So your slow reaction caused you to miss a major investment opportunity? What people don't realise with investment, there's no great pay-off in really long term investments and the idea of infinite growth is basically a lie. You need to see the opportunities that are there and exploit them if you want to make it. For the past few years, that has definitely been bitcoin. You can't blame people for being interested in it. I myself though it was insane when a BTC broke the $1000 mark and said "nah I won't touch it, the bubble will pop any second". Shame. I could have made a 700% ROI, and yet nothing is guaranteed.
You are commenting under an article about a self driving car not anticipating a human's actions, so.. fail.
And yet this is one of a possibly infinite number of scenarios most of which self driving cars have shown to handle better than human drivers when it comes to avoiding accidents.
And I will highly recommend one to anyone who asks, despite having experienced a broken Surface myself. Which was replaced quickly within 5 days including shipping via DHL to another country paid for by MS.
Oh and Consumer Reports hasn't actually reviewed the Surface Pro yet, so any opinion they have about the current model is moot.
1) That's what UAC is for, learn about when something should prompt you and when to say no. 2) That's the default 3) That's the default 4) What's IE? How do you even start IE on a modern Windows 10 machine? 5) Why? What are you trying to prevent? Maybe teach people about risks of code execution than arbitrarily hide behind some walled garden.
Does anyone think IBM has a serious problem with brand recognition?
Yes. Plenty of people do. Most companies that try to pit themselves as leaders of technology but have shown a stable and unchanging brand for many years have a problem with brand recognition.
To be honest, IBM is slow. Many consultancies have rebranded heavily in the past 5 years which just shows that IBM's brand says: "We're no longer up to date with the world".
Brand recognition is not about knowing what IBM do, it's about what a company's presentation of itself represents. It's why VISA abandoned the three stripes. It's why HP's premium laptops take a stylish twist on the HP logo, it's why an oil company replaced it's shield logo with something looking like a Sun at a time when it entered the solar business.
A 19th century typeface can be considered quite readable and elegant to our modern eyes, and why shouldn't it, the 19th century is still well in the modern era.
When has typefaces in relation to corporate branding been at all about readability and elegance? They are nothing to do with it. It is all about what emotional response is invoked in the reader. If you're new and hip you don't want Times New Roman as your typeface due to how people perceive it. Likewise a great many people who work in tradition will preference cursive fonts. And really nothing says "I know how to build gas chambers" than using Fraktur, a type face that used to be incredibly popular in the early part of the 20th century but then for some reason fell out of favour very quickly at around 1945, though I'm not sure why...
Yes they do. Things like typefaces invoke an emotional response from the people exposed to them. That emotional response needs to align with your goals and brand. When it doesn't then the typeface is outdated to you and needs to change.
Want to build a brand around old-guard old-money wallstreet? Times New Roman is the font for you. Want to show that you're a consultant that comes up with unique solutions? Then you better have a unique font. Want to show that you're proficient at gassing Jews? Fraktur and its variants would be a good choice.
Incidentally that last godwin proves the point: There's a good reason why NO company still uses Fraktur as a typeface on official documents.
That makes you a poor investor. Public image is one of the most critical aspects of a company. It doesn't matter how good your engineering is if the public thinks less of your company because of how they present their form. This is why companies are happy to invest in rebranding. e.g. Accenture spent $100m on rebranding themselves which among everything included lots of investment in the logo and a bespoke typeface, and for the most part this seems to have paid off with a far more wildly popular company, with most consultancies very quickly following suit. Some companies rebrand themselves every few years (Coke / Pepsi) and they do so because it works.
On the flip side, function is nothing without form. It's why I don't use many open source perfectly functional tools. Their form just makes it difficult to deal with, and engineers (I'm guilty of it myself) have come up with some absolutely horrible tools in the name of functionality.
How come there are never any leaks from these autocratic countries?
Because of observer bias. Specifically your bias. Your bias that you don't actually look on Wikileaks, your bias that you read US news that is all too eager to point out US issues.
Also there's population bias. If someone leaks to you hundreds of gigabytes of USA criticisms, do you say: "Well I'd like to share it, but really I can only share 1GB because I only have 1GB from Russia and 1GB from China, and god forbid my site starts looking biased* in the information I release"
*I'm being facetious. Not releasing the leaked information due to this reasons IS an example of bias.
So the shuttle had a very predictable response while the human on the other hand could have done any number of things.
My aunt would wish she had this self driving car in front of her. If both had hit the brake there would have been a fender bender. Instead she got someone who didn't know the difference between the brake and accelerator and when both attempted to stop the other proceeded to take off hit 3 parked cars force a car in the oncoming lane onto the footpath and came to a rest inside a convenience store. Insurance tried to blame it 100% on my aunt who came to a stop 1m past the stop sign she overshot.
ME is always on, but it has many functions that do not involve any kind of remote access. By contrast the remote functions are disabled.
Now really? Are they? Well until someone can prove to me that there's some way of getting a TCP packet to fly through the internet and into an ethernet port without a second IP address, without additional MAC address, and which doesn't appear to respond to any normally routable packet on any port, I really don't care how off or on it is.
As the old adage goes: If someone has physical access it's game over. The ability to get remote access however can be verified.
Could I have a back door larger than some of he nastiest videos available on Pornhub? Possibly. I don't give a shit about it though if no one is able to get past my fence, through the maze and is unable to actually find the door.
It's got all the classic Trek elements. Exploration and discovery, moral questions, new alien species...
No it doesn't. Star Trek was a series about an ideal future where people of all backgrounds overcame their differences to work together. This on the other hand seems more like an idiots guide on how to staff a dysfunctional spaceship. The dynamics of the interactions are very un-Star Trek
The spore drive is pretty tame compared to some of the silliness seen on Star Trek.
I don't think there's too many complaints about tameness or silliness. The problem is that it is shoehorned into the original series and happens prior to the events of the original. This implies that the universe took a giant leap back in technological capability to get to the original startrek.
All powerful is fine if it is consistent. At least if it were set in the future compared to the original it would be somewhat believable.
Fuel, road space, and maintenance have nothing to do with pollution. Also by pollution you'd think so, but you'd be wrong on that two. On all metrics a car is better than a scooter, ranging from a bit better (CO2 emissions), to massively better (NOx, PM2.5)
but I'd be cautious about throwing around such claims without some numbers
If you're curious then google it. Due to the differences in regulations (which is primarily the cause here) and differences in comparison methods you'll get a bike being anywhere from 1.5x to 8x worse for the environment than a car depending on which article you read.
Good teachers? Assuming I follow your EEE reasoning if they had good teachers they would be breaking other browsers rather than their own.
You know like how sloppy coded web pages will now break on Chrome but will continue to run just fine elsewhere. Or if people adopt the specific coding requirements for Chrome they will... continue to run just fine elsewhere?
This sounds like embrace, extend, set yourself on fire.
Umm telephones and text messages still work last I checked. Nope not on FB.
For what? Communicating with other people who don't use FB? The problem we have now is not so much a FB vs non FB issue, but rather a fragmentation of communication methods. It kind of resembles the really early days where only 1/3rd of people had email. Do you give out your email address or your phone number?
The difference now is complete fragmentation. It's not a case of FB vs non FB, but also what'sapp and various other systems and services. There's generally 2 options to adopt: All of them, or fragmentation.
I'm not all that active on Facebook, though I still have it to send messages to people who are, people who don't generally reply to text messages. It's the same reason I also use Skype and WhatsApp. I don't need to be active on 4 different platforms, but I need to be present.
Holy fuck. Why do you hate the environment so much. Get a car man, they are between 2 and 10 times better for the environment for carrying a single person depending on which emission you measure.
MPG does not in any way correlate to emissions.
Sidenote: WTF only 60mpg? That's not much better than what I get in my 10 year old 1.5T gasoline car. Not only do you drive a scooter farting out on the environment, but it sounds like you drive quite a shitty one too.
Slashdot Mirror
I was being facetious but you kind of made my point. Complaining about IE on a modern windows machine is silly.
Side note: IE is in the start menu under the "Windows Accessories" folder.
So your slow reaction caused you to miss a major investment opportunity? What people don't realise with investment, there's no great pay-off in really long term investments and the idea of infinite growth is basically a lie. You need to see the opportunities that are there and exploit them if you want to make it. For the past few years, that has definitely been bitcoin. You can't blame people for being interested in it. I myself though it was insane when a BTC broke the $1000 mark and said "nah I won't touch it, the bubble will pop any second". Shame. I could have made a 700% ROI, and yet nothing is guaranteed.
You are commenting under an article about a self driving car not anticipating a human's actions, so.. fail.
And yet this is one of a possibly infinite number of scenarios most of which self driving cars have shown to handle better than human drivers when it comes to avoiding accidents.
So... unfail.
And I will highly recommend one to anyone who asks, despite having experienced a broken Surface myself. Which was replaced quickly within 5 days including shipping via DHL to another country paid for by MS.
Oh and Consumer Reports hasn't actually reviewed the Surface Pro yet, so any opinion they have about the current model is moot.
1) That's what UAC is for, learn about when something should prompt you and when to say no.
2) That's the default
3) That's the default
4) What's IE? How do you even start IE on a modern Windows 10 machine?
5) Why? What are you trying to prevent? Maybe teach people about risks of code execution than arbitrarily hide behind some walled garden.
Does anyone think IBM has a serious problem with brand recognition?
Yes. Plenty of people do. Most companies that try to pit themselves as leaders of technology but have shown a stable and unchanging brand for many years have a problem with brand recognition.
To be honest, IBM is slow. Many consultancies have rebranded heavily in the past 5 years which just shows that IBM's brand says: "We're no longer up to date with the world".
Brand recognition is not about knowing what IBM do, it's about what a company's presentation of itself represents. It's why VISA abandoned the three stripes. It's why HP's premium laptops take a stylish twist on the HP logo, it's why an oil company replaced it's shield logo with something looking like a Sun at a time when it entered the solar business.
A 19th century typeface can be considered quite readable and elegant to our modern eyes, and why shouldn't it, the 19th century is still well in the modern era.
When has typefaces in relation to corporate branding been at all about readability and elegance? They are nothing to do with it. It is all about what emotional response is invoked in the reader. If you're new and hip you don't want Times New Roman as your typeface due to how people perceive it. Likewise a great many people who work in tradition will preference cursive fonts. And really nothing says "I know how to build gas chambers" than using Fraktur, a type face that used to be incredibly popular in the early part of the 20th century but then for some reason fell out of favour very quickly at around 1945, though I'm not sure why...
THEY DO NOT BECOME OUTDATED.
Yes they do. Things like typefaces invoke an emotional response from the people exposed to them. That emotional response needs to align with your goals and brand. When it doesn't then the typeface is outdated to you and needs to change.
Want to build a brand around old-guard old-money wallstreet? Times New Roman is the font for you.
Want to show that you're a consultant that comes up with unique solutions? Then you better have a unique font.
Want to show that you're proficient at gassing Jews? Fraktur and its variants would be a good choice.
Incidentally that last godwin proves the point: There's a good reason why NO company still uses Fraktur as a typeface on official documents.
That makes you a poor investor. Public image is one of the most critical aspects of a company. It doesn't matter how good your engineering is if the public thinks less of your company because of how they present their form. This is why companies are happy to invest in rebranding. e.g. Accenture spent $100m on rebranding themselves which among everything included lots of investment in the logo and a bespoke typeface, and for the most part this seems to have paid off with a far more wildly popular company, with most consultancies very quickly following suit. Some companies rebrand themselves every few years (Coke / Pepsi) and they do so because it works.
On the flip side, function is nothing without form. It's why I don't use many open source perfectly functional tools. Their form just makes it difficult to deal with, and engineers (I'm guilty of it myself) have come up with some absolutely horrible tools in the name of functionality.
How come there are never any leaks from these autocratic countries?
Because of observer bias. Specifically your bias. Your bias that you don't actually look on Wikileaks, your bias that you read US news that is all too eager to point out US issues.
Also there's population bias. If someone leaks to you hundreds of gigabytes of USA criticisms, do you say: "Well I'd like to share it, but really I can only share 1GB because I only have 1GB from Russia and 1GB from China, and god forbid my site starts looking biased* in the information I release"
*I'm being facetious. Not releasing the leaked information due to this reasons IS an example of bias.
Obviously self driving cars aren't going to work unless they can drive with humans.
Which part of that is obvious? If anything self driving cars have been shown over the past several years to get by with humans just fine.
What is really obvious is that humans can't drive with humans.
because you could understand the truck drivers plan at a glance
In this case, yes. However not understanding people's plan actually is what causes a large portion of road accidents.
So the shuttle had a very predictable response while the human on the other hand could have done any number of things.
My aunt would wish she had this self driving car in front of her. If both had hit the brake there would have been a fender bender. Instead she got someone who didn't know the difference between the brake and accelerator and when both attempted to stop the other proceeded to take off hit 3 parked cars force a car in the oncoming lane onto the footpath and came to a rest inside a convenience store. Insurance tried to blame it 100% on my aunt who came to a stop 1m past the stop sign she overshot.
ME is always on, but it has many functions that do not involve any kind of remote access. By contrast the remote functions are disabled.
Now really? Are they? Well until someone can prove to me that there's some way of getting a TCP packet to fly through the internet and into an ethernet port without a second IP address, without additional MAC address, and which doesn't appear to respond to any normally routable packet on any port, I really don't care how off or on it is.
As the old adage goes: If someone has physical access it's game over. The ability to get remote access however can be verified.
Could I have a back door larger than some of he nastiest videos available on Pornhub? Possibly. I don't give a shit about it though if no one is able to get past my fence, through the maze and is unable to actually find the door.
It's got all the classic Trek elements. Exploration and discovery, moral questions, new alien species...
No it doesn't. Star Trek was a series about an ideal future where people of all backgrounds overcame their differences to work together. This on the other hand seems more like an idiots guide on how to staff a dysfunctional spaceship. The dynamics of the interactions are very un-Star Trek
What makes Star Trek so special
That everyone has heard of it, unlike say those other TV series (I assume TV series anyway) you mentioned.
The spore drive is pretty tame compared to some of the silliness seen on Star Trek.
I don't think there's too many complaints about tameness or silliness. The problem is that it is shoehorned into the original series and happens prior to the events of the original. This implies that the universe took a giant leap back in technological capability to get to the original startrek.
All powerful is fine if it is consistent. At least if it were set in the future compared to the original it would be somewhat believable.
Fuel, road space, and maintenance have nothing to do with pollution. Also by pollution you'd think so, but you'd be wrong on that two. On all metrics a car is better than a scooter, ranging from a bit better (CO2 emissions), to massively better (NOx, PM2.5)
but I'd be cautious about throwing around such claims without some numbers
If you're curious then google it. Due to the differences in regulations (which is primarily the cause here) and differences in comparison methods you'll get a bike being anywhere from 1.5x to 8x worse for the environment than a car depending on which article you read.
Good teachers? Assuming I follow your EEE reasoning if they had good teachers they would be breaking other browsers rather than their own.
You know like how sloppy coded web pages will now break on Chrome but will continue to run just fine elsewhere. Or if people adopt the specific coding requirements for Chrome they will ... continue to run just fine elsewhere?
This sounds like embrace, extend, set yourself on fire.
Umm telephones and text messages still work last I checked. Nope not on FB.
For what? Communicating with other people who don't use FB? The problem we have now is not so much a FB vs non FB issue, but rather a fragmentation of communication methods. It kind of resembles the really early days where only 1/3rd of people had email. Do you give out your email address or your phone number?
The difference now is complete fragmentation. It's not a case of FB vs non FB, but also what'sapp and various other systems and services. There's generally 2 options to adopt: All of them, or fragmentation.
I'm not all that active on Facebook, though I still have it to send messages to people who are, people who don't generally reply to text messages. It's the same reason I also use Skype and WhatsApp. I don't need to be active on 4 different platforms, but I need to be present.
Let's use the most insecure protocol ever developed to send potentially personal information into the ether for everyone to grab.
What could possibly go wrong?
Nothing. Every implementation of Airdrop, or similar systems use some form of encryption.
Oh you thought you were more clever than the people who came up with the idea didn't you?
But "pound per pound" is not the criterion. The appropriate criterion would be "pound of pollution per commuter mile".
You'll be happy to know the GP was wrong. Scooters are far worse than cars per commuter mile too.
Holy fuck. Why do you hate the environment so much. Get a car man, they are between 2 and 10 times better for the environment for carrying a single person depending on which emission you measure.
MPG does not in any way correlate to emissions.
Sidenote: WTF only 60mpg? That's not much better than what I get in my 10 year old 1.5T gasoline car. Not only do you drive a scooter farting out on the environment, but it sounds like you drive quite a shitty one too.
Burn coal to charge electric cars made with rare earth batteries.
The laws of thermodynamics don't apply to Electric Cars do they? ;)
They apply quite well. It's a shame you never learnt them.
I don't know what your poorly designed public transport system that has empty buses driving around has to do with diesel.
Also have you seen Indian public transport? Not only will the buses not be empty, but there'll likely be 10 people hanging onto the roof.