I have found the bigger problems tend to go with the more macho types though. Yes, occasionally you hear of a problem with a school group other than a sports team, but in the vast majority of cases, groups of men who are aggressive towards women are groups of men who are GENERALLY aggressive. Drug gangs, low grade thugs, etc., are all far worse, unquestionably, than "geeks".
Yes, but they get away with it because people accept them being like that, and treat it as humerous. OTOH, a "geek" has only even to say something that could possibly be construed as having the slightest inuendo and society will come down on him like a ton of bricks. Society applies different standards.
I've been there. Having been regarded as the "brains" of the family, I have seen people shocked and offended at the very idea of my being involved in romance; they think it preposterous - "brainy" people are meant to be just..... brainy. In my teens a girl once started a conversation with me at a function and immediately some older people rushed over and physically separated us. OTOH I have seen macho type guys (as you refer to) touching girls boobs and bums and making them scream, but the bystanders just laughing indulgently and saying like "Oh well, that's Jack all over, he's such a lad!"
a proper automated vehicle will be safer than a car piloted by an adult human, so it will be far, far safer than a bicycle piloted by a child
Sorry, but I would rather be struck by your kid riding his bike than by his automated car.
It is a shortcoming of the English lanuage that the word "safe" is used for both subject and object. Thus we might say "It is not safe to throw stones at a crowd" but also "It is not safe to be in a crowd with stones being thrown at it". Unfortunately the lack of distinction misleads people in discussions like this (and it is often used deliberately to mislead).
Would you consider it wise to give passengers in an airliner the ability to take over in case the pilot makes a mistake?
False analogy. Very few passengers would know how to fly an airliner. For the forseeable future however, most adults can drive a car if they needed to take over, Which brings us back to the question of whether that ability should be a requirement.
In any case, while I do not know much about what these automated cars are capable of, surely some human control is going to be needed. It will not be good enough to say to my car "Go to the office" because sometimes I just need the car park (where I prefer a shaded slot, not any one), sometimes to a loading bay to collect equipment, and sometimes to another spot to drop off a colleague. And if the navigation is as poor as current satnavs provide, I am certainly going to need override from time-to -time both en-route and near the destination.
If I say "Head for the Dog and Duck", will it stop me in the middle of the road outside, or take me round the back into the car park? My satnav would do the first.
.... I went into this thinking, gee, how much could a minimal set of tools [to repair a car] cost? For god's sake, it's absurd how many tools you need to take them apart, it's just one tool after the next after the next. I mean, how many bolt sizes and shapes could you possibly need to build a car?
It is crazy. I work on cars as a kind of hobby, and now have thousands of tools. The first car I had needed only eight different sizes of spanner (Unified series from 1/4" to 3/4" Across-Flats) apart from one or two specials like the 2" wheel bearings nuts. I still have that set. But my present car has a mix of Unified, Metric and Whitworth (FFS!). I am constantly having to get out from under the car to go back to the tool cupboard as there are too many different spanners needed to keep them all by me.
Metric is the worse offender because it is "international". That means the "standard" (if it deserves to be called that) had to include eg 12mm AF because that was in Nation A's previous standard, 13mm AF because that was in Nation B's previous standard, 14mm AF because that was in Nation C's previous standard, 15mm AF because... (you get the idea), and no nation would agree to an international standard unless their previous national standard was included as at least a sub-set. Even bolts which have the same thread size often have different head sizes on them for no good reason other than the designer's whim. Really, all that was needed was a logrithmic progression like 8-10-13-17-22.
That's just spanners. Don't get me started on screwdrivers. I have enough of those alone to fill a large toolbox - flat, pozidriv, allen, philips, hex, torx, each of them in as many as 10 size variations permutated with different lengths.
.... mining of data, the formation of new business intelligence that can now sit on data sources the size of Google, and how to make sense of them...... shed light on peoples’ buying trends and preferences to boost sales—every small business owner’s dream......... Owning and managing the cloud will be relegated to a small number of service companies that can add value to products.
Translation:- stuffing adverts down the users' throats.
Second thoughts, it didn't really translating, it's plain enough already.
Would you like me to order some cigarettes and a pregnancy test for you?
Perhaps I'm unworldly, but WTF have cigarettes got to do with sex? Am I missing something? Unless it is what a turn-off they are, so they act as a contraceptive.
The purpose of most advertising.... [is]... to keep the name in your mind so when you do make a buying decision you'll be influenced.... they remember "those are the ones with the cute ads, maybe I'll try one."
Maybe it works that way with some people, but how do they know how many others it pisses off?
For example I have a road Atlas. As usual there is a small scale overview map that gives the page number of the area you are interested in. Where should this overview map be? - on the back of course, like it was in my previous atlas; so glance at the back and find your page. But no, the back page is a Karcher Pressure Washers advert and instead I must fumble though to about Page 6 to find the overview map.
So I certainly do remember the Karcher name - because of the frustration and delay it causes me it makes me angy every time I see it. I also think that with Karcher spending so much on advertising (they are on TV half the time too), less of the money I would pay is going on quality. I did buy a pressure washer recently - a Black and Decker. It's fine, don't buy a Karcher.
When everyone runs Windows OS and Apps for free, what incentive is there to run Linux?
Because Windows is a crock of shite? It would be "free" for me to run Windows right now (it came "free" with my PC whether I liked it or not) but I don't. Sometimes I try it and get sick of its patronising pop-ups and don't know whether it's safe to do anything without being either pawned or sued over something.
No, the reason why people in places like China and India prefer to use Windows, pirated or not, is that they hear that the West mostly use it and don't want to be left out of something, though they don't know what that something is. They also still believe in the old adage "You only get what you pay for" (or maybe ought to have payed for in their case), the fools.
attackers will eventually find security holes in that software. You can continue to run Windows XP if you wish, but don't expect that software to get patched or have any other support.
Dogdude's point was that there is no fundamental reason to have moved on from Win XP basic design (at least for desktops and laptops I would add) or, in particular, from the word processors of say 15 years ago. The requirements of what they do have not changed. Of course, security and other bugs would need to be addressed as they emerge.
In the face of that, with the implication that they would not sell much software again after everyone is equipped with what they need, Microsoft and other software houses create artificial reasons for their users to replace it. It is marketing's job to convince the customers, or at least some of them (especially PHBs), usually by means of bling, bells and whistles, that they "need" to change; then others must follow suit for reasons such as their older file formats cannot be read by the PHB. The ultimate goal of MS (for example) is of course software rental because they would never need to worry about needing to persuade people to upgrade again.
I like this steak conversation, much more informative and interesting than the original post about "AV being dead"
I'm scrolling down and down trying to get to comments about AV, and all I can see is about cooking steaks. Christ, people, this is not a foodie forum. I'd need 1000 mod points to clear them out of the way.
Seems to be a weakness of/. that some early post which is OT, or uses an analogy (as in this case), then triggers an OT discussion that occupies the top 100 screenfuls. Perhaps if a post is modded OT by two or more moderators, everything following in that thread should go down with it. Or OT threads should be moved always to the bottom.
Unfortunately, as a society we've developed strong social expectations that phone calls be answered immediately.
You have obviously never phoned up a call centre. Well, it is answered immediately, I suppose, by music and by a soothing voice telling you that they are currently experiencing an exceptionally heavy level of calls.
But, culture has changed since mobiles came along - I don't expect calls to be answered immediately anymore. They were in the days when landline phones were the latest thing - when for somone to be calling they must be rich and important even to possess one.
PS, why are we keeping the title of this discussion as it was set by the first post troll, who is not even visible anymore?
So if the death penalty is not a deterrent, why again does the US have it?
Simple, it gets rid of the perp.
I've seen figures that suggest locking someone up for life is actually cheaper to do (given all the appeals, special wings etc).
That's the USA. You need to streamline things a bit. It was not long ago that the convicted was taken straight out and hung. Cost the rope, and even that could be re-used. While that was extreme, the repeated legal appeals nonsense needs to be reformed.
The only conclusion I can realistically see is pure revenge by the rest of society.
How about:-
Removal of their threat from society
Avoids their possible future release by some future trick cyclist who thinks he has "cured" them, only to re-offend
Avoids their possible future release in some civil disorder
Avoids the cost of endless legal appeals
Avoids of sympathy-seeking media interviews and journo's making careers out of taking sides with them
Certain removal of their genes from the gene pool
Avoids possible organising further criminal activities from prison, in the case of gang leaders
No accomodation costs (see comment above)
All the "avoidance" items above have occurred in past cases.
We can give the other two [liberty and happiness] back when we convict the wrong person.
No, you cannot give back someone's lost years if they have been wrongly given a jail sentence. Does that mean however that we must not even imprison anybody, in case we get it wrong? If you believe that, then try living in a country (there are some) where law enforcement has broken down such that guys get away with anything.
I wasn't "almost" a huge disaster, it was a huge disaster, about as bad as a nuclear disaster can get - the fuel on fire.
Yet here we are. I've had holidays not far from there. People still work at the site (as they do at Chernobyl), and people still live around it. I worked there myself for a short time, as I have at other nuclear plants. If anybody died because of Windscale it is lost in the "statistical" noise of general deaths - frustrating verifiable statistical analysis by even the most avid anti-nukes. I have had far bigger doses than any member of the public got from TMI or Fukashima, but I will probably die in a road accident - but that's OK because road accicents are regarded as a "democratic" way to die.
But I absolutely, totally LOVE depth of field. Screw the art school graduates...... -- I sincerely HOPE -- that artificially inducing audience "focus" by depth of field will be as quaint as silent movie captions in 50 years.
You are talking as if choosing a shallow depth of field is something new, and necessarily "artistic". It's neither. A shallow depth of field is a practical way of eg taking scientific natural history (think bugs) photos without the background distracting; also of taking people's portrait pictures ditto. It has been used that way since the early days of photography. Generally, until now, only the more expensive cameras have had this kind of control; snapshot cameras (of which phone cameras are a modern example) have not, so that much is new.
And OTOH some artistic photography does have great depth of field - there was a group of photographers called the "Group F64" who took such photos. You have probably heard of Ansel Adams (or have certainly seen his pictures) who was a member of this group.
In my experience most secrets come out eventually..
How would you know?
There was even a case of a British royal heir that was likely murdered, a situation that would have endangered the monarch who did it (ordered it done). It took several centuries but they think they've found the body (it was found under a staircase).
It wasn't a royal heir, it was a king (Edward V), after being deposed in 1483 by his successor, King Richard III. The probable body (alongside his supposed younger brother) was found about 200 years later in Charles II's reign. Ironically, Richard III's own remains also remained hidden until last year. Historians still cannot agree who was responsible for killing Edward V, but modern thought is that the rumour that it was Richard was no more than Tudor propaganda - so the "secret" still holds.
At this point I view eugenics as nearly always bad. With most "improvement" we'll most likely reduce our diversity, and that's pretty bad.
I'm inclined to ask why that's bad. Sounds like it would solve race hate problems.
Anyway, I think the problem is likely to be the opposite. More likely that whacky people - the sort that currently name their children things like "Pilot Inspektor" and "Crime Fighter", are also the sort of people who would think it fun to opt for a green baby, one who will grow to 8 ft high, or one with four arms.
Mod parent up. For example.... how cruddy cars used to be and how much better and more reliable cars are nowadays. Compare a mid-90s Hyundai Excel to Hyundais now, for example.
I don't think cars follow the general trend. For one thing they have moved (in a gradual process) from being an optional plaything (my father only ever used his for weekend drives) to essentials such as getting to work. Another factor (in the UK anyway) was a strong public reaction against cars rusting; rust resistance went through a low point around 1960-1980 but subsequently improved, and it was rust more than anything else which dictates how long a car lasts in the UK. We do not see an equivalent public reaction in most tech areas however because people want to replace eg phones, PCs and TVs because in recent years the tech has become (or is perceived to become) obsolete before the device physically fails.
A third factor (in the UK again) is that most cars are now professionally maintained. 30-40 years ago it was typical for owners to maintain their own cars - with variable degrees of aptitude. I have maintained my own cars since the 1970's and have seen no fundamental reason for increased reliability other than reduced reliance on mechanical control in favour of electronic (eg ignition timing) - resulting in a tendency for occasional total failure rather than constant progressive deterioration.
Despite the hype there has not been any revolutionary change in mainstream car tech in the last 50 years - nothing equivalent to TV changing to digital or the advent of mobile phones.
It's... "Survivorship Bias". Old stuff seems like it was better built because all the crappy stuff already made it into the dumpster and subsequently forgotten long ago.
No, while recognising that effect you mention, there is definitely a different culture. When my father and his generation bought stuff they expected it to last a lifetime, indeed to be an heirloom, and it generally did. Thus for example he only ever bought one radio in his life, one tape recorder (THE big thing then). I still have his fully usable Rolleiflex camera and Weston exposure meter (both > 50 years old).
I once bought a house from an old lady with 1950's kitchen cupboards in it. I refitted the kitchen but kept the cupboards for my toolshed. They are very tatty now, but solid wood with dovetail joints - vastly superior to today's chipboard tat, yet run-of-the-mill for their day. They could last for ever.
Shuttleworth has done nothing but help the open source community in every way imaginable.
You mean like commercialising his distro, splitting the community by taking his own direction away from Wayland, and ditto by taking his own direction with the GUI? Or did you intend irony?
I really don't see why anyone would still want to use Ubuntu when there is [Mint] an equally good (if not better) Debian/Ubuntu-based distro
I don't see why anyone would want to use a distro based on Ubuntu [which is based on Debian] where there are equally good or better distros based on Debian directly.
One thing that sticks in my mind from when I was a child was artists' impressions of "The Car of the Future". They had shapes like half-sucked wine-gums - fug-ugly I thought.
Slashdot Mirror
I have found the bigger problems tend to go with the more macho types though. Yes, occasionally you hear of a problem with a school group other than a sports team, but in the vast majority of cases, groups of men who are aggressive towards women are groups of men who are GENERALLY aggressive. Drug gangs, low grade thugs, etc., are all far worse, unquestionably, than "geeks".
Yes, but they get away with it because people accept them being like that, and treat it as humerous. OTOH, a "geek" has only even to say something that could possibly be construed as having the slightest inuendo and society will come down on him like a ton of bricks. Society applies different standards.
..... brainy. In my teens a girl once started a conversation with me at a function and immediately some older people rushed over and physically separated us. OTOH I have seen macho type guys (as you refer to) touching girls boobs and bums and making them scream, but the bystanders just laughing indulgently and saying like "Oh well, that's Jack all over, he's such a lad!"
I've been there. Having been regarded as the "brains" of the family, I have seen people shocked and offended at the very idea of my being involved in romance; they think it preposterous - "brainy" people are meant to be just
a proper automated vehicle will be safer than a car piloted by an adult human, so it will be far, far safer than a bicycle piloted by a child
Sorry, but I would rather be struck by your kid riding his bike than by his automated car.
It is a shortcoming of the English lanuage that the word "safe" is used for both subject and object. Thus we might say "It is not safe to throw stones at a crowd" but also "It is not safe to be in a crowd with stones being thrown at it". Unfortunately the lack of distinction misleads people in discussions like this (and it is often used deliberately to mislead).
Would you consider it wise to give passengers in an airliner the ability to take over in case the pilot makes a mistake?
False analogy. Very few passengers would know how to fly an airliner. For the forseeable future however, most adults can drive a car if they needed to take over, Which brings us back to the question of whether that ability should be a requirement.
In any case, while I do not know much about what these automated cars are capable of, surely some human control is going to be needed. It will not be good enough to say to my car "Go to the office" because sometimes I just need the car park (where I prefer a shaded slot, not any one), sometimes to a loading bay to collect equipment, and sometimes to another spot to drop off a colleague. And if the navigation is as poor as current satnavs provide, I am certainly going to need override from time-to -time both en-route and near the destination.
If I say "Head for the Dog and Duck", will it stop me in the middle of the road outside, or take me round the back into the car park? My satnav would do the first.
.... I went into this thinking, gee, how much could a minimal set of tools [to repair a car] cost? For god's sake, it's absurd how many tools you need to take them apart, it's just one tool after the next after the next. I mean, how many bolt sizes and shapes could you possibly need to build a car?
It is crazy. I work on cars as a kind of hobby, and now have thousands of tools. The first car I had needed only eight different sizes of spanner (Unified series from 1/4" to 3/4" Across-Flats) apart from one or two specials like the 2" wheel bearings nuts. I still have that set. But my present car has a mix of Unified, Metric and Whitworth (FFS!). I am constantly having to get out from under the car to go back to the tool cupboard as there are too many different spanners needed to keep them all by me.
... (you get the idea), and no nation would agree to an international standard unless their previous national standard was included as at least a sub-set. Even bolts which have the same thread size often have different head sizes on them for no good reason other than the designer's whim. Really, all that was needed was a logrithmic progression like 8-10-13-17-22.
Metric is the worse offender because it is "international". That means the "standard" (if it deserves to be called that) had to include eg 12mm AF because that was in Nation A's previous standard, 13mm AF because that was in Nation B's previous standard, 14mm AF because that was in Nation C's previous standard, 15mm AF because
That's just spanners. Don't get me started on screwdrivers. I have enough of those alone to fill a large toolbox - flat, pozidriv, allen, philips, hex, torx, each of them in as many as 10 size variations permutated with different lengths.
Translation :- stuffing adverts down the users' throats.
Second thoughts, it didn't really translating, it's plain enough already.
Would you like me to order some cigarettes and a pregnancy test for you?
Perhaps I'm unworldly, but WTF have cigarettes got to do with sex? Am I missing something? Unless it is what a turn-off they are, so they act as a contraceptive.
The purpose of most advertising .... [is] ... to keep the name in your mind so when you do make a buying decision you'll be influenced.... they remember "those are the ones with the cute ads, maybe I'll try one."
Maybe it works that way with some people, but how do they know how many others it pisses off?
For example I have a road Atlas. As usual there is a small scale overview map that gives the page number of the area you are interested in. Where should this overview map be? - on the back of course, like it was in my previous atlas; so glance at the back and find your page. But no, the back page is a Karcher Pressure Washers advert and instead I must fumble though to about Page 6 to find the overview map.
So I certainly do remember the Karcher name - because of the frustration and delay it causes me it makes me angy every time I see it. I also think that with Karcher spending so much on advertising (they are on TV half the time too), less of the money I would pay is going on quality. I did buy a pressure washer recently - a Black and Decker. It's fine, don't buy a Karcher.
When everyone runs Windows OS and Apps for free, what incentive is there to run Linux?
Because Windows is a crock of shite? It would be "free" for me to run Windows right now (it came "free" with my PC whether I liked it or not) but I don't. Sometimes I try it and get sick of its patronising pop-ups and don't know whether it's safe to do anything without being either pawned or sued over something.
No, the reason why people in places like China and India prefer to use Windows, pirated or not, is that they hear that the West mostly use it and don't want to be left out of something, though they don't know what that something is. They also still believe in the old adage "You only get what you pay for" (or maybe ought to have payed for in their case), the fools.
attackers will eventually find security holes in that software. You can continue to run Windows XP if you wish, but don't expect that software to get patched or have any other support.
Dogdude's point was that there is no fundamental reason to have moved on from Win XP basic design (at least for desktops and laptops I would add) or, in particular, from the word processors of say 15 years ago. The requirements of what they do have not changed. Of course, security and other bugs would need to be addressed as they emerge.
In the face of that, with the implication that they would not sell much software again after everyone is equipped with what they need, Microsoft and other software houses create artificial reasons for their users to replace it. It is marketing's job to convince the customers, or at least some of them (especially PHBs), usually by means of bling, bells and whistles, that they "need" to change; then others must follow suit for reasons such as their older file formats cannot be read by the PHB. The ultimate goal of MS (for example) is of course software rental because they would never need to worry about needing to persuade people to upgrade again.
I like this steak conversation, much more informative and interesting than the original post about "AV being dead"
I'm scrolling down and down trying to get to comments about AV, and all I can see is about cooking steaks. Christ, people, this is not a foodie forum. I'd need 1000 mod points to clear them out of the way.
/. that some early post which is OT, or uses an analogy (as in this case), then triggers an OT discussion that occupies the top 100 screenfuls. Perhaps if a post is modded OT by two or more moderators, everything following in that thread should go down with it. Or OT threads should be moved always to the bottom.
Seems to be a weakness of
How the heck did this go from semantic to mad cow desease in 5 posts??? Focus people, focus!
Don't worry, they'll getting back to talking about how to grill steak in a minute.
Unfortunately, as a society we've developed strong social expectations that phone calls be answered immediately.
You have obviously never phoned up a call centre. Well, it is answered immediately, I suppose, by music and by a soothing voice telling you that they are currently experiencing an exceptionally heavy level of calls.
But, culture has changed since mobiles came along - I don't expect calls to be answered immediately anymore. They were in the days when landline phones were the latest thing - when for somone to be calling they must be rich and important even to possess one.
PS, why are we keeping the title of this discussion as it was set by the first post troll, who is not even visible anymore?
So if the death penalty is not a deterrent, why again does the US have it?
Simple, it gets rid of the perp.
I've seen figures that suggest locking someone up for life is actually cheaper to do (given all the appeals, special wings etc).
That's the USA. You need to streamline things a bit. It was not long ago that the convicted was taken straight out and hung. Cost the rope, and even that could be re-used. While that was extreme, the repeated legal appeals nonsense needs to be reformed.
The only conclusion I can realistically see is pure revenge by the rest of society.
How about :-
Removal of their threat from society
Avoids their possible future release by some future trick cyclist who thinks he has "cured" them, only to re-offend
Avoids their possible future release in some civil disorder
Avoids the cost of endless legal appeals
Avoids of sympathy-seeking media interviews and journo's making careers out of taking sides with them
Certain removal of their genes from the gene pool
Avoids possible organising further criminal activities from prison, in the case of gang leaders
No accomodation costs (see comment above)
All the "avoidance" items above have occurred in past cases.
We can give the other two [liberty and happiness] back when we convict the wrong person.
No, you cannot give back someone's lost years if they have been wrongly given a jail sentence. Does that mean however that we must not even imprison anybody, in case we get it wrong? If you believe that, then try living in a country (there are some) where law enforcement has broken down such that guys get away with anything.
Punishment decisions have to be made.
there was almost a huge disaster in the UK.
I wasn't "almost" a huge disaster, it was a huge disaster, about as bad as a nuclear disaster can get - the fuel on fire.
Yet here we are. I've had holidays not far from there. People still work at the site (as they do at Chernobyl), and people still live around it. I worked there myself for a short time, as I have at other nuclear plants. If anybody died because of Windscale it is lost in the "statistical" noise of general deaths - frustrating verifiable statistical analysis by even the most avid anti-nukes. I have had far bigger doses than any member of the public got from TMI or Fukashima, but I will probably die in a road accident - but that's OK because road accicents are regarded as a "democratic" way to die.
But I absolutely, totally LOVE depth of field. Screw the art school graduates. ..... -- I sincerely HOPE -- that artificially inducing audience "focus" by depth of field will be as quaint as silent movie captions in 50 years.
You are talking as if choosing a shallow depth of field is something new, and necessarily "artistic". It's neither. A shallow depth of field is a practical way of eg taking scientific natural history (think bugs) photos without the background distracting; also of taking people's portrait pictures ditto. It has been used that way since the early days of photography. Generally, until now, only the more expensive cameras have had this kind of control; snapshot cameras (of which phone cameras are a modern example) have not, so that much is new.
And OTOH some artistic photography does have great depth of field - there was a group of photographers called the "Group F64" who took such photos. You have probably heard of Ansel Adams (or have certainly seen his pictures) who was a member of this group.
In my experience most secrets come out eventually..
How would you know?
There was even a case of a British royal heir that was likely murdered, a situation that would have endangered the monarch who did it (ordered it done). It took several centuries but they think they've found the body (it was found under a staircase).
It wasn't a royal heir, it was a king (Edward V), after being deposed in 1483 by his successor, King Richard III. The probable body (alongside his supposed younger brother) was found about 200 years later in Charles II's reign. Ironically, Richard III's own remains also remained hidden until last year. Historians still cannot agree who was responsible for killing Edward V, but modern thought is that the rumour that it was Richard was no more than Tudor propaganda - so the "secret" still holds.
At this point I view eugenics as nearly always bad. With most "improvement" we'll most likely reduce our diversity, and that's pretty bad.
I'm inclined to ask why that's bad. Sounds like it would solve race hate problems.
Anyway, I think the problem is likely to be the opposite. More likely that whacky people - the sort that currently name their children things like "Pilot Inspektor" and "Crime Fighter", are also the sort of people who would think it fun to opt for a green baby, one who will grow to 8 ft high, or one with four arms.
Mod parent up. For example .... how cruddy cars used to be and how much better and more reliable cars are nowadays. Compare a mid-90s Hyundai Excel to Hyundais now, for example.
I don't think cars follow the general trend. For one thing they have moved (in a gradual process) from being an optional plaything (my father only ever used his for weekend drives) to essentials such as getting to work. Another factor (in the UK anyway) was a strong public reaction against cars rusting; rust resistance went through a low point around 1960-1980 but subsequently improved, and it was rust more than anything else which dictates how long a car lasts in the UK. We do not see an equivalent public reaction in most tech areas however because people want to replace eg phones, PCs and TVs because in recent years the tech has become (or is perceived to become) obsolete before the device physically fails.
A third factor (in the UK again) is that most cars are now professionally maintained. 30-40 years ago it was typical for owners to maintain their own cars - with variable degrees of aptitude. I have maintained my own cars since the 1970's and have seen no fundamental reason for increased reliability other than reduced reliance on mechanical control in favour of electronic (eg ignition timing) - resulting in a tendency for occasional total failure rather than constant progressive deterioration.
Despite the hype there has not been any revolutionary change in mainstream car tech in the last 50 years - nothing equivalent to TV changing to digital or the advent of mobile phones.
It's ... "Survivorship Bias". Old stuff seems like it was better built because all the crappy stuff already made it into the dumpster and subsequently forgotten long ago.
No, while recognising that effect you mention, there is definitely a different culture. When my father and his generation bought stuff they expected it to last a lifetime, indeed to be an heirloom, and it generally did. Thus for example he only ever bought one radio in his life, one tape recorder (THE big thing then). I still have his fully usable Rolleiflex camera and Weston exposure meter (both > 50 years old).
I once bought a house from an old lady with 1950's kitchen cupboards in it. I refitted the kitchen but kept the cupboards for my toolshed. They are very tatty now, but solid wood with dovetail joints - vastly superior to today's chipboard tat, yet run-of-the-mill for their day. They could last for ever.
So, was the summary supposed to look like it was written by a retarded person
Clearly looks like it was written by a salesman.
Shuttleworth has done nothing but help the open source community in every way imaginable.
You mean like commercialising his distro, splitting the community by taking his own direction away from Wayland, and ditto by taking his own direction with the GUI? Or did you intend irony?
I really don't see why anyone would still want to use Ubuntu when there is [Mint] an equally good (if not better) Debian/Ubuntu-based distro
I don't see why anyone would want to use a distro based on Ubuntu [which is based on Debian] where there are equally good or better distros based on Debian directly.
we need a database table with thousands of values cross referenced against legal texts from 35 years ago? ... Send it to 'those guys'.
And you trust them to do it conscientiously, do you?
One thing that sticks in my mind from when I was a child was artists' impressions of "The Car of the Future". They had shapes like half-sucked wine-gums - fug-ugly I thought.
That has come true.