I dug very briefly into the Vision Workbench tool and found code labeled (paraphrasing) "Property of US Government via NASA: All Right Reserved". They should do a basic sanity check for this before publishing something and claiming it's Open.
I can choose what corporations [...] I do business with (or not). I can't choose to do business with the government [...], they set the rules the corporations have to abide by -- and they have done so very poorly.
In theory, the People have the authority to choose people in the government who can set better rules for the corporations. In practice, only business special-interests have enough financial and media capital available to run campaigns for government who are to be elected.
Certain groups feel that the entire system is ill unless the broken election cycle can be fixed.
The last book I finished was A Game of Thrones (fantasy) about 3 weeks ago. The book I am currently reading is Games that Changed the Game (non-fiction football book).
as a slashdotter I'm confident you'd enjoy Anathem
This is the only Stephenson I've read. The ideas in the story are good, but he spent way too much time developing the plot. Plus, any story which makes a statement in the authors note that "This is another world and apple doesn't really mean apple" shouldn't then go invent stupid idiotic terms for man, woman, and cell phone. As a 400 page book, Anathem would have been great. At 900 pages it's too dry and overly-complicated for my tastes.
You can have fast, cheap, and quick if the scope is tiny. You can't have fast, cheap, and quick if the scope is meaty. Scope is the magical fourth factor when comparing the other sides of the triangle.
Something something Diamond is the en vogue chart for the popular engineer trades related to this. And guess what? I am not spending time on this post to go lookup a reference to the chart I'm talking about that's somewhere on Wikipedia. This would be out-of-scope for me. Maybe somebody else will add it in.
However, I have a hard time imaging that studying the writing of blog posts would warrant more than a semester, unless you were at the level of getting a PhD doing research into how the Internet is changing the conventions of writing.
For instance, relying on your audience to copyedit your misspellings in their heads and the shocking number of cases where such things don't even get noticed by your readers (i.e. imaging versus imagining).
Firefox for personal browsing. I can't see that changing any time soon. Chrome for HTML5.
I've been concurrently running both Firefox and Chrome for several weeks. Chrome is given one responsibility... manage my Google Account including E-mail and Calendar. Firefox gets everything else. I feel like this increases performance and enjoy having a dedicated "Google Account" window. Meanwhile... Firefox is happily managing 29 tabs in 4 different tab groups and has greatly simplified my workflow. Suffice it to say... having multiple non-Microsoft choices is pretty damned awesome.
Assuming the jurisdiction of this 'hack' is in the USA, what about donating stolen money to the IRS? Best case -- lower national debt. Worst case -- getting the attention of the government money collectors.
The Scrooges always say... if Warren Buffet thinks he should pay more to the IRS, why not just write the check? Well -- replacing "write a check" with "maintain inferior security of their monetary systems" works. Anonymous can pass along the money for Buffet and the Scrooges in kind!
Name a job that cannot be done by robots and software....one day your answer will be wrong.
Robots and software cannot sufficiently deal with malicious human actors that are smart enough to manipulate the programming of the robots and software. Give a human an in depth knowledge of an "automated system" and he will be able to subvert it. Sure -- robots that harvest potatoes, slaughter cows, process and transport the products to your local McDonalds, and cook value meals aren't important to subvert for non-malicious actors... but controlling the truly malicious actors requires and demands a human-in-the-loop.
So yeah... "dealing with malicious humans" is a job that robots and software cannot do by itself. Mind you... criminal is by its nature malicious, but malicious is not criminal when the intents are noble. Noble intents include, but are not limited to, disabling your invasive robotic and software controlled tracking systems. Red light cameras... fine. They serve a purpose. 1984-style telescreens... not going to happen. And the thought police (i.e. children spying on their parents) also a dream that will never be realized on a global scale.
One batch of "self-assembling" robot helicopters can assemble one building.
One batch of "resource aware" robot helicopters can assemble hundreds of buildings.
My country (USA) doesn't regulate bicycle bells, but my state (MA) regulates that a biker must make some sound when passing pedestrians on a path. I use a bell... a bell is the easiest way of making a sound. Lots of people just say, "On your left".
A button in a car to activate a tone in "dangerous pedestrian areas" seems appropriate. Having an "always on" sound doesn't make sense. I'm thinking parking lots and driveways are the odd-ball times when hybrid drivers are the most dangerous to pedestrians. If a pedestrians gets hit by a hybrid driving in the street I would have less sympathy for them since the burden of looking both ways should have been on them. So regulating the noise for hybrids in the "dangerous pedestrian areas" would be akin to regulating that people use their turn signal to make it safer for anybody who might need to know that a turn is about to take place.
So in addition to a "turning signal", it makes sense to give hybrids a "pedestrian signal" that should be active whenever there is an increased pedestrian risk.
If you really care about barriers to education, how about you lower your goddamn tuition
I'm going to make a counter-argument. I'm not sure it's true, but it may be plausible.
Maybe MIT educations were undervalued in 1980 and the jump from $12,000 to $50,000 means prices are currently reflecting reality. Or maybe educational materials (i.e. the equipment that outfits each classroom and lab) got more expensive -- it shouldn't be surprising that classrooms need new equipment more often than in previous decades because of the current rate of technological innovation.
Or maybe professors are currently better paid then they used to be and/or teaching fewer students. Or maybe the actual buildings used in the 1980s were smaller and cheaper. There weren't as many students thirty years ago so expenses would have generally been lower. Or maybe there were no buildings in the 1980s because the borrowing rate of money was horrendous at around 20% (compared to the 4 or 5% it is today). If you've visited recently, MIT has added 4 or 5 fairly world-class (i.e. expensive) new buildings in the last decade.
I think in general MIT gives rather high grants to many of their students because they have a rather large endowment that's generating lots and lots of money every year. A student with a $50,000 education and $30,000 in grants every year will end up with $90,000 in debt after 4 years - this is ignoring influence from parents who generally tend to give their children thousands per year for elite educations. A lot of money, but I don't think MIT graduates are having any problems in the job market. I'd prefer to have $90k of MIT debt than $30k of UMass debt.
Though pushing the thought-experiment a little bit further, I'd rather have $10k of UMass debt than $90k of MIT debt. I'd also rather skip college altogether than be saddled with $200,000 of MIT debt. It all comes down to value proposition and every student is different. It's the job of the student to pick the value proposition that works best for him or her when deciding where to attend college.
After all - students are created equally, but some students mold themselves to be more successful than others.
Can we expect a new, porn-only search engine? There's lots of money to be made with porn ads. It would be surprising to see what Google does with its own XXX site.
I give this search engine two thumbs up. I tried it for searches which included "puzzle games", "bird games", "anger games", and "pig revenge game". The later searches target the actual title of the games more than the "niche categories" but nonetheless produced interesting results. Lo and behold - there are no less than 3 Angry Birds knockoff games where (get this) the Pigs take revenge against the Birds.
This seems much more useful than searching Google for "Best Android Puzzle Games" because those results tend to be very, very subjective.
By the end of the year, Microsoft is expected to unveil an updated Xbox Live design that is more in line with the look of Windows phones and the forthcoming Windows 8.'
If I were them, I'd unveil a new Windows 8 that looks more like XBox Live. I don't own an XBox, but from what I understand the online support from Microsoft for XBox is better than what is offered by Sony for PS3 and Nintendo for Wii. I do actually own those two systems and have generally found the online support to be pretty terrible.
But if you think of Apple as "The House" and the Apple Application Developers as "The Gamblers" the saying that "The House always wins" resonates. As opposed to Windows Application Developers who don't directly add to the bottom lines of the controllers of their Operating System vendors or Linux Application Developers who don't have typical OS vendors.
We the People know that govt is supposed to look out for us, so we vote in our best interests. Money is a psychological tool that serves us, we don't serve it. Economics is like a religion with the high priests (bankers, economists) preaching the need for human sacrifice to appease their great god Mammon. Their predictions don't come true, their axioms are flawed, their equations fail to take into account externalities such as innovation, which is where the real focus needs to be. Govt should provide a basic income, and encourage the native spirit of creativity and inventiveness in each of us with challenges.
Yeah, government should just take from the people who do that creativity and inventiveness and give it to those who don't bother to in the form of a "basic income". Meh.
You fail to see that the creative and inventive contingent is equally capable of hiring "those who don't bother" for their own benefit. The creative are essentially saying, "having the government provide welfare to 'those who don't bother' is better for me than hiring them would be" so they don't hire them. If the government stopped supporting "those who don't bother" the creative individuals would likely also have other negative outcomes to deal with... namely that eventually other creative people will join the ranks of "those who don't bother" who will rally the whole lot to yield a power that surpasses the creative and inventive.
Between you and me, it's in the best interest of the creative and inventive to always ensure they have more power than their potential opponents -- whether their opponents are competition, the government, or a crazed hoard of protesters. So complaining about giving "basic income" to "those who don't bother" as you've suggested doesn't really add up.
They could do search ads much better than Google can.
Most things I purchase repeatedly are sold in supermarkets. Really -- food and personal care products fit this description. To a lesser extent, I make purchases at a short-list of clothing retailers.
Amazon.com is typically for the things that are bought once. I mean, I suppose Amazon knows I bought Portal 2 for the PS3 -- so they could conclude I like puzzle-based PS3 video games. And the only reason I pulled the trigger on that was because it was being sold for less on Amazon.com than other real-world electronics retailers.
So yeah -- I don't think knowing what I've bought in the past *really* indicates anything about what types of online ads will most appeal to me.
If you think of "work" and "spending time to transform something into a more valuable form" then "yes".
I think that instead of changing trees and rock into building materials the future will be more geared towards changing humans into more advanced humans.
Figuring out what the appropriate wage should be to transform a couch potato into an athlete is debatable. Figuring out what the appropriate wage for transforming a computer scientist into an astronautical engineer or a graphical artist is further debatable. Successful people will be capable of educating the most number of people in a useful skill with the least amount of effort. The trick will be figuring out what the useful skills are in an economy where robots do fricking everything.
Slashdot Mirror
I dug very briefly into the Vision Workbench tool and found code labeled (paraphrasing) "Property of US Government via NASA: All Right Reserved". They should do a basic sanity check for this before publishing something and claiming it's Open.
I can choose what corporations [...] I do business with (or not). I can't choose to do business with the government [...], they set the rules the corporations have to abide by -- and they have done so very poorly.
In theory, the People have the authority to choose people in the government who can set better rules for the corporations. In practice, only business special-interests have enough financial and media capital available to run campaigns for government who are to be elected.
Certain groups feel that the entire system is ill unless the broken election cycle can be fixed.
The last book I finished was A Game of Thrones (fantasy) about 3 weeks ago. The book I am currently reading is Games that Changed the Game (non-fiction football book).
as a slashdotter I'm confident you'd enjoy Anathem
This is the only Stephenson I've read. The ideas in the story are good, but he spent way too much time developing the plot. Plus, any story which makes a statement in the authors note that "This is another world and apple doesn't really mean apple" shouldn't then go invent stupid idiotic terms for man, woman, and cell phone. As a 400 page book, Anathem would have been great. At 900 pages it's too dry and overly-complicated for my tastes.
You can have fast, cheap, and quick if the scope is tiny. You can't have fast, cheap, and quick if the scope is meaty. Scope is the magical fourth factor when comparing the other sides of the triangle.
Something something Diamond is the en vogue chart for the popular engineer trades related to this. And guess what? I am not spending time on this post to go lookup a reference to the chart I'm talking about that's somewhere on Wikipedia. This would be out-of-scope for me. Maybe somebody else will add it in.
However, I have a hard time imaging that studying the writing of blog posts would warrant more than a semester, unless you were at the level of getting a PhD doing research into how the Internet is changing the conventions of writing.
For instance, relying on your audience to copyedit your misspellings in their heads and the shocking number of cases where such things don't even get noticed by your readers (i.e. imaging versus imagining).
Firefox for personal browsing. I can't see that changing any time soon. Chrome for HTML5.
I've been concurrently running both Firefox and Chrome for several weeks. Chrome is given one responsibility... manage my Google Account including E-mail and Calendar. Firefox gets everything else. I feel like this increases performance and enjoy having a dedicated "Google Account" window. Meanwhile... Firefox is happily managing 29 tabs in 4 different tab groups and has greatly simplified my workflow. Suffice it to say... having multiple non-Microsoft choices is pretty damned awesome.
Assuming the jurisdiction of this 'hack' is in the USA, what about donating stolen money to the IRS? Best case -- lower national debt. Worst case -- getting the attention of the government money collectors.
The Scrooges always say... if Warren Buffet thinks he should pay more to the IRS, why not just write the check? Well -- replacing "write a check" with "maintain inferior security of their monetary systems" works. Anonymous can pass along the money for Buffet and the Scrooges in kind!
Name a job that cannot be done by robots and software....one day your answer will be wrong.
Robots and software cannot sufficiently deal with malicious human actors that are smart enough to manipulate the programming of the robots and software. Give a human an in depth knowledge of an "automated system" and he will be able to subvert it. Sure -- robots that harvest potatoes, slaughter cows, process and transport the products to your local McDonalds, and cook value meals aren't important to subvert for non-malicious actors... but controlling the truly malicious actors requires and demands a human-in-the-loop.
So yeah... "dealing with malicious humans" is a job that robots and software cannot do by itself. Mind you... criminal is by its nature malicious, but malicious is not criminal when the intents are noble. Noble intents include, but are not limited to, disabling your invasive robotic and software controlled tracking systems. Red light cameras... fine. They serve a purpose. 1984-style telescreens... not going to happen. And the thought police (i.e. children spying on their parents) also a dream that will never be realized on a global scale.
One batch of "self-assembling" robot helicopters can assemble one building.
One batch of "resource aware" robot helicopters can assemble hundreds of buildings.
My country (USA) doesn't regulate bicycle bells, but my state (MA) regulates that a biker must make some sound when passing pedestrians on a path. I use a bell... a bell is the easiest way of making a sound. Lots of people just say, "On your left".
A button in a car to activate a tone in "dangerous pedestrian areas" seems appropriate. Having an "always on" sound doesn't make sense. I'm thinking parking lots and driveways are the odd-ball times when hybrid drivers are the most dangerous to pedestrians. If a pedestrians gets hit by a hybrid driving in the street I would have less sympathy for them since the burden of looking both ways should have been on them. So regulating the noise for hybrids in the "dangerous pedestrian areas" would be akin to regulating that people use their turn signal to make it safer for anybody who might need to know that a turn is about to take place.
So in addition to a "turning signal", it makes sense to give hybrids a "pedestrian signal" that should be active whenever there is an increased pedestrian risk.
If you really care about barriers to education, how about you lower your goddamn tuition
I'm going to make a counter-argument. I'm not sure it's true, but it may be plausible.
Maybe MIT educations were undervalued in 1980 and the jump from $12,000 to $50,000 means prices are currently reflecting reality. Or maybe educational materials (i.e. the equipment that outfits each classroom and lab) got more expensive -- it shouldn't be surprising that classrooms need new equipment more often than in previous decades because of the current rate of technological innovation.
Or maybe professors are currently better paid then they used to be and/or teaching fewer students. Or maybe the actual buildings used in the 1980s were smaller and cheaper. There weren't as many students thirty years ago so expenses would have generally been lower. Or maybe there were no buildings in the 1980s because the borrowing rate of money was horrendous at around 20% (compared to the 4 or 5% it is today). If you've visited recently, MIT has added 4 or 5 fairly world-class (i.e. expensive) new buildings in the last decade.
I think in general MIT gives rather high grants to many of their students because they have a rather large endowment that's generating lots and lots of money every year. A student with a $50,000 education and $30,000 in grants every year will end up with $90,000 in debt after 4 years - this is ignoring influence from parents who generally tend to give their children thousands per year for elite educations. A lot of money, but I don't think MIT graduates are having any problems in the job market. I'd prefer to have $90k of MIT debt than $30k of UMass debt.
Though pushing the thought-experiment a little bit further, I'd rather have $10k of UMass debt than $90k of MIT debt. I'd also rather skip college altogether than be saddled with $200,000 of MIT debt. It all comes down to value proposition and every student is different. It's the job of the student to pick the value proposition that works best for him or her when deciding where to attend college.
After all - students are created equally, but some students mold themselves to be more successful than others.
Every form of government is broken by the simple fact that there are humans involved.
Clearly, then, a robot government of number crunching automatons with laser eyes and pincher hands will be the most worthy leaders.
Can we expect a new, porn-only search engine? There's lots of money to be made with porn ads. It would be surprising to see what Google does with its own XXX site.
This seems much more useful than searching Google for "Best Android Puzzle Games" because those results tend to be very, very subjective.
By the end of the year, Microsoft is expected to unveil an updated Xbox Live design that is more in line with the look of Windows phones and the forthcoming Windows 8.'
If I were them, I'd unveil a new Windows 8 that looks more like XBox Live. I don't own an XBox, but from what I understand the online support from Microsoft for XBox is better than what is offered by Sony for PS3 and Nintendo for Wii. I do actually own those two systems and have generally found the online support to be pretty terrible.
I should have said "his or her" theory - thus perpetuating the myth that everybody posting on technology blogs is a "him".
Mod parent up. There is no scientific data to his theory but it's a theory that's worthy of gathering new bits of scientific data.
But if you think of Apple as "The House" and the Apple Application Developers as "The Gamblers" the saying that "The House always wins" resonates. As opposed to Windows Application Developers who don't directly add to the bottom lines of the controllers of their Operating System vendors or Linux Application Developers who don't have typical OS vendors.
We the People know that govt is supposed to look out for us, so we vote in our best interests. Money is a psychological tool that serves us, we don't serve it. Economics is like a religion with the high priests (bankers, economists) preaching the need for human sacrifice to appease their great god Mammon. Their predictions don't come true, their axioms are flawed, their equations fail to take into account externalities such as innovation, which is where the real focus needs to be. Govt should provide a basic income, and encourage the native spirit of creativity and inventiveness in each of us with challenges.
Yeah, government should just take from the people who do that creativity and inventiveness and give it to those who don't bother to in the form of a "basic income". Meh.
You fail to see that the creative and inventive contingent is equally capable of hiring "those who don't bother" for their own benefit. The creative are essentially saying, "having the government provide welfare to 'those who don't bother' is better for me than hiring them would be" so they don't hire them. If the government stopped supporting "those who don't bother" the creative individuals would likely also have other negative outcomes to deal with... namely that eventually other creative people will join the ranks of "those who don't bother" who will rally the whole lot to yield a power that surpasses the creative and inventive.
Between you and me, it's in the best interest of the creative and inventive to always ensure they have more power than their potential opponents -- whether their opponents are competition, the government, or a crazed hoard of protesters. So complaining about giving "basic income" to "those who don't bother" as you've suggested doesn't really add up.
by turning them off and knitting yourself a rainbow. (99.8889%)
And knitting rainbows is going to help global warming?
But that would be a non-traditional usage of the word "most".
Non-traditional meaning wrong.
As in, "Most people earn more than $350,000 per year". Right?
They could do search ads much better than Google can.
Most things I purchase repeatedly are sold in supermarkets. Really -- food and personal care products fit this description. To a lesser extent, I make purchases at a short-list of clothing retailers.
Amazon.com is typically for the things that are bought once. I mean, I suppose Amazon knows I bought Portal 2 for the PS3 -- so they could conclude I like puzzle-based PS3 video games. And the only reason I pulled the trigger on that was because it was being sold for less on Amazon.com than other real-world electronics retailers.
So yeah -- I don't think knowing what I've bought in the past *really* indicates anything about what types of online ads will most appeal to me.
There will always be more work to be done.
If you think of "work" and "spending time to transform something into a more valuable form" then "yes".
I think that instead of changing trees and rock into building materials the future will be more geared towards changing humans into more advanced humans.
Figuring out what the appropriate wage should be to transform a couch potato into an athlete is debatable. Figuring out what the appropriate wage for transforming a computer scientist into an astronautical engineer or a graphical artist is further debatable. Successful people will be capable of educating the most number of people in a useful skill with the least amount of effort. The trick will be figuring out what the useful skills are in an economy where robots do fricking everything.
FEMA - identified in the summary - implies that the test will be conducted in the USA.