I was already worried they might dump the telemetry code. I mean, I can live without DVD drivers, without the ability to fix Registry entries after their update shoots the system in the foot and being able to manage the system, but MS not knowing that I still diligently dig through the system to squelch Cortana, get rid of the Windows Shop (or whatever they call that iTunes Store and Steam spoof/mockup), remove their "cloud" connection (insert vaporware joke here) and get rid of all the other ridiculous bloatware they cram down my throat... I mean, why do you think I spend my evenings after updates ripping that crap out if it doesn't piss off MS that I refuse to use more of their shit than I absolutely have to?
WW2 is a direct result of the outcome of WW1 and how it was handled. Do you really think a WW2 would have happened without Versailles and what it meant for Germany?
Yes, Bismark wanted a war with France, and France had to start it so the defensive pacts with the other German states would come into effect. And Napoleon III was enough of a fool to hand him that gift. There was exactly zero reason for Napoleon to start this war. None.
World War 1 was a different beast, though. While Wilhelm II was someone who had a spleen for uniforms and military hoopla, he was not the reason for WW1. That war started because Vienna got greedy and wanted that war more than anything to stabilize its already dissolving empire. The Austrian-Hungarian empire sent an ultimatum to Serbia after the attack on their heir apparent that was absolutely impossible to accept by any state. It was essentially the demand to cease to exist as a independent country and become annexed by the A-H empire. They accepted pretty much all of it, including that Austrian troops may search for culprits of the attack (to give you an idea just WHAT they accepted: Foreign military conducting search&seizure on your soil without you having any say what they can or cannot do), pretty much anything short of surrendering independence, which A-H did not accept as sufficient and declared war. Which set the whole system of alliances into motion.
Wilhelm himself said later that, had he known just WHAT Sarajevo accepted, he would not have supported that war, that (what Serbia accepted from the conditions) was more than anyone could sensibly expect.
If you're looking for a culprit of the war, look further south. Berlin was dragged into this mess.
Also, please remember that the general attitude towards war and starting one was completely different to what it's today. War was something you'd do if you run out of other options, not something that you got ostracised for by other nations. WW1 changed that attitude, but until 1914, wars were something where you'd go and kill a few soldiers, then trade land and everyone goes home eventually to prepare for the next. War was something nations do when they compete.
That attitude had changed by 1918, yes. But still the demands Clemenceau made were insane. If those contracts stood, Germany would have paid back its "fine" up until the 2000s. How exactly did he expect this to work? It's understandable that after this war people were pissed. On all sides, don't worry, I doubt that there was a huge amount of love for France in Germany either. Only one side had the means to flog the other, though.
You cannot found peace on oppression, though. Would you accept it? Imagine a war between your country and its neighbor, your neighbor wins (which you consider fake, too, because you still had guns and ammo when the ceasefire came into effect, you didn't lose, you were "assassinated" from the back), then makes ridiculous demands that your grandchildren will still be paying for. Will you pay? Or will you follow whoever promises you to get rid of that?
You don't need to be Germany for this to work. This works in any country. Anywhere on the planet. Anyone would try to stop this kind of treatment as soon as he even remotely sees any chance to do so.
You do know that they aren't going to simply register for neutralization, right? People in general don't really like the idea of having their life terminated, it's rather likely that they will resist, and given that the alternative is death, nothing short of killing them will keep them from killing you.
I'd be wary what I wish for. Not only because chances are they have more experience with violence than you do.
What makes you think that only "dumb" people will enter your field? It's not unlikely that people with PhDs in relevant fields will be replaced by AI, looking for jobs, finding yours and deciding to hop in.
You wouldn't be the first person who suddenly finds in suitable job descriptions ridiculous degree requirements just because suddenly people who actually have those (rather superfluous) degrees move into them. And then try to argue with HR why those degree expectations are ridiculous and nonsensical.
When agriculture didn't need farmhands anymore, industry scooped them up. That was easy, no retraining required, no skill required.
When industry automated and robotized everything, the service industry took over. The skill level of a burger flipper is probably not that much higher than that of a person putting a screw on a bolt and tightening it.
How do you turn that burger flipper now into an AI writer or robot designer? Remember: 50% of the people have an IQ lower than average.
It's interesting how, of all the leaders of the world, the French leaders are great at assembling a German Reich and making it their enemy. Napoleon III enabled the Second Reich 1870 by declaring a ridiculous war on Prussia, Clemenceau with his attempt to annihilate German with insane demands after WW1 gave Hitler the ammunition to become Chancellor and create the Third Reich...
WW1 was preceded by the same kind of prosperity we have today: Prosperity for those that already have everything, at the cost of a more and more impoverished (and growing) group of people. If it hadn't been for WW1, a few of those empires would have been blown away anyway, actually it's likely that the Russian and the Austrian-Hungarian Empires would not have lasted as long as they did without the war. Russia was underdeveloped and shaken with domestic terrorism (IIRC in the late 1800s one Czar was assassinated and every other has survived multiple attempts, among other attacks). Austria-Hungary was about to fall apart (pretty much like it did after the war).
WW2 was essentially a continuation of WW1, an extension after a 20 years truce. And a good example how a dictated peace will only lead to worse and more bloody wars.
Being available does not mean being ubiquitous. Using machines requires an infrastructure to keep them running, the US was until the beginning of the 20th century, I would say until the middle of it in some remote places, not really in a position where you could rely on the infrastructure being in place in rural areas, which are, by definition, the areas where agriculture happens.
100 years ago the US was, outside the large cities on the coasts, mostly a developing country with little in terms of machinery or infrastructure. But even that aside you're facing a different problem today.
First, the situation was a completely different one. Back when machinery replaced manual labor in agriculture, we actually had a shortage of workforce. Actually, one of the key reasons machines became a thing in agriculture was that they already were a thing in manufacturing, albeit in such a way that required a LOT of manpower. Industrial centers wanted cheap labor and that cheap labor was found in the displaced agricultural workers. Back then there was also no problem with any kind of training, the jobs necessary could be done by anyone.
When the industry started to reduce its manpower requirement, the service industry and menial office jobs (like typewriter copiers) emerged. Again, jobs you didn't really need a high level skill set for, though it did already disqualify a few that could not be trained to transport food from kitchen to table.
The problem we face today is that we have pretty much eliminated all these low-level jobs except for a few in the service industry. And they are prone to being automated away. What do you do with all the burger flippers and shelf stockers then? You can't retrain them to be robot engineers, process managers and SAP consultants.
There will simply be no job for these people. Yes, new jobs will be created, no doubt about this, but the skill level required will be beyond the capabilities of about 50% of the people you have available. What are you going to do with 50% of your workforce are essentially unemployable?
The difference is that by now our leaders found out that it means jack shit if people talk. If anything, it keeps them from revolting because they think they still have freedom.
Why single out Trump, you really think there is a single politician left who isn't just interested in lining his own pockets and would harvest and sell your organs if he thought he'd get away with it?
What good did EVER result from inventing new words? Just think of all the politically correct bullshit circulating. You used to call people with dark skin something I can't even write here anymore. Then colored. Then it was Afro Americans. Then black. Then... whatever, I don't keep up with the PC bullshit. And what exactly did it change for them? Zip, nada, zilch, not even nothing.
And now the racists use those "PC words" to make fun of the whole politically correctness and mock it. You think it would be any different if you invent something new for "hacking"? You think the media would suddenly start using the "polite" word for "good" hacking? What's "good" anyway? I'm pretty sure Nintendo thinks the whole Switch-hack is pretty bad.
If you want to vilify something, you will find a way. No matter how "correct" your wording is. If anything, it helps them pretend that they want to be "unbiased" while slandering.
Tabs. Why? Because if you don't like the indentation the way it is, you can easily adjust your tab spacing without altering the code. No matter what the person writing the code thought is the "correct" amount of whitespace between edge and indented code, your setting will provide whatever amount you consider correct.
Try that if you insist that 4 spaces are indentation and I think that 2 is plenty. And don't you DARE to add spaces to my code because then it will be ALL WRONG when I check it back out. And you can be certain that I will correct your horrible mistake!
Coupled with an index pagination lets you skip the usual introduction drivel where the author barfs his thoughts and intentions nobody gives a shit about.
Good authors at least. Bad ones sprinkle that useless garbage all over their text.
Slashdot Mirror
If you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a thumb...
I was already worried they might dump the telemetry code. I mean, I can live without DVD drivers, without the ability to fix Registry entries after their update shoots the system in the foot and being able to manage the system, but MS not knowing that I still diligently dig through the system to squelch Cortana, get rid of the Windows Shop (or whatever they call that iTunes Store and Steam spoof/mockup), remove their "cloud" connection (insert vaporware joke here) and get rid of all the other ridiculous bloatware they cram down my throat ... I mean, why do you think I spend my evenings after updates ripping that crap out if it doesn't piss off MS that I refuse to use more of their shit than I absolutely have to?
Less pointless yammering and more money?
Gimme!
WW2 is a direct result of the outcome of WW1 and how it was handled. Do you really think a WW2 would have happened without Versailles and what it meant for Germany?
Yes, Bismark wanted a war with France, and France had to start it so the defensive pacts with the other German states would come into effect. And Napoleon III was enough of a fool to hand him that gift. There was exactly zero reason for Napoleon to start this war. None.
World War 1 was a different beast, though. While Wilhelm II was someone who had a spleen for uniforms and military hoopla, he was not the reason for WW1. That war started because Vienna got greedy and wanted that war more than anything to stabilize its already dissolving empire. The Austrian-Hungarian empire sent an ultimatum to Serbia after the attack on their heir apparent that was absolutely impossible to accept by any state. It was essentially the demand to cease to exist as a independent country and become annexed by the A-H empire. They accepted pretty much all of it, including that Austrian troops may search for culprits of the attack (to give you an idea just WHAT they accepted: Foreign military conducting search&seizure on your soil without you having any say what they can or cannot do), pretty much anything short of surrendering independence, which A-H did not accept as sufficient and declared war. Which set the whole system of alliances into motion.
Wilhelm himself said later that, had he known just WHAT Sarajevo accepted, he would not have supported that war, that (what Serbia accepted from the conditions) was more than anyone could sensibly expect.
If you're looking for a culprit of the war, look further south. Berlin was dragged into this mess.
Also, please remember that the general attitude towards war and starting one was completely different to what it's today. War was something you'd do if you run out of other options, not something that you got ostracised for by other nations. WW1 changed that attitude, but until 1914, wars were something where you'd go and kill a few soldiers, then trade land and everyone goes home eventually to prepare for the next. War was something nations do when they compete.
That attitude had changed by 1918, yes. But still the demands Clemenceau made were insane. If those contracts stood, Germany would have paid back its "fine" up until the 2000s. How exactly did he expect this to work? It's understandable that after this war people were pissed. On all sides, don't worry, I doubt that there was a huge amount of love for France in Germany either. Only one side had the means to flog the other, though.
You cannot found peace on oppression, though. Would you accept it? Imagine a war between your country and its neighbor, your neighbor wins (which you consider fake, too, because you still had guns and ammo when the ceasefire came into effect, you didn't lose, you were "assassinated" from the back), then makes ridiculous demands that your grandchildren will still be paying for. Will you pay? Or will you follow whoever promises you to get rid of that?
You don't need to be Germany for this to work. This works in any country. Anywhere on the planet. Anyone would try to stop this kind of treatment as soon as he even remotely sees any chance to do so.
You do know that they aren't going to simply register for neutralization, right? People in general don't really like the idea of having their life terminated, it's rather likely that they will resist, and given that the alternative is death, nothing short of killing them will keep them from killing you.
I'd be wary what I wish for. Not only because chances are they have more experience with violence than you do.
There has, and the older ones among us might even remember such a time.
So we'll also be suitable for civil war? I like the wording, it's so much nicer.
But I learned, no matter how you paint a turd, it still stinks.
Don't be ridiculous, there will never be enough jobs in corporate boards and politics.
What makes you think that only "dumb" people will enter your field? It's not unlikely that people with PhDs in relevant fields will be replaced by AI, looking for jobs, finding yours and deciding to hop in.
You wouldn't be the first person who suddenly finds in suitable job descriptions ridiculous degree requirements just because suddenly people who actually have those (rather superfluous) degrees move into them. And then try to argue with HR why those degree expectations are ridiculous and nonsensical.
I don't care what my slave wants.
When agriculture didn't need farmhands anymore, industry scooped them up. That was easy, no retraining required, no skill required.
When industry automated and robotized everything, the service industry took over. The skill level of a burger flipper is probably not that much higher than that of a person putting a screw on a bolt and tightening it.
How do you turn that burger flipper now into an AI writer or robot designer? Remember: 50% of the people have an IQ lower than average.
Twitter bots exist already.
It's interesting how, of all the leaders of the world, the French leaders are great at assembling a German Reich and making it their enemy. Napoleon III enabled the Second Reich 1870 by declaring a ridiculous war on Prussia, Clemenceau with his attempt to annihilate German with insane demands after WW1 gave Hitler the ammunition to become Chancellor and create the Third Reich...
France, please stop doing that, ok?
WW1 was preceded by the same kind of prosperity we have today: Prosperity for those that already have everything, at the cost of a more and more impoverished (and growing) group of people. If it hadn't been for WW1, a few of those empires would have been blown away anyway, actually it's likely that the Russian and the Austrian-Hungarian Empires would not have lasted as long as they did without the war. Russia was underdeveloped and shaken with domestic terrorism (IIRC in the late 1800s one Czar was assassinated and every other has survived multiple attempts, among other attacks). Austria-Hungary was about to fall apart (pretty much like it did after the war).
WW2 was essentially a continuation of WW1, an extension after a 20 years truce. And a good example how a dictated peace will only lead to worse and more bloody wars.
Being available does not mean being ubiquitous. Using machines requires an infrastructure to keep them running, the US was until the beginning of the 20th century, I would say until the middle of it in some remote places, not really in a position where you could rely on the infrastructure being in place in rural areas, which are, by definition, the areas where agriculture happens.
100 years ago the US was, outside the large cities on the coasts, mostly a developing country with little in terms of machinery or infrastructure. But even that aside you're facing a different problem today.
First, the situation was a completely different one. Back when machinery replaced manual labor in agriculture, we actually had a shortage of workforce. Actually, one of the key reasons machines became a thing in agriculture was that they already were a thing in manufacturing, albeit in such a way that required a LOT of manpower. Industrial centers wanted cheap labor and that cheap labor was found in the displaced agricultural workers. Back then there was also no problem with any kind of training, the jobs necessary could be done by anyone.
When the industry started to reduce its manpower requirement, the service industry and menial office jobs (like typewriter copiers) emerged. Again, jobs you didn't really need a high level skill set for, though it did already disqualify a few that could not be trained to transport food from kitchen to table.
The problem we face today is that we have pretty much eliminated all these low-level jobs except for a few in the service industry. And they are prone to being automated away. What do you do with all the burger flippers and shelf stockers then? You can't retrain them to be robot engineers, process managers and SAP consultants.
There will simply be no job for these people. Yes, new jobs will be created, no doubt about this, but the skill level required will be beyond the capabilities of about 50% of the people you have available. What are you going to do with 50% of your workforce are essentially unemployable?
Trump's job can already be fully automated. Twitter-Bots exist and any Magic-8-ball can take over the decision making.
The difference is that by now our leaders found out that it means jack shit if people talk. If anything, it keeps them from revolting because they think they still have freedom.
If the data shows that we need more CO2, more NOx and more SO2 in our atmosphere, by all means do it!
Why single out Trump, you really think there is a single politician left who isn't just interested in lining his own pockets and would harvest and sell your organs if he thought he'd get away with it?
What good did EVER result from inventing new words? Just think of all the politically correct bullshit circulating. You used to call people with dark skin something I can't even write here anymore. Then colored. Then it was Afro Americans. Then black. Then ... whatever, I don't keep up with the PC bullshit. And what exactly did it change for them? Zip, nada, zilch, not even nothing.
And now the racists use those "PC words" to make fun of the whole politically correctness and mock it. You think it would be any different if you invent something new for "hacking"? You think the media would suddenly start using the "polite" word for "good" hacking? What's "good" anyway? I'm pretty sure Nintendo thinks the whole Switch-hack is pretty bad.
If you want to vilify something, you will find a way. No matter how "correct" your wording is. If anything, it helps them pretend that they want to be "unbiased" while slandering.
Not to mention word order, it's ok to prick your finger on YouTube and get a million hits, but don't finger your prick or you'll be banned.
Tabs. Why? Because if you don't like the indentation the way it is, you can easily adjust your tab spacing without altering the code. No matter what the person writing the code thought is the "correct" amount of whitespace between edge and indented code, your setting will provide whatever amount you consider correct.
Try that if you insist that 4 spaces are indentation and I think that 2 is plenty. And don't you DARE to add spaces to my code because then it will be ALL WRONG when I check it back out. And you can be certain that I will correct your horrible mistake!
Coupled with an index pagination lets you skip the usual introduction drivel where the author barfs his thoughts and intentions nobody gives a shit about.
Good authors at least. Bad ones sprinkle that useless garbage all over their text.