“I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the telephone directory,” he said, “than by the Harvard University faculty.”
-William F. Buckley
The experience of watching 1,2,3,1,2 would not be at all the same as watching 1,2,3 ; 2,3,1 ; and 3,1,2
Ah, but can you prove it?
No, I can no more prove my axioms than the problem can do so (the problem itself just assumes that they are the same) :)