Doesn't qualify as "invention". And men, ever since they were barely more than monkeys, got up in the morning and went away from their opposite sex pair, returning only near sunset.
No, it doesn't. Your approach is simplistic borderlining retarded, and I don't try to be offensive (but I might succeed, that's entirely your opinion). There's a gazillion differences between past "disruptive" inventions and smartphones.
1. Past inventions were not close to you everywhere. Books arguably could have been, but they were never considered disruptive. 2. Past inventions were very far from having the level of interactivity smartphones have. 3. Past inventions were not actively begging for your attention (aka notifications). 4. Past inventions wouldn't actively punish you if you would stop interacting with them, and this is a BIG issue with smartphones, or rather the games residing on them. Most games do punish you if you don't play them, and that's plain evil. "Play every day or you'd lose this bonus", "Your villagers miss you", "Planet X will soon start a rebellion because you haven't logged in today", etc. 5. Past inventions weren't all-in-one replacements for a multitude of activities. You couldn't interact with your neighbor Jack through TV, radio or a book. Now you can, through your smartphone.
There you go, some of the many reasons that make smartphones a lot more dangerous to people's development than past inventions.
Those gamers can do very well with a GTX 1070. Sadly Vega doesn't fit anywhere - in theory. In practice, if it's bad at mining, gamers might stand a chance of buying a gaming card, because GTX 1070 is rarer than hair on my wife's pussy.
1. Company A used blanket monitoring software on its employees' machines; 2. Employee was caught by above-mentioned software working for another company while at work at company A; 3. Employee argues proof gathered was gathered illegally. 4. Court agrees with employee.
Outcome might have been differently if company A would only have monitored suspected employees instead of all of them.
That's one reason out of many. Here's why people call, in a nutshell: - It's less of a hassle to call and be helped by a human person than dig through umpteen web pages, each giving you a different solution which doesn't work. - Cultural reasons: when even your batch of toilet paper has a helpdesk toll-free phone number, you become educated to call every time you have an issue. - Laziness: calling helpdesk makes someone else do the work for you in fixing whatever problem you have. - Focus: you're less likely to be disturbed by others while on a call than while you search the web for a solution. - Speed: if you want your issue to go away quickly, calling is a much faster method than creating a ticket and having to wait an unknown amount of time for a response.
The only thing that comes close to calling (and I actually prefer it) is live chat.
And here's a bunch of stuff companies do wrong in their attempts to deflect calls: - Bad knowledge management search solution: many large companies are too proud to use an established search solution (such as customized google search) or are in direct competition with another company which offers such a solution, so they implement their own shitty knowledge management. I can't understand, for the life of me, why Wikimedia isn't used more often - it's great as a knowledge management solution. - They make you wait and go through hoops to reach an agent, instead of offering support tiers, such as level zero (free but you wait a lot) versus level 1 (call this number and pay X cents a minute). - They race to the bottom in terms of cost, ending up with agents at the bottom range of intelligence who can barely speak $LANGUAGE and can only follow a script, basically bots with a human brain (last part being debatable but legally correct) - this doesn't deflect calls, it actually frustrates customers and increases the amount of calls, because people would just end the call and retry hoping to get that 1-in-10 agent who isn't braindead. - (derived from the above) lack of understanding of the term "culture clash": same result as above.
I usually don't answer to ACs but you have put enough effort to warrant a reply. So here it goes... I tried to be objective. GP wasn't objective. Furthermore, having an idea doesn't mandate being able to implement it. It only requires being able to further develop it (the idea) into something clear enough and granular enough to be fully implemented. Your examples support both your point of view as well as mine: - Some comedians don't write their own texts, or only do so partially. Actors usually don't write their own scripts, that doesn't make them less actors. - Writers usually seek for (and obtain) huge amounts of help from experts in various fields which offer them information required to develop their ideas into something that makes sense. Frank Herbert spent five years researching for the original series of Dune, for example. The point here is that the idea itself might mean close to nothing, but further developing it requires external resources and help from others. A bad writer with a good idea could pair with someone who can write very well but lacks imagination. - Screen plays, well there you got everything wrong, sadly. There are countless bad movies out there based on great ideas.
The field where the difference between who has the idea and who develops it is most prevalent is gaming. Take a look at the game designer role (http://creativeskillset.org/job_roles/331_game_designer) - which is rather elastic in definition.
But yes, if the "idea person" is the one you define, then indeed they don't qualify. I guess my definition of "idea person" is different from your definition - and that is why we disagree.
"Ideas people" are not special at all. All the useable ideas they come up with is stuff that devs are perfectly capable of coming up with themselves.
This holds the same amount of truth as its sister-paragraph below:
"developers" are not special at all. All the useable code they come up with is stuff that ideas people are perfectly capable of coming up with themselves.
And that amount of truth is "partially correct".
Ideas people can learn to code, just like developers can become ideas people. Ideas are easy to conceive, just like lines of code. The issue becomes much more complex when you start binning the statements above.
There are people with great, elaborate ideas, which developers can't even start dreaming about matching. Just as well, there are developers which can code like gods but their ideas stink worse than a 3-day old roadkill in Alabama.
Belittling people in one category just because you are in the other is never a "good idea" - pun intended.
I believe the article, for what it's worth, was talking about default behavior for apps, and furthermore about the relevance of said push notifications. Black or white approach works in some but not all cases. The gray range in between depends on the app itself.
Some apps have good granular control on which notifications they should push, others don't. You're left with the black or white approach which sucks.
My personal pet peeve are shopping-related apps and their notifications. For example, recently I've been looking for an air conditioning unit, and a certain online shop sent me targeted pushes of air conditioning units offers and news. All good, I was actually satisfied with that behavior, and at some point I decided to buy one. After buying one through that very same online shop, through their app, I still keep receiving push notifications on Air Conditioning units, although I definitely don't need another one. At the very least they should realize the deal was done or allow me to turn off that specific notification type.
Genetic differences, I'd guess. A couple years ago I was talking to a sports medic, he said they have different charts and thresholds for different races because of genetic differences. i believe the proper word is phenotype? Genotype? Something-something.
It's a beast of a PC. i7 6800K Broadwell overclocked to 4.3 GHz, a GTX 1080, watercooling loop with 2x D5 pumps in series and 2x 360mm 60mm thickness EK-XE360 radiators, with the assortment of fans, HDDs, SSDs and whatnot (Aquaero, Farbwerk, etc). 170W includes other hardware such as router, external HDD and the power charge tower which is used to charge family's phones, tablets, etc. But those usually take around 15-20W of power.
Monitors' power draw is calculated separately. About 30W each but when I am not using the PC directly I turn them off.
And by "idle" I mean when I am not actively using it for gaming or rendering or streaming or encoding. It still does much shit, it has a VM which holds a DB I use for a project, a TS server, a FTP server, etc. The idea is that it does stuff all the time.
ETH mining only uses 58% GPU power on my machine, with no underclocking or undervolting. The bottleneck is in the memory controller, for some reason Dagger-Hashimoto algorithm is not efficient on 1080. Some say it's the GDDR5X architecture, however on the 1080 Ti it works very well.
Yes, the 1070 goes all the way to the maximum, and has a much better hashrate. The 1080 does 20-21 Mhashes, up to 25 with overclocked memory.
Slashdot Mirror
That is so true.
As of late, Intel has been abusing the "up to" gimmick like there's no tomorrow.
Surely people didn't think their designers were just sitting on their hands while they were milking the the current lines?
I'll take that bet.
After all, I've got Nokia, Blackberry, 3dfx, Voodoo, Via to back me up... (to name a few)
Doesn't qualify as "invention". And men, ever since they were barely more than monkeys, got up in the morning and went away from their opposite sex pair, returning only near sunset.
Look i really hate smart phones, don't have one, etc.. but this is what every generation says. they said it about video games in the 80s too.
Yeah but the '80 games were not in your pocket all the time, sending you notifications every 5 minutes.
No, it doesn't.
Your approach is simplistic borderlining retarded, and I don't try to be offensive (but I might succeed, that's entirely your opinion).
There's a gazillion differences between past "disruptive" inventions and smartphones.
1. Past inventions were not close to you everywhere. Books arguably could have been, but they were never considered disruptive.
2. Past inventions were very far from having the level of interactivity smartphones have.
3. Past inventions were not actively begging for your attention (aka notifications).
4. Past inventions wouldn't actively punish you if you would stop interacting with them, and this is a BIG issue with smartphones, or rather the games residing on them. Most games do punish you if you don't play them, and that's plain evil. "Play every day or you'd lose this bonus", "Your villagers miss you", "Planet X will soon start a rebellion because you haven't logged in today", etc.
5. Past inventions weren't all-in-one replacements for a multitude of activities. You couldn't interact with your neighbor Jack through TV, radio or a book. Now you can, through your smartphone.
There you go, some of the many reasons that make smartphones a lot more dangerous to people's development than past inventions.
Yo! Where?
please mod this up... I already replied to this thread.
Those gamers can do very well with a GTX 1070.
Sadly Vega doesn't fit anywhere - in theory. In practice, if it's bad at mining, gamers might stand a chance of buying a gaming card, because GTX 1070 is rarer than hair on my wife's pussy.
The one with most Indians.
Outcome might have been *different.
1. Company A used blanket monitoring software on its employees' machines;
2. Employee was caught by above-mentioned software working for another company while at work at company A;
3. Employee argues proof gathered was gathered illegally.
4. Court agrees with employee.
Outcome might have been differently if company A would only have monitored suspected employees instead of all of them.
That's one reason out of many.
Here's why people call, in a nutshell:
- It's less of a hassle to call and be helped by a human person than dig through umpteen web pages, each giving you a different solution which doesn't work.
- Cultural reasons: when even your batch of toilet paper has a helpdesk toll-free phone number, you become educated to call every time you have an issue.
- Laziness: calling helpdesk makes someone else do the work for you in fixing whatever problem you have.
- Focus: you're less likely to be disturbed by others while on a call than while you search the web for a solution.
- Speed: if you want your issue to go away quickly, calling is a much faster method than creating a ticket and having to wait an unknown amount of time for a response.
The only thing that comes close to calling (and I actually prefer it) is live chat.
And here's a bunch of stuff companies do wrong in their attempts to deflect calls:
- Bad knowledge management search solution: many large companies are too proud to use an established search solution (such as customized google search) or are in direct competition with another company which offers such a solution, so they implement their own shitty knowledge management. I can't understand, for the life of me, why Wikimedia isn't used more often - it's great as a knowledge management solution.
- They make you wait and go through hoops to reach an agent, instead of offering support tiers, such as level zero (free but you wait a lot) versus level 1 (call this number and pay X cents a minute).
- They race to the bottom in terms of cost, ending up with agents at the bottom range of intelligence who can barely speak $LANGUAGE and can only follow a script, basically bots with a human brain (last part being debatable but legally correct) - this doesn't deflect calls, it actually frustrates customers and increases the amount of calls, because people would just end the call and retry hoping to get that 1-in-10 agent who isn't braindead.
- (derived from the above) lack of understanding of the term "culture clash": same result as above.
I usually don't answer to ACs but you have put enough effort to warrant a reply.
So here it goes...
I tried to be objective. GP wasn't objective. Furthermore, having an idea doesn't mandate being able to implement it. It only requires being able to further develop it (the idea) into something clear enough and granular enough to be fully implemented. Your examples support both your point of view as well as mine:
- Some comedians don't write their own texts, or only do so partially. Actors usually don't write their own scripts, that doesn't make them less actors.
- Writers usually seek for (and obtain) huge amounts of help from experts in various fields which offer them information required to develop their ideas into something that makes sense. Frank Herbert spent five years researching for the original series of Dune, for example. The point here is that the idea itself might mean close to nothing, but further developing it requires external resources and help from others. A bad writer with a good idea could pair with someone who can write very well but lacks imagination.
- Screen plays, well there you got everything wrong, sadly. There are countless bad movies out there based on great ideas.
The field where the difference between who has the idea and who develops it is most prevalent is gaming. Take a look at the game designer role (http://creativeskillset.org/job_roles/331_game_designer) - which is rather elastic in definition.
But yes, if the "idea person" is the one you define, then indeed they don't qualify. I guess my definition of "idea person" is different from your definition - and that is why we disagree.
"Ideas people" are not special at all. All the useable ideas they come up with is stuff that devs are perfectly capable of coming up with themselves.
This holds the same amount of truth as its sister-paragraph below:
"developers" are not special at all. All the useable code they come up with is stuff that ideas people are perfectly capable of coming up with themselves.
And that amount of truth is "partially correct".
Ideas people can learn to code, just like developers can become ideas people. Ideas are easy to conceive, just like lines of code.
The issue becomes much more complex when you start binning the statements above.
There are people with great, elaborate ideas, which developers can't even start dreaming about matching. Just as well, there are developers which can code like gods but their ideas stink worse than a 3-day old roadkill in Alabama.
Belittling people in one category just because you are in the other is never a "good idea" - pun intended.
I believe the article, for what it's worth, was talking about default behavior for apps, and furthermore about the relevance of said push notifications.
Black or white approach works in some but not all cases. The gray range in between depends on the app itself.
Some apps have good granular control on which notifications they should push, others don't. You're left with the black or white approach which sucks.
My personal pet peeve are shopping-related apps and their notifications. For example, recently I've been looking for an air conditioning unit, and a certain online shop sent me targeted pushes of air conditioning units offers and news. All good, I was actually satisfied with that behavior, and at some point I decided to buy one. After buying one through that very same online shop, through their app, I still keep receiving push notifications on Air Conditioning units, although I definitely don't need another one. At the very least they should realize the deal was done or allow me to turn off that specific notification type.
Let's not get into the "I know more than you because I lived such times". :)
I'm Romanian. You would lose horribly
So... if I break into your bank account and transfer all the money into mine... it's all legal because the code allowed it?
Why do you confuse literacy with intelligence?
Also look up "functional illiteracy". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'm sure they meant "tickling bomb".
All dictators try keeping their people as stupid as possible.
Genetic differences, I'd guess.
A couple years ago I was talking to a sports medic, he said they have different charts and thresholds for different races because of genetic differences. i believe the proper word is phenotype? Genotype? Something-something.
Wait, that doesn't properly translate to the acronym "BeauHD".
It's a beast of a PC.
i7 6800K Broadwell overclocked to 4.3 GHz, a GTX 1080, watercooling loop with 2x D5 pumps in series and 2x 360mm 60mm thickness EK-XE360 radiators, with the assortment of fans, HDDs, SSDs and whatnot (Aquaero, Farbwerk, etc). 170W includes other hardware such as router, external HDD and the power charge tower which is used to charge family's phones, tablets, etc. But those usually take around 15-20W of power.
Monitors' power draw is calculated separately. About 30W each but when I am not using the PC directly I turn them off.
And by "idle" I mean when I am not actively using it for gaming or rendering or streaming or encoding. It still does much shit, it has a VM which holds a DB I use for a project, a TS server, a FTP server, etc. The idea is that it does stuff all the time.
ETH mining only uses 58% GPU power on my machine, with no underclocking or undervolting. The bottleneck is in the memory controller, for some reason Dagger-Hashimoto algorithm is not efficient on 1080. Some say it's the GDDR5X architecture, however on the 1080 Ti it works very well.
Yes, the 1070 goes all the way to the maximum, and has a much better hashrate. The 1080 does 20-21 Mhashes, up to 25 with overclocked memory.
FWIW my GTX 1080 uses 100-105W while mining ETH. The whole machine uses 260W instead of roughly 170W while idle.