This depends on the technology. If you have self-replicating machines to do your building, then it doesn't matter what size thing you want - you set a machine off and tell it to come back once it has built what you want. Apart from resource depletion in an area (so just go choose somewhere unoccupied and otherwise useless), there is no real cost to this. If you achieve machines that can build other machines from raw materials unsupervised, then a stupidly-gigantic weapon - or 16 billion of them - is pretty much trivial except for the waiting time. Set and forget, come back when you want one to use. It would have basically a zero governance requirement.
In other, related, news, we don't really have a clue what post-scarcity looks like.
Certainly the "society with no reliance on coercive force" is attractive, although "virtually unlimited access to coercive force" might be a more realistic eventuality.
I'm not sure about your specific legal jurisdiction, but as I understand it, some places have rules that are basically, "If you have a policy and do not technically enforce that policy, then the policy does not exist, and you liable for anything done over that connection." So, if you are making it easy for employees to go to any sites they want and then you get busted for someone accessing kiddie porn, you had better hope you have good logs - although that might not be enough. The sad thing is that the better option is (as many have suggested) to trust your employees and let them self-manage, however you do potentially leave yourself open to some nasty outcomes if you are not covering yourself enough. Now, if you are tracking, by employee, which sites are being visited and when, then I'm not sure where this puts you (and I would expect it varies depending on jurisdiction) - however, employees are much less likely to go somewhere nasty if they know the boss can review their logs at any time. At the very least, you should be able to see who went where and when - and you should actually check this regularly. As someone who has been on both sides (admin and user), it would be nice for those times that I need a site that has been (in my opinion) incorrectly blocked, but the extra step of "I have to specifically do something to get around this" would probably discourage time-wasting and less-than-savoury behaviour. But, a lawyer might not see things the same way - if you allowed access, you might still be responsible for what someone did with that.
Yessss... And the file access capabilities of a non-jailbroken iPhone.:-) Thank you for getting me out the M$-only slump I was in! (Of course, I've heard that you could get Windows 95 on floppy disks, and it wasn't apparently much better than the Slackware example).
Ooh, forgot that one. My bad. And the browser would have to be one of the awesome 1.0 versions (of pretty much anything), and doesn't get fixed for years (so pretty much IE). Or maybe Linx, because who needs images or interactive content or anything?
This applies to most OSes now though. Windows needs a lot of drivers from the Net on any machine I've ever used, and has just as many updates - more on a fresh install. Mac OS X has stupidly-large updates on a fresh install (several GB). Also, I'm not a developer.:-) I don't know of any OS anywhere that is designed to work separately to an internet connection now, so I'm not really sure what your point is...
No, not really. I spend more time on Windows than on Linux. In fact, until a few months ago, I hadn't touched a Linux install for a few years, however I was quite surprised at how slick it has all got now when I did get back to installing Mint on a machine I had. I was just pointing out the fact that really the "Which OS are you using?" question is starting to go the way of "Which web browser was this site designed for?" - i.e. it kind of doesn't matter any more. No, Linux' device support isn't perfect, and no, support in WINE for other software isn't perfect, but it's all a lot better than it used to be, and covers most of the requests that the post I replied to was asking for.
The sad truth is probably that the wonders of WinFS were actually nothing more than vapourware - something that looked like it might work on a very limited subset of possible inputs but which was found to be completely unworkable when faced with the real world of untidy data. Of course, I would hazard a guess that we are probably in a space now where image recognition and machine learning are at a point where that metadata-filling and searching is actually possible - it might not be all under the same patent portfolio though. Google is probably the closest, at a guess. It would require sending all your data (or hashes of it) to external servers for processing though, and that might be one of the limiting factors. Yes, it's the 21st Century, but not quite that much yet.
Yeah, pretty much this. Also, I find that a much under-appreciated feature of Cinnamon is that it has a working "do not let an app steal focus" option; it is really quite amazing how much under most OSes, we get used to something being able to interrupt us mid-typing. Of course, I do sometimes have to get used to the fact that this can also mean that the app I wanted to start only appears on the taskbar and not on top of what I'm doing, but I'd far rather than that have something jump to the front two or three times while it opens, like I get on Windows.
You do realise that most of those wishes are granted with any modern Linux install? Hardware support has gotten a lot better (mostly it's just "install and go" now), software support is either (a) native versions of the stuff you want, or (b) installable using WINE (not everything works well with WINE, but it also is much better than it used to be). Installing software on Linux is in my opinion easier than most OSes, as long as it's in the main catalogues: just go to your software manager, do a search, click install. Even for more obscure stuff, it's maybe just adding a repository, which is a simple "Google for it, then copy and paste a line or two of text". Apparently, Linux also has native ZFS support.
"Russian Cargo Ship Successfully Makes Orbit" is awesome if you (like I did) read the start of it and picture a large sea-going cargo boat. Had to do a double-take once I finished reading the phrase, and still didn't understand it until I grokked the meaning of "ISS" in the "will supply ISS" part... Mental image of a giant metal boat loaded with shipping containers flying up into the sky just made my day.
NoScript, because some of us aren't stupid enough to let anyone run anything without our permission. Until you have tried browsing with NoScript, you won't realise actually how much utter rubbish is being hoisted on your browser. I've seen sites with 30+ scripts requesting to run, and really none of those are needed - well, none of those should be needed, but for some incomprehensible reason, a lot of sites won't display basic content without you having JavaScript enabled, which is idiocy on so many levels... Still, most sites only need about two scripts (the ones that are actually useful), and the rest (ads, trackers, things that decide popping a huge banner up in my face as soon as I land is a good idea) are less than worthless. A good site will provide the basic content without relying on client-side scripts; this is how the web was designed to operate. But the original comment there (that the Forbes site won't load if you have adblockers enabled) is awful - and a lot worse than just being lazy and relying unnecessarily on JS.
The thing is that it's not hard to build a nice site without client-side scripting - you can even do beautiful drop-down menus in nothing but CSS, if you're smart - and the more complex you make something, the more likely it is to break (just try using a mobile browser for a while). This is entirely unnecessary, and I don't want malicious sites (or malicious ads on legitimate sites) hijacking my machine just because I had to leave scripting open simply to view the content.
Love your explanation of why engineering problems are hard (everything is a compromise of something else, nothing is as simple as it first seems), although I disagree with you about nuclear power. Why should "how much money it makes" be the ruling metric? That's extremely foolish. Despite the high-profile cases, nuclear power is actually one of (if not the) safest forms of power generation. We are ruining people's health and the environment by using things like coal, so we need an alternative. So, nuclear power doesn't make lots of money - so what? If that's all we are measuring things by, then it explains why so many things are screwed up. Apply the same engineering thinking you explained to the performance metrics question: any single-metric performance measurement will be wrong ("good" overall is measured by a number of competing and sometimes conflicting factors; so, in your case "profitability" is a poor reason to say "nuclear isn't a solution").
The prevention and clean-up do need to be factored into the use of nuclear power, but we also need to drag the technology forward to safer designs, not keep limiting it to unsafe, inefficient forms that haven't changed in half a century.
Not necessarily. Time won't solve basic physical limits. Chemical batteries, as most will know, have very limited lifetimes. The RTG on Voyager 1 has been going for more than 37 years. If you rule out radioactivity or nuclear power, then your only options in space are chemical or something like solar. Solar has problems, as Philae has demonstrated. The issue with chemical is that there are hard limits on how much energy you can store in the bonds between atoms - even if we invent a wonderful new rocket fuel or battery type, the maximum limits can still be worked out and they will never exceed that (there's a reason why we use ion engines for space probes, and it has to do with "mass you have to carry" and "how much it can change your speed"). "More technology" will never overcome these problems, unless you come up with something really exotic (like zero-point energy). One that is easy to understand is solar on Earth: we can make it more and more efficient, but we can never exceed 1kW/m^2, as this is the total amount of solar radiation reaching the surface (and, I don't think we've got better than about 30% efficiency). It doesn't matter how wonderful your technology gets, it can never beat basic physics.
The only "high-yield, low launch risk" technology I could think of would be fusion (as deuterium isn't radioactive), but we are yet to get that viable. Apart from that, you're dreaming of magic, no matter how much time you wait.
So, back in the early 90s when we Amiga fans were thinking that the Amiga was the machine of the future, this wasn't really what we would have expected - that one of the last serious uses of one would be controlling an AC system... Well, at least while it controls their AC, they'd be able to still properly multitask and play MOD music and have several layers of side-scrolling beauty, haha. Times have changed.
HP's warranty product support line was so bad that the guys in the shop I used to work at would come up with creative ways to not be the poor sod who had to call them (it was perhaps the worst punishment that could be dealt out). Let's just say that 30-40 minutes and then getting an actual Tier 2 person was surprisingly quick. My only thought on how their process could be so bad is that they did it deliberately so customers would give up instead of getting a warranty replacement - no need to send a new replacement? Profit! (Excepting the fact that I will probably never buy an HP product ever again, and won't recommend them to anyone...)
I disagree. Yes, follow the script as far as checking that you have tried those things (e.g. "Yes, I have already tried rebooting"), but if their script starts wasting time and isn't relevant, it's time to go off-script. If they are not good enough to recognise when the script isn't relevant, then get it escalated (aside from the fact that IMHO such a person should never have a tech support job in the first place). If by follow the script, it's a simple checklist of "Have you tried...? Yes", then fine - that won't take long and doesn't waste either of our time, really. But, if it's going to take 20 minutes to go through something that I know isn't going to solve my problem, or do things I have already done, then the process needs derailing (because, ultimately, the process is broken if it can't deal with recognising what is and is not relevant). I have dealt with both kinds of Tier 1 support, and if they are the "I am going to force you to waste both of our time to do things that have nothing to do with this problem" type, then you politely ask to escalate (or less politely if they refuse).
ISPs that require you to use a particular router? Wow, glad I'm not in America. Seriously, if someone requires that you use specific hardware, and that hardware is rubbish, you request that they let you use something better. If they decline, take your business elsewhere. Thankfully, where I am, the (often) cheapest ISP is also one of the few who has a local support desk. This is a nice combination, but you might not get so lucky. What kind of ISP would have those insane rules though?
This is a pretty significant point: you do get some truly awful callers (this can be because they are stressed and have a deadline they can't meet because of this problem), so a caller being nice is a refreshing change. But, I have a pretty low tolerance for a support desk tech who doesn't listen and insists on following a script when it's obviously not relevant, so there is a point where they can wear down that "social contract" of being polite. If I pick up that someone is out of their depth, I'll usually ask to be escalated or similar (politely, as long as they actually do).
Also, if a call is taking an hour, then either it's a hairy awful problem, or the tech isn't competent. Most tech issues shouldn't go beyond about 20 minutes unless it's a really difficult one. After that, you are probably better served by sending someone out onsite than trying to stay on the phone while the tech struggles for ideas (if this is possible - I did once have one of these where the customer was in the next country, and that was nasty).
So, it's a case of the stupid people ruining it for the rest of us? I'm guessing you were not in a position where you ever talked to anyone who had even the slightest clue, otherwise you wouldn't be saying this. I have had to be a part of both ends, and I can tell you that I pick up very quickly whether the other person (caller or tech) is a moron or knows what they are doing. Two actually tech-savvy people can usually pick each other out, and I've had some great calls talking to someone who has a clue, but one or both of us is a bit stumped by this particular problem. And, it's a whole lot faster than if you get the usual T1 monkey with a script. If you don't have the people and/or technical skills to pick up the different types of users, then you are probably in the wrong job (sorry for the insult). As someone who really does know what I'm doing, I don't mind if the first question is "Have you tried rebooting it?", seeing as, just as you noted, sometimes we all forget something obvious. But, if I answer "Yes, have rebooted it twice, and the problem is obviously not being caused by that, as it's actually xyz", and they reply "Can you please reboot it again?", my reaction is usually not a particularly happy one (unless of course it's a "I've just made a change, can you try now?").
TL;DR: a good tech support person can tell the difference between someone who thinks they know what they are doing and one who actually does, and responds accordingly. Yes, they might cover the basics just to check, but they're not going to infuriate that person with a dumb script.
So my advice is to be polite but be clear exactly what you have done and exactly what the problems/symptoms are (being honest with yourself on your own level of knowledge, as we tech-savvy people tend to somewhat over-estimate our abilities in areas that are not our primary domain), and listen to what the tech has to say. If they say something stupid, politely make it clear why that isn't relevant. If they keep trying to push a script that clearly isn't anything to do with the problem, then ask to get escalated. Make it clear why you need to be escalated without being insulting or rude. At this point, they should go off-script to actually help, or escalate you. If they don't, repeat the "Please escalate me" (or "May I please speak to your manager") line, with increasing force until you get heard. As far as I'm concerned, if a tech can't tell that they are genuinely outdone by the caller and refuses to pass you on to someone who might actually be able to help, then the requirement to stay calm and polite fades. I wouldn't recommend outright insults and swearing at someone, but there is a point where I've had techs be stubborn enough that they are just wasting my time and theirs, and that's not acceptable behaviour for someone paid to help the customers.
But again, to temper this, don't be so arrogant as a caller that you won't listen to actual advice. Remember, you called them for help.
I love tech support calls (both receiving and making) where the person on the other end of the line picks up that they don't need to dumb-down the conversation, and can move more quickly through the steps, or completely skip ones that aren't relevant. "Can you do a traceroute to 1.2.3.4? Ok, that drops after the second step?" is so much nicer a conversation than having someone tell me "Please click on your start button, then go to Run. Now type see-emm-dee and press Enter. Have you done that?" "Yes, of course I've done that; let me guess, you want me to try pinging the gateway's IP address? I told you, I already tried that before I called you, and while I was waiting for you I just tried a traceroute. What do you mean you don't understand what I just said?"
The thing is, and this is my biggest gripe with tech support, that the tech support person at a minimum should be able to tell the difference between a problem on the computer and a problem with the router - simple "identify and isolate the problem" stuff - especially when the person they are talking to can give them intelligent feedback (or, tell them clearly where the problem is or is not). If someone in a call centre is unable to recognise troubleshooting ability in the person they are talking to - and have the humility to pick up "This person is actually better than me, I'm out of my depth and need to escalate" - then they shouldn't be doing that kind of work. Just because there was an obscure case where clearing the recycle bin fixed it doesn't mean that it's applicable in every case.
Being able to tell when the customer is so frustrated that you are about to lose said customer, and then escalating them appropriately really is needed - and isn't that hard! Just don't have some moronic rule about "You lose points if you escalate" or "You shouldn't bother the T2 techs". If it's needed, make it happen.
I once had to deal with HP's faulty hardware returns line, and that was brutally painful. First, you wait maybe an hour, only to be talking to someone with a distinctly middling command of English and a script that they will not ever deviate from ("No, I haven't tried restarting it, because the power supply is actually dead. No, I can't turn it on, I have already tried that. No, I'm a computer tech, I know when something is dead. No, argh!"). The second time I called them, I started it with "I am a professional computer technician, and before you start your script, please be aware that I have already tried all the basic troubleshooting on your script. I just need this part replaced." to which they responded "Have you tried restarting it?" (going back into their script), to which I started having to go to "Shut up and escalate me now!" over and over until they finally did (had to play the angry customer, a lot more rudely than I would have liked, but there was nothing else I could do). Tier 2 there was at least sufficiently competent that we got the issue solved, but still what I would call "barely competent". Having been on the receiving end of tech support calls, I don't like having to be nasty, but if that's the only way to get service, they are doing it wrong...
Or, that there is an entirely different option: we've been getting Genesis wrong due to approaching it with the wrong worldview (The Lost World of Genesis One, John H Walton). I don't hear this being talked about much, even though it really does seem to be a good way to link "believing the Bible" and accepting science (i.e. it makes most of the points of contention disappear), and I think being able to find some common ground between the two sides of the debate would be good. I am a little concerned though that my hope of "let's consider all ideas, even if they disagree with what we previously thought" is too courageous a position to expect, so this very thoughtful book might get missed by those who most need to read it (defenders of Creationism)...
Actually, yes, Starcraft would probably the first of the RTSes to make the list (mostly thanks to South Korea), even though it was far from the first. It has had quite a significant cultural impact (which the others can't really boast). Maybe I'm just a bit nostalgic...
Hmm. That list seems to make sense, though WoW is perhaps the outsider.
But, what about Asteroids, Space Invaders, even Street Fighter? Civilization or Sim City? No love (yet) for strategy games at all, which should probably start with either those or Dune II, or perhaps something from the Command & Conquer series (either C&C1 or Red Alert 1). Although, maybe I'm a bit too much of a geek - quite likely, Age of Empires would beat some of those to the list.
However, these, and most of the other suggestions being made, are more about iconic or revolutionary (started a genre) games, as opposed to simply famous. And, they put the requirement of it influencing outside culture (so recognisable by more than gamers). The Sims, Minecraft, Sonic, and yes, as much as we geeks don't want to admit it, Angry Birds (as derivative as that is - i.e. there's no Scorched Earth, a much earlier artillery game) are all legitimate nominations I think. Perhaps they might have had less ire if they kept to solely classic games for the first round, although I do remember hearing something about an unofficial WoW theme park in China... Interesting that WoW gets in before Warcraft though.
I can see how difficult it would be to be objective on something like this, so I applaud their attempting it, even if I don't entirely agree with the choices. Maybe they included WoW to try and have something relevant to a modern audience? (Although, arguably Minecraft is more recognisable today, if perhaps still a little new. I expect it will get there soon enough though).
Slashdot Mirror
This depends on the technology. If you have self-replicating machines to do your building, then it doesn't matter what size thing you want - you set a machine off and tell it to come back once it has built what you want. Apart from resource depletion in an area (so just go choose somewhere unoccupied and otherwise useless), there is no real cost to this. If you achieve machines that can build other machines from raw materials unsupervised, then a stupidly-gigantic weapon - or 16 billion of them - is pretty much trivial except for the waiting time. Set and forget, come back when you want one to use. It would have basically a zero governance requirement.
In other, related, news, we don't really have a clue what post-scarcity looks like.
Certainly the "society with no reliance on coercive force" is attractive, although "virtually unlimited access to coercive force" might be a more realistic eventuality.
I'm not sure about your specific legal jurisdiction, but as I understand it, some places have rules that are basically, "If you have a policy and do not technically enforce that policy, then the policy does not exist, and you liable for anything done over that connection." So, if you are making it easy for employees to go to any sites they want and then you get busted for someone accessing kiddie porn, you had better hope you have good logs - although that might not be enough. The sad thing is that the better option is (as many have suggested) to trust your employees and let them self-manage, however you do potentially leave yourself open to some nasty outcomes if you are not covering yourself enough. Now, if you are tracking, by employee, which sites are being visited and when, then I'm not sure where this puts you (and I would expect it varies depending on jurisdiction) - however, employees are much less likely to go somewhere nasty if they know the boss can review their logs at any time. At the very least, you should be able to see who went where and when - and you should actually check this regularly. As someone who has been on both sides (admin and user), it would be nice for those times that I need a site that has been (in my opinion) incorrectly blocked, but the extra step of "I have to specifically do something to get around this" would probably discourage time-wasting and less-than-savoury behaviour. But, a lawyer might not see things the same way - if you allowed access, you might still be responsible for what someone did with that.
Yessss... And the file access capabilities of a non-jailbroken iPhone. :-) Thank you for getting me out the M$-only slump I was in! (Of course, I've heard that you could get Windows 95 on floppy disks, and it wasn't apparently much better than the Slackware example).
Ooh, forgot that one. My bad. And the browser would have to be one of the awesome 1.0 versions (of pretty much anything), and doesn't get fixed for years (so pretty much IE). Or maybe Linx, because who needs images or interactive content or anything?
This applies to most OSes now though. Windows needs a lot of drivers from the Net on any machine I've ever used, and has just as many updates - more on a fresh install. Mac OS X has stupidly-large updates on a fresh install (several GB). Also, I'm not a developer. :-) I don't know of any OS anywhere that is designed to work separately to an internet connection now, so I'm not really sure what your point is...
No, not really. I spend more time on Windows than on Linux. In fact, until a few months ago, I hadn't touched a Linux install for a few years, however I was quite surprised at how slick it has all got now when I did get back to installing Mint on a machine I had. I was just pointing out the fact that really the "Which OS are you using?" question is starting to go the way of "Which web browser was this site designed for?" - i.e. it kind of doesn't matter any more. No, Linux' device support isn't perfect, and no, support in WINE for other software isn't perfect, but it's all a lot better than it used to be, and covers most of the requests that the post I replied to was asking for.
The sad thing is that I was trying to think of a variety of examples, and they were all from Microsoft. Hmm.
The sad truth is probably that the wonders of WinFS were actually nothing more than vapourware - something that looked like it might work on a very limited subset of possible inputs but which was found to be completely unworkable when faced with the real world of untidy data. Of course, I would hazard a guess that we are probably in a space now where image recognition and machine learning are at a point where that metadata-filling and searching is actually possible - it might not be all under the same patent portfolio though. Google is probably the closest, at a guess. It would require sending all your data (or hashes of it) to external servers for processing though, and that might be one of the limiting factors. Yes, it's the 21st Century, but not quite that much yet.
Yeah, pretty much this. Also, I find that a much under-appreciated feature of Cinnamon is that it has a working "do not let an app steal focus" option; it is really quite amazing how much under most OSes, we get used to something being able to interrupt us mid-typing. Of course, I do sometimes have to get used to the fact that this can also mean that the app I wanted to start only appears on the taskbar and not on top of what I'm doing, but I'd far rather than that have something jump to the front two or three times while it opens, like I get on Windows.
You do realise that most of those wishes are granted with any modern Linux install? Hardware support has gotten a lot better (mostly it's just "install and go" now), software support is either (a) native versions of the stuff you want, or (b) installable using WINE (not everything works well with WINE, but it also is much better than it used to be). Installing software on Linux is in my opinion easier than most OSes, as long as it's in the main catalogues: just go to your software manager, do a search, click install. Even for more obscure stuff, it's maybe just adding a repository, which is a simple "Google for it, then copy and paste a line or two of text". Apparently, Linux also has native ZFS support.
Or am I missing something here?
"Russian Cargo Ship Successfully Makes Orbit" is awesome if you (like I did) read the start of it and picture a large sea-going cargo boat. Had to do a double-take once I finished reading the phrase, and still didn't understand it until I grokked the meaning of "ISS" in the "will supply ISS" part... Mental image of a giant metal boat loaded with shipping containers flying up into the sky just made my day.
NoScript, because some of us aren't stupid enough to let anyone run anything without our permission. Until you have tried browsing with NoScript, you won't realise actually how much utter rubbish is being hoisted on your browser. I've seen sites with 30+ scripts requesting to run, and really none of those are needed - well, none of those should be needed, but for some incomprehensible reason, a lot of sites won't display basic content without you having JavaScript enabled, which is idiocy on so many levels... Still, most sites only need about two scripts (the ones that are actually useful), and the rest (ads, trackers, things that decide popping a huge banner up in my face as soon as I land is a good idea) are less than worthless. A good site will provide the basic content without relying on client-side scripts; this is how the web was designed to operate. But the original comment there (that the Forbes site won't load if you have adblockers enabled) is awful - and a lot worse than just being lazy and relying unnecessarily on JS.
The thing is that it's not hard to build a nice site without client-side scripting - you can even do beautiful drop-down menus in nothing but CSS, if you're smart - and the more complex you make something, the more likely it is to break (just try using a mobile browser for a while). This is entirely unnecessary, and I don't want malicious sites (or malicious ads on legitimate sites) hijacking my machine just because I had to leave scripting open simply to view the content.
Love your explanation of why engineering problems are hard (everything is a compromise of something else, nothing is as simple as it first seems), although I disagree with you about nuclear power. Why should "how much money it makes" be the ruling metric? That's extremely foolish. Despite the high-profile cases, nuclear power is actually one of (if not the) safest forms of power generation. We are ruining people's health and the environment by using things like coal, so we need an alternative. So, nuclear power doesn't make lots of money - so what? If that's all we are measuring things by, then it explains why so many things are screwed up. Apply the same engineering thinking you explained to the performance metrics question: any single-metric performance measurement will be wrong ("good" overall is measured by a number of competing and sometimes conflicting factors; so, in your case "profitability" is a poor reason to say "nuclear isn't a solution").
The prevention and clean-up do need to be factored into the use of nuclear power, but we also need to drag the technology forward to safer designs, not keep limiting it to unsafe, inefficient forms that haven't changed in half a century.
Not necessarily. Time won't solve basic physical limits. Chemical batteries, as most will know, have very limited lifetimes. The RTG on Voyager 1 has been going for more than 37 years. If you rule out radioactivity or nuclear power, then your only options in space are chemical or something like solar. Solar has problems, as Philae has demonstrated. The issue with chemical is that there are hard limits on how much energy you can store in the bonds between atoms - even if we invent a wonderful new rocket fuel or battery type, the maximum limits can still be worked out and they will never exceed that (there's a reason why we use ion engines for space probes, and it has to do with "mass you have to carry" and "how much it can change your speed"). "More technology" will never overcome these problems, unless you come up with something really exotic (like zero-point energy). One that is easy to understand is solar on Earth: we can make it more and more efficient, but we can never exceed 1kW/m^2, as this is the total amount of solar radiation reaching the surface (and, I don't think we've got better than about 30% efficiency). It doesn't matter how wonderful your technology gets, it can never beat basic physics.
The only "high-yield, low launch risk" technology I could think of would be fusion (as deuterium isn't radioactive), but we are yet to get that viable. Apart from that, you're dreaming of magic, no matter how much time you wait.
So, back in the early 90s when we Amiga fans were thinking that the Amiga was the machine of the future, this wasn't really what we would have expected - that one of the last serious uses of one would be controlling an AC system... Well, at least while it controls their AC, they'd be able to still properly multitask and play MOD music and have several layers of side-scrolling beauty, haha. Times have changed.
HP's warranty product support line was so bad that the guys in the shop I used to work at would come up with creative ways to not be the poor sod who had to call them (it was perhaps the worst punishment that could be dealt out). Let's just say that 30-40 minutes and then getting an actual Tier 2 person was surprisingly quick. My only thought on how their process could be so bad is that they did it deliberately so customers would give up instead of getting a warranty replacement - no need to send a new replacement? Profit! (Excepting the fact that I will probably never buy an HP product ever again, and won't recommend them to anyone...)
I disagree. Yes, follow the script as far as checking that you have tried those things (e.g. "Yes, I have already tried rebooting"), but if their script starts wasting time and isn't relevant, it's time to go off-script. If they are not good enough to recognise when the script isn't relevant, then get it escalated (aside from the fact that IMHO such a person should never have a tech support job in the first place). If by follow the script, it's a simple checklist of "Have you tried...? Yes", then fine - that won't take long and doesn't waste either of our time, really. But, if it's going to take 20 minutes to go through something that I know isn't going to solve my problem, or do things I have already done, then the process needs derailing (because, ultimately, the process is broken if it can't deal with recognising what is and is not relevant). I have dealt with both kinds of Tier 1 support, and if they are the "I am going to force you to waste both of our time to do things that have nothing to do with this problem" type, then you politely ask to escalate (or less politely if they refuse).
ISPs that require you to use a particular router? Wow, glad I'm not in America. Seriously, if someone requires that you use specific hardware, and that hardware is rubbish, you request that they let you use something better. If they decline, take your business elsewhere. Thankfully, where I am, the (often) cheapest ISP is also one of the few who has a local support desk. This is a nice combination, but you might not get so lucky. What kind of ISP would have those insane rules though?
This is a pretty significant point: you do get some truly awful callers (this can be because they are stressed and have a deadline they can't meet because of this problem), so a caller being nice is a refreshing change. But, I have a pretty low tolerance for a support desk tech who doesn't listen and insists on following a script when it's obviously not relevant, so there is a point where they can wear down that "social contract" of being polite. If I pick up that someone is out of their depth, I'll usually ask to be escalated or similar (politely, as long as they actually do).
Also, if a call is taking an hour, then either it's a hairy awful problem, or the tech isn't competent. Most tech issues shouldn't go beyond about 20 minutes unless it's a really difficult one. After that, you are probably better served by sending someone out onsite than trying to stay on the phone while the tech struggles for ideas (if this is possible - I did once have one of these where the customer was in the next country, and that was nasty).
So, it's a case of the stupid people ruining it for the rest of us? I'm guessing you were not in a position where you ever talked to anyone who had even the slightest clue, otherwise you wouldn't be saying this. I have had to be a part of both ends, and I can tell you that I pick up very quickly whether the other person (caller or tech) is a moron or knows what they are doing. Two actually tech-savvy people can usually pick each other out, and I've had some great calls talking to someone who has a clue, but one or both of us is a bit stumped by this particular problem. And, it's a whole lot faster than if you get the usual T1 monkey with a script. If you don't have the people and/or technical skills to pick up the different types of users, then you are probably in the wrong job (sorry for the insult). As someone who really does know what I'm doing, I don't mind if the first question is "Have you tried rebooting it?", seeing as, just as you noted, sometimes we all forget something obvious. But, if I answer "Yes, have rebooted it twice, and the problem is obviously not being caused by that, as it's actually xyz", and they reply "Can you please reboot it again?", my reaction is usually not a particularly happy one (unless of course it's a "I've just made a change, can you try now?").
TL;DR: a good tech support person can tell the difference between someone who thinks they know what they are doing and one who actually does, and responds accordingly. Yes, they might cover the basics just to check, but they're not going to infuriate that person with a dumb script.
So my advice is to be polite but be clear exactly what you have done and exactly what the problems/symptoms are (being honest with yourself on your own level of knowledge, as we tech-savvy people tend to somewhat over-estimate our abilities in areas that are not our primary domain), and listen to what the tech has to say. If they say something stupid, politely make it clear why that isn't relevant. If they keep trying to push a script that clearly isn't anything to do with the problem, then ask to get escalated. Make it clear why you need to be escalated without being insulting or rude. At this point, they should go off-script to actually help, or escalate you. If they don't, repeat the "Please escalate me" (or "May I please speak to your manager") line, with increasing force until you get heard. As far as I'm concerned, if a tech can't tell that they are genuinely outdone by the caller and refuses to pass you on to someone who might actually be able to help, then the requirement to stay calm and polite fades. I wouldn't recommend outright insults and swearing at someone, but there is a point where I've had techs be stubborn enough that they are just wasting my time and theirs, and that's not acceptable behaviour for someone paid to help the customers.
But again, to temper this, don't be so arrogant as a caller that you won't listen to actual advice. Remember, you called them for help.
I love tech support calls (both receiving and making) where the person on the other end of the line picks up that they don't need to dumb-down the conversation, and can move more quickly through the steps, or completely skip ones that aren't relevant. "Can you do a traceroute to 1.2.3.4? Ok, that drops after the second step?" is so much nicer a conversation than having someone tell me "Please click on your start button, then go to Run. Now type see-emm-dee and press Enter. Have you done that?" "Yes, of course I've done that; let me guess, you want me to try pinging the gateway's IP address? I told you, I already tried that before I called you, and while I was waiting for you I just tried a traceroute. What do you mean you don't understand what I just said?"
The thing is, and this is my biggest gripe with tech support, that the tech support person at a minimum should be able to tell the difference between a problem on the computer and a problem with the router - simple "identify and isolate the problem" stuff - especially when the person they are talking to can give them intelligent feedback (or, tell them clearly where the problem is or is not). If someone in a call centre is unable to recognise troubleshooting ability in the person they are talking to - and have the humility to pick up "This person is actually better than me, I'm out of my depth and need to escalate" - then they shouldn't be doing that kind of work. Just because there was an obscure case where clearing the recycle bin fixed it doesn't mean that it's applicable in every case.
Being able to tell when the customer is so frustrated that you are about to lose said customer, and then escalating them appropriately really is needed - and isn't that hard! Just don't have some moronic rule about "You lose points if you escalate" or "You shouldn't bother the T2 techs". If it's needed, make it happen.
I once had to deal with HP's faulty hardware returns line, and that was brutally painful. First, you wait maybe an hour, only to be talking to someone with a distinctly middling command of English and a script that they will not ever deviate from ("No, I haven't tried restarting it, because the power supply is actually dead. No, I can't turn it on, I have already tried that. No, I'm a computer tech, I know when something is dead. No, argh!"). The second time I called them, I started it with "I am a professional computer technician, and before you start your script, please be aware that I have already tried all the basic troubleshooting on your script. I just need this part replaced." to which they responded "Have you tried restarting it?" (going back into their script), to which I started having to go to "Shut up and escalate me now!" over and over until they finally did (had to play the angry customer, a lot more rudely than I would have liked, but there was nothing else I could do). Tier 2 there was at least sufficiently competent that we got the issue solved, but still what I would call "barely competent". Having been on the receiving end of tech support calls, I don't like having to be nasty, but if that's the only way to get service, they are doing it wrong...
Or, that there is an entirely different option: we've been getting Genesis wrong due to approaching it with the wrong worldview (The Lost World of Genesis One, John H Walton). I don't hear this being talked about much, even though it really does seem to be a good way to link "believing the Bible" and accepting science (i.e. it makes most of the points of contention disappear), and I think being able to find some common ground between the two sides of the debate would be good. I am a little concerned though that my hope of "let's consider all ideas, even if they disagree with what we previously thought" is too courageous a position to expect, so this very thoughtful book might get missed by those who most need to read it (defenders of Creationism)...
Actually, yes, Starcraft would probably the first of the RTSes to make the list (mostly thanks to South Korea), even though it was far from the first. It has had quite a significant cultural impact (which the others can't really boast). Maybe I'm just a bit nostalgic...
Hmm. That list seems to make sense, though WoW is perhaps the outsider.
But, what about Asteroids, Space Invaders, even Street Fighter? Civilization or Sim City? No love (yet) for strategy games at all, which should probably start with either those or Dune II, or perhaps something from the Command & Conquer series (either C&C1 or Red Alert 1). Although, maybe I'm a bit too much of a geek - quite likely, Age of Empires would beat some of those to the list.
However, these, and most of the other suggestions being made, are more about iconic or revolutionary (started a genre) games, as opposed to simply famous. And, they put the requirement of it influencing outside culture (so recognisable by more than gamers). The Sims, Minecraft, Sonic, and yes, as much as we geeks don't want to admit it, Angry Birds (as derivative as that is - i.e. there's no Scorched Earth, a much earlier artillery game) are all legitimate nominations I think. Perhaps they might have had less ire if they kept to solely classic games for the first round, although I do remember hearing something about an unofficial WoW theme park in China... Interesting that WoW gets in before Warcraft though.
I can see how difficult it would be to be objective on something like this, so I applaud their attempting it, even if I don't entirely agree with the choices. Maybe they included WoW to try and have something relevant to a modern audience? (Although, arguably Minecraft is more recognisable today, if perhaps still a little new. I expect it will get there soon enough though).
Oh, and do the wiring yourself, then get an electrician to just check it. That way, you have control on quality, and you save a lot of money.