If I had an Android-powered eyetap device, it might make sense. But who wants to look through their phone as they walk around? We already refer to people who walk around while looking at their phones as zombies, now they're going to have to adopt the classic arms-forward stance in the bargain?
Where this would actually be useful would be in vehicles with a HUD. But AFAIK, there are no cars with a full-window HUD, they can only project into a small area. Some of them are configurable, but none are configurable to the full windscreen, that I know of anyway.
Are there any aftermarket full-windscreen HUDs? There are obvious reasons why that would be hazardous, of course. Perhaps the display itself should refuse to cover more than 10% of the windscreen with graphics at once, or similar.
It's a great idea so long as they still permit compostables. Compostable plastics are produced from renewable sources, so they even have the potential to be carbon-neutral. They do have to be tested to make sure they only break down into harmless compounds, though. We should be doing this everywhere.
that's how sponsored malware happens. Oh this one was compiled by google do you know it has the google search bar built in regardless of how annoying that is.
Nice FUD you've got there. Google doesn't need to build the search bar into your app, because they already have it built into their OS. If anything, the fear should be that they would include telemetry, but it would make more sense to build that into their OS, too. They could already be recording your activity and sending it home if they wanted to, but then they would probably get caught, so even if they want to they probably won't do that.
What makes Space Nutters think that these things are possible? Too much scifi and not enough actual knowledge.
Yeah, nothing that was imagined in science fictionever became reality! Here's a nickel, kid, buy a better argument. Try getting a valid one, you'll be less boring.
It definitely makes more sense to mine for resources on asteroids in space rather than mine them on Earth.
I can't tell if you're being facetious or not, here... today we can't even do it, but could we have been doing it by now if we didn't just rest on our laurels after the space race? Yes or no, figuring it out has to be our next priority if we hope to continue capitalistic expansion without destroying our biosphere. It seems more likely at this point than humanity learning to live within its means here on Earth.
" The jobs are different jobs but there are more of them in the end. Some people do have trouble with the changes but the economic gains by people at all levels of the economy at the end are indisputable."
I agree with the rest of your comment, but I think crystal balls are cloudy in this area. The computers are now becoming capable of performing service jobs, which is where people went when automation reduced manufacturing jobs. As well, the workers' share of profits has been declining for decades, and wages aren't keeping up with inflation, so that final point is extremely disputable.
What exactly do the humans do when robots do the service jobs?
"I though that DT was above all that: he made his own buzzwords, instead of repeating somebody else's."
Who told you that? Lock her up, drain the swamp, and build a wall were all someone else's ideas. The only trumpism which was actually his idea was bigly.
Mars is the best candidate for terraforming, but we may well need resources from asteroids to do it, so we should do both things. It does perhaps make sense to put more effort into asteroids, though, because we could use those resources here on Earth, too.
Technology has moved quite a bit in a hundred years. Nothing musk has done is a new idea, he's just been more timely than others. That is valuable, however. He's still a little early on some things, but he seems to be parking those things in a fairly timely fashion.
"Wait, it's not allowed to bring toddlers/children into bars in the US?"
That's correct. You can bring them into a restaurant with a liquor license, but not into a bar (even with food). The distinction is, I believe, whether their income is dominated by food or alcohol. Not profit, of course, since alcohol has big margins.
I'm sure this idea has been novelized already: Earth is being conquered by a lone interstellar AI. Distances make sending complex life between stars impractical, but a machine is more feasible. Berserker seeds, not berserkers. Only Earth's tech won't support more AIs, so it has to guide us...
I assumed they were talking about the early days of iOS, when everything was supposed to run in a browser. Ironically, this might actually work today, because the browser now has more functionality, but at the time it was totally ridiculous.
A 1956 Corvette also handles like a box of rocks by modern standards. Pretty, though. In the last decade, shitboxen like Corollas have caught up even to the cars of the eighties.
If you want a dumb car, get an eighties diesel Mercedes, or build a kit car. Nothing else really makes sense. If you power your kit car with a pre-1970s engine, you can get away without any computers at all. Of course, unless you use a diesel, you'll be throwing away fuel, due to the nature of non-computerized tuning. Even with mechanical fuel injection. Diesels run lean all the time, gassers don't.
"This may be a genuine problem. Or it may not. There is no way for the average person to know."
Who gives a shit what the average person thinks? I only want to know what experts think. I don't call a burger flipper to fix plumbing.
"Are insects declining? Sure, along with all other animal species that share our habitat."
Oh, everything is suffering? That's all right then. I mean, it's actually wholly false, the coyotes, trash pandas, rats, cockroaches, and several other species have actually flourished while in contact with humans, but let's not let facts get in the way of an impassioned argument, right?
" I'll bet that good, natural grazing land has more biodiversity than a soy field."
You'd be right, but meat eaters are no better, because most cattle is not on natural grazing land.
Too bad that's not how it works. So far the only attempts to build a controlled biosphere which will support humans have failed for a combination of technical and personal reasons. And the cockroaches will likely persist in spite of any efforts to the contrary, because they are so very resilient. Mosquitoes might go eventually, but you will probably go first.
NIH applies to cellular equipment or nuclear weapons. This is "not controlled here". There's no question about whether the US will exercise control over GPS, because we know the answer to be yes.
"30 mpg? That comes with extremely steep penalties for being a gas guzzler over here in Europe."
It's from 1982, dude. The newest it could have been from its model and my description would have been 1985. That means it's coming up quickly on being four times as old as the average vehicle in the US fleet. vehicles consume about a third of their lifetime energy consumption in production. And I have so far resisted commuting, which I can hopefully carry forwards. And it's a full size car with room for both my head and my legs even though I'm two meters tall, and it's got crumple zones and a fully high strength steel unibody - W126 does very well in crashes.
But like I said, even though it has a stunningly reliable engine, and the transmission is still soldiering on (it's even one of if not the first automatics to let you hold the vehicle on a step hill with the throttle without potentially damaging your slush box, AND you can pull start through it) I'd rather have an ev.
Correct. But did an app store, which I define as an interactive package manager for optionally proprietary, optionally commercial, downloadable applications on residential computing devices, predate the web?
Not to my knowledge, although one of the corporate BBSes (like Prodigy or GEnie) might have had some of that kind of functionality, and I could be unaware of it. But what does any of this have to do with whether it makes sense to run applications on one's computer?
The level of scrutiny you want would lead to no third party apps ever being published.
It would probably require that full sources be sent to the app store vendor, and the software compiled by them for distribution. You know, like with an Ubuntu PPA. Of course, you then have to trust the vendor not to rip off your sources — but if you don't trust Google, you're already not selling through their app store, right?
One way to handle that trust issue would be to offer verification as an optional feature, with the caveat that users would be able to search for only verified apps. Since Android users are not forced to install only apps from the app store, those who would be unwilling to download non-source-verified apps from the Play Store could still get apps from popular, trusted vendors such as Autodesk or [amusingly] Adobe, and sideload them. Developers who didn't want to provide sources to Google could choose between competing with source-verified apps in the Google Play Store, and competing with the Play Store itself by hosting the apps on their own sites.
"There has been no security breach at OkCupid," said Natalie Sawyer, a spokesperson for OkCupid. "All websites constantly experience account takeover attempts. There has been no increase in account takeovers on OkCupid."
It's entirely possible that there has been no breach of passwords, and that they just screwed up session management. There's been many a security failure in a website that permitted an attacker to guess a session ID, and railroad someone's account that way. If you combine that with a feature (or bug) which permits changing the email address without confirmation, you could easily have this kind of security failure without exposing any login credentials.
Play Protect is for malware which is software that attempts to compromise the system. How the fuck is what amounts to an anti-virus scanner supposed to detect an application that doesn't work as advertised? Was Google (or Apple) supposed to do a code audit?
According to Google's page on Play Protect, "All Android apps undergo rigorous security testing before appearing in the Google Play Store. We vet every app and developer in Google Play, and suspend those who violate our policies. Then, Play Protect scans billions of apps daily to make sure everything remains spot on. That way, no matter where you download an app from, you know itâ(TM)s been checked by Google Play Protect." And also:
How can I protect my device from harmful apps?
First, make sure youâ(TM)re downloading all apps from trusted sources like the Google Play Store.
Google claims they do precisely what you say they cannot do. They need to make up their mind whether they do "rigorous security testing" or not, and whether google play protect actually protects users from malware or not. From what I can tell, they do not, and it does not, but they certainly claim that it does, and that it does.
My father took me into the bar, in the 80s, you insensitive clod! My brothers had to wait in the car and then sometimes drive him home, too, in the 70s.
Which is why Musk often sleeps at the factory for days - weeks - on end to make sure things happen. Delegation at its finest, right?
On one hand, that probably is a bad idea. On the other hand, Tesla buyers love it. They see it as a sign of commitment, not that he should be committed.
Slashdot Mirror
If I had an Android-powered eyetap device, it might make sense. But who wants to look through their phone as they walk around? We already refer to people who walk around while looking at their phones as zombies, now they're going to have to adopt the classic arms-forward stance in the bargain?
Where this would actually be useful would be in vehicles with a HUD. But AFAIK, there are no cars with a full-window HUD, they can only project into a small area. Some of them are configurable, but none are configurable to the full windscreen, that I know of anyway.
Are there any aftermarket full-windscreen HUDs? There are obvious reasons why that would be hazardous, of course. Perhaps the display itself should refuse to cover more than 10% of the windscreen with graphics at once, or similar.
It's a great idea so long as they still permit compostables. Compostable plastics are produced from renewable sources, so they even have the potential to be carbon-neutral. They do have to be tested to make sure they only break down into harmless compounds, though. We should be doing this everywhere.
that's how sponsored malware happens. Oh this one was compiled by google do you know it has the google search bar built in regardless of how annoying that is.
Nice FUD you've got there. Google doesn't need to build the search bar into your app, because they already have it built into their OS. If anything, the fear should be that they would include telemetry, but it would make more sense to build that into their OS, too. They could already be recording your activity and sending it home if they wanted to, but then they would probably get caught, so even if they want to they probably won't do that.
What makes Space Nutters think that these things are possible? Too much scifi and not enough actual knowledge.
Yeah, nothing that was imagined in science fiction ever became reality! Here's a nickel, kid, buy a better argument. Try getting a valid one, you'll be less boring.
It definitely makes more sense to mine for resources on asteroids in space rather than mine them on Earth.
I can't tell if you're being facetious or not, here... today we can't even do it, but could we have been doing it by now if we didn't just rest on our laurels after the space race? Yes or no, figuring it out has to be our next priority if we hope to continue capitalistic expansion without destroying our biosphere. It seems more likely at this point than humanity learning to live within its means here on Earth.
" The jobs are different jobs but there are more of them in the end. Some people do have trouble with the changes but the economic gains by people at all levels of the economy at the end are indisputable."
I agree with the rest of your comment, but I think crystal balls are cloudy in this area. The computers are now becoming capable of performing service jobs, which is where people went when automation reduced manufacturing jobs. As well, the workers' share of profits has been declining for decades, and wages aren't keeping up with inflation, so that final point is extremely disputable.
What exactly do the humans do when robots do the service jobs?
"I though that DT was above all that: he made his own buzzwords, instead of repeating somebody else's."
Who told you that? Lock her up, drain the swamp, and build a wall were all someone else's ideas. The only trumpism which was actually his idea was bigly.
Mars is the best candidate for terraforming, but we may well need resources from asteroids to do it, so we should do both things. It does perhaps make sense to put more effort into asteroids, though, because we could use those resources here on Earth, too.
User script? User CSS?
Technology has moved quite a bit in a hundred years. Nothing musk has done is a new idea, he's just been more timely than others. That is valuable, however. He's still a little early on some things, but he seems to be parking those things in a fairly timely fashion.
Timing isn't everything, but it is critical.
"Wait, it's not allowed to bring toddlers/children into bars in the US?"
That's correct. You can bring them into a restaurant with a liquor license, but not into a bar (even with food). The distinction is, I believe, whether their income is dominated by food or alcohol. Not profit, of course, since alcohol has big margins.
I'm sure this idea has been novelized already: Earth is being conquered by a lone interstellar AI. Distances make sending complex life between stars impractical, but a machine is more feasible. Berserker seeds, not berserkers. Only Earth's tech won't support more AIs, so it has to guide us...
I assumed they were talking about the early days of iOS, when everything was supposed to run in a browser. Ironically, this might actually work today, because the browser now has more functionality, but at the time it was totally ridiculous.
A 1956 Corvette also handles like a box of rocks by modern standards. Pretty, though. In the last decade, shitboxen like Corollas have caught up even to the cars of the eighties.
If you want a dumb car, get an eighties diesel Mercedes, or build a kit car. Nothing else really makes sense. If you power your kit car with a pre-1970s engine, you can get away without any computers at all. Of course, unless you use a diesel, you'll be throwing away fuel, due to the nature of non-computerized tuning. Even with mechanical fuel injection. Diesels run lean all the time, gassers don't.
"This may be a genuine problem. Or it may not. There is no way for the average person to know."
Who gives a shit what the average person thinks? I only want to know what experts think. I don't call a burger flipper to fix plumbing.
"Are insects declining? Sure, along with all other animal species that share our habitat."
Oh, everything is suffering? That's all right then. I mean, it's actually wholly false, the coyotes, trash pandas, rats, cockroaches, and several other species have actually flourished while in contact with humans, but let's not let facts get in the way of an impassioned argument, right?
" I'll bet that good, natural grazing land has more biodiversity than a soy field."
You'd be right, but meat eaters are no better, because most cattle is not on natural grazing land.
Too bad that's not how it works. So far the only attempts to build a controlled biosphere which will support humans have failed for a combination of technical and personal reasons. And the cockroaches will likely persist in spite of any efforts to the contrary, because they are so very resilient. Mosquitoes might go eventually, but you will probably go first.
NIH applies to cellular equipment or nuclear weapons. This is "not controlled here". There's no question about whether the US will exercise control over GPS, because we know the answer to be yes.
"30 mpg? That comes with extremely steep penalties for being a gas guzzler over here in Europe."
It's from 1982, dude. The newest it could have been from its model and my description would have been 1985. That means it's coming up quickly on being four times as old as the average vehicle in the US fleet. vehicles consume about a third of their lifetime energy consumption in production. And I have so far resisted commuting, which I can hopefully carry forwards. And it's a full size car with room for both my head and my legs even though I'm two meters tall, and it's got crumple zones and a fully high strength steel unibody - W126 does very well in crashes.
But like I said, even though it has a stunningly reliable engine, and the transmission is still soldiering on (it's even one of if not the first automatics to let you hold the vehicle on a step hill with the throttle without potentially damaging your slush box, AND you can pull start through it) I'd rather have an ev.
I'm not the one pretending. Google is. They're the ones saying their vetting process keeps users safe.
Correct. But did an app store, which I define as an interactive package manager for optionally proprietary, optionally commercial, downloadable applications on residential computing devices, predate the web?
Not to my knowledge, although one of the corporate BBSes (like Prodigy or GEnie) might have had some of that kind of functionality, and I could be unaware of it. But what does any of this have to do with whether it makes sense to run applications on one's computer?
The level of scrutiny you want would lead to no third party apps ever being published.
It would probably require that full sources be sent to the app store vendor, and the software compiled by them for distribution. You know, like with an Ubuntu PPA. Of course, you then have to trust the vendor not to rip off your sources — but if you don't trust Google, you're already not selling through their app store, right?
One way to handle that trust issue would be to offer verification as an optional feature, with the caveat that users would be able to search for only verified apps. Since Android users are not forced to install only apps from the app store, those who would be unwilling to download non-source-verified apps from the Play Store could still get apps from popular, trusted vendors such as Autodesk or [amusingly] Adobe, and sideload them. Developers who didn't want to provide sources to Google could choose between competing with source-verified apps in the Google Play Store, and competing with the Play Store itself by hosting the apps on their own sites.
It's entirely possible that there has been no breach of passwords, and that they just screwed up session management. There's been many a security failure in a website that permitted an attacker to guess a session ID, and railroad someone's account that way. If you combine that with a feature (or bug) which permits changing the email address without confirmation, you could easily have this kind of security failure without exposing any login credentials.
Play Protect is for malware which is software that attempts to compromise the system. How the fuck is what amounts to an anti-virus scanner supposed to detect an application that doesn't work as advertised? Was Google (or Apple) supposed to do a code audit?
According to Google's page on Play Protect, "All Android apps undergo rigorous security testing before appearing in the Google Play Store. We vet every app and developer in Google Play, and suspend those who violate our policies. Then, Play Protect scans billions of apps daily to make sure everything remains spot on. That way, no matter where you download an app from, you know itâ(TM)s been checked by Google Play Protect." And also:
Google claims they do precisely what you say they cannot do. They need to make up their mind whether they do "rigorous security testing" or not, and whether google play protect actually protects users from malware or not. From what I can tell, they do not, and it does not, but they certainly claim that it does, and that it does.
While in the Bar... a 70's child :)
My father took me into the bar, in the 80s, you insensitive clod! My brothers had to wait in the car and then sometimes drive him home, too, in the 70s.
Which is why Musk often sleeps at the factory for days - weeks - on end to make sure things happen. Delegation at its finest, right?
On one hand, that probably is a bad idea. On the other hand, Tesla buyers love it. They see it as a sign of commitment, not that he should be committed.