In this case the actual value of the cargo is negligible; what matters is getting it to the space station. Since NASA only pays for the transport if the cargo arrives, they're already covered for all but the tiny cost required to replace the cargo itself. If anyone were to seek insurance it would be SpaceX, since they're the ones at financial risk.
Heh. One bit of that article made me chuckle (emphasis mine):
The explosion destroyed the $70 million rocket, its Dragon I capsule and 4,000 pounds of supplies that was headed to the International Space Station. None of it was insured.
I can just imagine Elon going to his local insurance agent, trying to get coverage for an experimental vehicle carrying 400 tons of rocket fuel and LOX.
Translation: CIA and NSA are pressuring us for exclusivity.
Seriously, who would believe a sleazy company that makes money off exploits is worried about "human rights violations".
That's a bit too broad. Would a company that makes money by finding exploits and selling them to the makers of the relevant products (via Vulnerability Rewards Programs, or similar), also be sleazy and unworried about human rights violations? There are a lot of highly ethical researchers who make their livings in exactly this way.
Note that I'm not claiming Netragard is among them.
Constitutional rights aren't relevant. The Constitution only specifies limits on government action, so it has no applicability to private actions... but vigilantism is almost by definition a private action.
Other than that, sure, looting and torching somebody's business because you think they're associated with some view or way of life you don't like is vigilantism. What I dispute is that vigilantism is in any way new.
Publicly destroying people and businesses that somehow offend somebody else is now the new normal. The old system of justice won't protect you anymore because even if the old system catches these hackers, the damage will be done and can't be undone.
Welcome to the new world, same as the old world.
Oh, the nature and perhaps, in some ways, scale, is different, but this is what we call "vigilantism" and it's not a new thing, not at all. Old-style vigilantism also often involves doing damage that can't be undone even if the system catches the vigilantes. The classic example is lynching: Don't like what that dirty so-and-so did? Grab some friends and string him up from a nearby tree. If you get caught and prosecuted later you'll be sorry... but he'll still be dead. Or perhaps a more on-point example, suppose one of the whores at the local brothel gets upset with something and threatens to publish the identities of all of the public figures who frequent the establishment. Once published, the list can't be taken back, even if it was acquired illegally.
Sorry son, but there's nothing fundamentally new here. This is what vigilantism is, and vigilantes deciding unilaterally what morality is, who is guilty and how punishment will be executed is why it's bad.
oh - also, notifications are kinda useful on your watch.
I think this is where Android Wear got it right. Wear does allow you to open and use on-watch apps, but that's clearly not the intended primary user experience. Instead, everything is design around notifications where you get an instant alert on your wrist, plus an easy way to interact more deeply with the notification if you want. The ability to operate some simple apps without the phone present is another advantage. I use my watch to play music through Bluetooth headphones while I'm running. I like not having to carry the phone for that.
Nice attempt to turn the problem back on those who are trying to solve it. Your comment is just the updated version of the old diagrams showing that black peoples' brains are too small and too apelike for them to be able to live in a modern world without someone telling them what to do.
The fact is that there are real issues around access to the sort of education that leads to jobs in technology. And this isn't just a "my world vs their world" issue... automation is moving forward at a rapid and accelerating pace, so anyone who opts to stay away from technology is going to find themselves increasingly unemployable.
Granted that much of the issue is cultural, it's not driven by any sort of cultural preferences. As one example, black youth culture has embrace the "Thug Life" idea not because they're inherently thuggish, but because it seems like the only route to some sort of power (however illusory, or at least narrowly localized) that doesn't require them to abandon their identity. Going to Stanford and melding into the whitebread world that exists there is an option for the brightest black kids, sure, but many of them (including many of those who've done it) see it as abandoning part of themselves. Not because they don't love education and technology, but because they've left their community and joined another.
Personally, I don't get this, but that's because the dominant tech culture is, more or less, my "people". As a Mormon I'm somewhat outside of it, but my white male bona fides more than make up for that.
So, people like my black Googler colleague are trying to address the problem by bringing top-notch tech education and, more importantly, mentoring, to primarily and historically black schools, to try to help find a way to fold tech into their culture rather than requiring them to leave it. And you seriously want to argue that's a bad thing, somehow? You can try to pin this on me, make me some sort of white elitist who knows what "they" should want better than they do, but can you do the same for the members of that community who are the ones doing the work? Heck, I'm not even doing anything but cheerleading.
I suppose if I were smarter and less moral I'd be happy to exclude "them", and instead focus on making sure my kids are the ones who get those good jobs in the future where so many people are replaced by cheaper and more efficient machines. But I'm not very good at "us vs them"; heck I even think that outsourcing and similar trends that equalize opportunity worldwide are a good thing.
If they only cared about competence, you would see a closer match to the diversity numbers of the pipeline. But you don't see that, so they probably don't.
Actually, from the numbers I've seen there is a pretty good match to the diversity numbers of the pipeline. Minority representation in major SV tech companies is pretty close to the representation among university graduates in the relevant fields. I think it's pretty clear that the problem -- and there is a problem -- is in the pipeline, not in the hiring policies.
A colleague of mine (I work for Google) spent last year teaching at a predominantly-black university (on Google's dime), as part of an initiative to try to address these pipeline problems. That's a good start, but the real problem is the in pre-college pipeline.
Or, the economy in the area improves and now more people can afford to get their health problems looked at. Unless specific billing codes are increasing, this is the second most likely explanation. The most likely explanation is that they did a bunch of tests and didn't correct for multiple testing in their stats.
Another very likely explanation is that the correlation is cherry-picked. A good way to achieve a study like this is to look for correlations across numerous statistics (e.g. health costs, mortality rate, days of work missed due to illness, etc., etc., it's easy to come up with a dozen proxies for "health"), and if you cast a net wide enough you're statistically guaranteed to find at least one with a correlation that exceeds the standard threshold for statistical significance. The definition of "statistical significance" ensures it. Then you publish that one while discarding the rest.
Moreover, you can achieve this same effect merely by having many research teams tackle aspects of the question. The negative results will go unpublished, or published in obscure journals and receive no mainstream press attention, while the one that "hits" shows up on slashdot, and not even the researchers will believe they've done anything wrong.
Or maybe the correlation is real, in which case we'll eventually find a cause. Time will tell, but it general goes against the sky-is-falling types.
At least for Linux there's a command-line tool that keeps the server always running. That's what I use. Not sure about Windows or Mac. As for Chrome Desktop, Chrome is always running; works fine.
In any case, the questioner indicated that he's previously used a RD solution that required some action on the remote end to initiate it, and that worked (though perhaps less than ideal). So even if you have to have someone at the remote end start Chrome, or even initiate a per-connection invitation, I expect it's still workable for his use case.
It sounds like the motivation for the change isn't that remote desktop didn't work well, but that it has stopped working, so you don't have a good way to remotely administer their machines. If so, rather than setting up a VPN, a remote desktop that does work would would do the job.
Chrome Remote Desktop (a Chrome browser extension from Google) does this quite handily. You can set up one-time remote sessions, where someone on the other end has to give you an invitation for each connection, or you can set up persistent connections which you can use any time. It's cross-platform (Windows, Mac, Linux).
I haven't looked into the underlying network protocols in detail, but I understand it uses libjingle, which implements ICE for NAT traversal (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5245). What I do know is that I've used it in many bizarre network configurations and it's been flawless... if both hosts can reach the net, they can reach one another.
If I fly, I just check everything and only take a Kindle on board. So much easier that way.
I never check anything if I can avoid it. Too much hassle to pick up luggage at the destination. It's so much more convenient just to walk straight out of the airport.
Yes, it's a thing. An important one, well-known to all software developers with a few years of experience.
Barring some sort of hardware failure the bits themselves don't change, of course. What changes is the context in which the bits are used. The article seems to be focusing mostly on performance, and that's one area of bit rot, a minor one. As hardware changes, the best performance optimization methods change, but the bits don't. Updating the code can improve performance. More important forms of bit rot have to with supporting libraries, or even business context. Causes and effects vary, but at bottom some assumption made by the old code is no longer true. If the assumption was never true, or for some reason the developer should not have expected it to be true, we call this a bug. But sometimes the code did make perfect sense as it was... but no longer. It's a bug now, but was correct previously.
You you prefer unemployment? I don't think penchant is the word you wanted. It does means something like "tendency", but with strong overtones of preference.
They only get your contact list if you give it to them. When my name is in somebody else's contact list, it's still no problem for me. If it is not in mine, it goes through the spam filter, very simple. It has proven far and away the best solution.
You don't have to give it to the spammers. They get it from others who have you in their contact list -- which often means they're in yours as well.
It's worked for you so far, but that's just because you've been lucky... or have a very small contact list containing nothing but very security-conscious people.
The only workable solution is to whitelist your inbox to contacts only.
Workable? That's nearly useless. Too many spammers harvest contact lists and forge "From" fields. That sort of whitelist will allow a lot of spam through.
Sure, that could be done. I don't think the approach will be practical until the drones can find the delivery point on their own most of the time, though. GPS isn't sufficiently precise, and maps may or may not be, depending. I have some friends on the Google Maps teams and it's surprising how much effort goes into trying to align maps with reality -- and how often they still don't line up. Manual survey could work, but things change.
Getting to the right address isn't too hard, but beyond that I think we're going to need visual processing to analyze the area and shape of the structure to find delivery points which are accessible to the drone, protected from the weather, don't bring the drone too close to people, etc.
Without that, perhaps a better approach is a designated drone delivery box with a beacon. The drone would still need to examine the area to determine if it can approach safely, but that would solve many of the problems, including sheltering the package from weather (I'm assuming the box would close).
Chromecast all but requires another smart device running (continuously) to control it.
No, it does not. You start the streaming from a smart device, but it does not need to be switched on after that.
Depends on what you're casting. If you're casting something from your device screen then your device has to remain connected. If you're using one of the services that is directly supported by Chromecast then the smart device is just a remote -- in some cases a really cool one, though. If you use Google Movies most of the flicks are annotated so that your smart device shows you information about the music, the actors, etc. I've grown to love that feature.
And you can't see your backlit phone screen in a darkened room? I could see people complaining that the typical phone screen is too bright, but not too dim.
A real remote with real buttons doesn't require this.
Unless the buttons are lit, a real remote is worse than a phone. I suppose some people spend enough time with the remote that they can operate it without being able to see it, but for my once-a-week (or less) TV watching, a phone screen is far superior to most remotes.
For fully-autonomous drones finding and delivering to appropriate spots at random addresses? I don't think so. I also think there would be a lot of engineering challenges in building a sufficiently-bulletproof system. As I said, I don't think we're there yet, but close.
In sub-urban and rural areas I think drone-based delivery can be cost-effective. I think the key is to use a hybrid model with a "drone carrier" truck which serves as a mobile base station so the drones are only making relatively short flights. Imagine a truck that pulls into a sub-urban neighborhood, stops in one central location and then launches a dozen drones to deliver packages to all of the homes within a half mile or so. Or perhaps the truck might not even have to stop, but just drive along launching drones which deliver along its path and then return to it, still in motion.
The advantage to the delivery service is that they could deliver to many nearby locations simultaneously, and trucks wouldn't have to be able to enter difficult locations (which currently constrains the design of package cars). This means the trucks could be larger, carrying more packages, and would deliver much faster, requiring fewer trucks and drivers. Given a self-driving truck, the "drivers" might end up being drone tenders/troubleshooters, rather than drivers. They could remotely designate appropriate drop-off locations when the drones can't find a good locations themselves, as well as handle any problems that arise with the equipment, and maybe still do package handling, to retrieve packages from storage in the truck and move them to where the drones can pick them up, at least until that can be adequately automated.
I think it makes a lot of sense. The technology isn't there yet, but I don't think it's far away.
You've been modded troll, but this is pretty much accurate.
It's also not a win/win, and here's why:
1) Most people are not most productive at home. In fact, most people are significantly less productive at home due to many more distractions around them.
2) Commuting (at least relatively short commutes) has been shown to be a good way of clearing your brain, and getting it into or out of work mode. It doesn't really hurt productivity unless you're doing it for hours.
3) Skype does not make communication with coworkers a snap. It imparts a major cognitive overhead.
4) Communication does not just come down to a few meetings a week that could (with more effort) be done via Skype. By working at home you remove any chance of corridor conversations, which typically, are by far the most productive communication in an office.
Basically, working at home is not in any way good for the company, and it's usually not good for the employee at all, so most companies won't let you do it.
All sort of true.
First, a bit of background on my context. I'm a software engineer for Google, and I work from home full-time. This is not a common situation in Google, which has an institutional belief in the value of co-located teams in open-plan offices as a way to facilitate communication. Google engineering methodologies are heavy on communication and light on process and documentation. They rely heavily on face to face communication, be it over cubicle walls, in hallways, at the cafes, etc.
On its face, this appears to just about the worst possible organization in which to work remotely. But I've been doing it for over a year now, and it's working just fine -- but only because my co-workers and I make it work. It's challenging, but it absolutely can be done.
Regarding your points:
1) Productivity at home. This depends heavily on the individual. I'm motivated and I like what I do, so even with the distractions at home I'm highly productive. If anything, my challenge is to avoid working too much. That's not the same for everyone, so YMMV.
2) Commuting. Commuting sucks. Even if it's a short commute. Some people do seem to like it, though, as a way of separating home and work life. My home and work lives blend, with more of a dynamic balance between them rather than sharp separation. Personally, I prefer that, but I know not everyone does.
3) Video conferencing is not a panacea, but it can really help. I have a Chromebox on my home office desk and another in my team's "bullpen" area, which are both set to an always-on video conference, so I have a virtual presence in the team area. It's not quite the same as being there, but I can hear and participate in random conversations that happen amongst the rest of my team, at least when they're at their desks. And of course, I attend all of my meetings the same way. It's kind of funny for my co-workers who see my face on the VC unit in the bullpen as they get up to walk to the meeting room, then see me "already arrived" when they get there. Because of course for me "traveling" from the bullpen to the meeting room is instantaneous.
4) Communication is challenging. In my case it helps that Google runs on e-mail, and much communication happens that way. I do find myself out of the loop occasionally, but my colleagues are generally pretty good about letting me know stuff, and sometimes even deliberately deciding to move a conversation to e-mail in order to make sure I'm involved. The inclusive culture is a big help, even at the same time as the co-located culture creates challenges.
The bottom line, to me, is that there are pros and cons, and those pros and cons are different for different employees and different companies. In my personal case, I think I'm probably 95% as effective working from home as I would be in the office, and that only by putting in a little extra time. For me, that's great, though. I'm perfectly happy to spend the time I would have wasted on commutin
Slashdot Mirror
In this case the actual value of the cargo is negligible; what matters is getting it to the space station. Since NASA only pays for the transport if the cargo arrives, they're already covered for all but the tiny cost required to replace the cargo itself. If anyone were to seek insurance it would be SpaceX, since they're the ones at financial risk.
This one seems to be a pretty decent explanation: http://www.orlandosentinel.com...
Heh. One bit of that article made me chuckle (emphasis mine):
The explosion destroyed the $70 million rocket, its Dragon I capsule and 4,000 pounds of supplies that was headed to the International Space Station. None of it was insured.
I can just imagine Elon going to his local insurance agent, trying to get coverage for an experimental vehicle carrying 400 tons of rocket fuel and LOX.
The "researchers" you mention are able to get into the cesspools of the internet as easily as this company does.
Why would they risk that?
Translation: CIA and NSA are pressuring us for exclusivity.
Seriously, who would believe a sleazy company that makes money off exploits is worried about "human rights violations".
That's a bit too broad. Would a company that makes money by finding exploits and selling them to the makers of the relevant products (via Vulnerability Rewards Programs, or similar), also be sleazy and unworried about human rights violations? There are a lot of highly ethical researchers who make their livings in exactly this way.
Note that I'm not claiming Netragard is among them.
Constitutional rights aren't relevant. The Constitution only specifies limits on government action, so it has no applicability to private actions... but vigilantism is almost by definition a private action.
Other than that, sure, looting and torching somebody's business because you think they're associated with some view or way of life you don't like is vigilantism. What I dispute is that vigilantism is in any way new.
But the difference is that it's now much more widespread thanks to social media and a complicit mainstream media.
Cite? I think vigilantism is far rarer than it used to be. Lynchings and similar actions have been really common throughout history.
Publicly destroying people and businesses that somehow offend somebody else is now the new normal. The old system of justice won't protect you anymore because even if the old system catches these hackers, the damage will be done and can't be undone.
Welcome to the new world, same as the old world.
Oh, the nature and perhaps, in some ways, scale, is different, but this is what we call "vigilantism" and it's not a new thing, not at all. Old-style vigilantism also often involves doing damage that can't be undone even if the system catches the vigilantes. The classic example is lynching: Don't like what that dirty so-and-so did? Grab some friends and string him up from a nearby tree. If you get caught and prosecuted later you'll be sorry... but he'll still be dead. Or perhaps a more on-point example, suppose one of the whores at the local brothel gets upset with something and threatens to publish the identities of all of the public figures who frequent the establishment. Once published, the list can't be taken back, even if it was acquired illegally.
Sorry son, but there's nothing fundamentally new here. This is what vigilantism is, and vigilantes deciding unilaterally what morality is, who is guilty and how punishment will be executed is why it's bad.
oh - also, notifications are kinda useful on your watch.
I think this is where Android Wear got it right. Wear does allow you to open and use on-watch apps, but that's clearly not the intended primary user experience. Instead, everything is design around notifications where you get an instant alert on your wrist, plus an easy way to interact more deeply with the notification if you want. The ability to operate some simple apps without the phone present is another advantage. I use my watch to play music through Bluetooth headphones while I'm running. I like not having to carry the phone for that.
Nice attempt to turn the problem back on those who are trying to solve it. Your comment is just the updated version of the old diagrams showing that black peoples' brains are too small and too apelike for them to be able to live in a modern world without someone telling them what to do.
The fact is that there are real issues around access to the sort of education that leads to jobs in technology. And this isn't just a "my world vs their world" issue... automation is moving forward at a rapid and accelerating pace, so anyone who opts to stay away from technology is going to find themselves increasingly unemployable.
Granted that much of the issue is cultural, it's not driven by any sort of cultural preferences. As one example, black youth culture has embrace the "Thug Life" idea not because they're inherently thuggish, but because it seems like the only route to some sort of power (however illusory, or at least narrowly localized) that doesn't require them to abandon their identity. Going to Stanford and melding into the whitebread world that exists there is an option for the brightest black kids, sure, but many of them (including many of those who've done it) see it as abandoning part of themselves. Not because they don't love education and technology, but because they've left their community and joined another.
Personally, I don't get this, but that's because the dominant tech culture is, more or less, my "people". As a Mormon I'm somewhat outside of it, but my white male bona fides more than make up for that.
So, people like my black Googler colleague are trying to address the problem by bringing top-notch tech education and, more importantly, mentoring, to primarily and historically black schools, to try to help find a way to fold tech into their culture rather than requiring them to leave it. And you seriously want to argue that's a bad thing, somehow? You can try to pin this on me, make me some sort of white elitist who knows what "they" should want better than they do, but can you do the same for the members of that community who are the ones doing the work? Heck, I'm not even doing anything but cheerleading.
I suppose if I were smarter and less moral I'd be happy to exclude "them", and instead focus on making sure my kids are the ones who get those good jobs in the future where so many people are replaced by cheaper and more efficient machines. But I'm not very good at "us vs them"; heck I even think that outsourcing and similar trends that equalize opportunity worldwide are a good thing.
If they only cared about competence, you would see a closer match to the diversity numbers of the pipeline. But you don't see that, so they probably don't.
Actually, from the numbers I've seen there is a pretty good match to the diversity numbers of the pipeline. Minority representation in major SV tech companies is pretty close to the representation among university graduates in the relevant fields. I think it's pretty clear that the problem -- and there is a problem -- is in the pipeline, not in the hiring policies.
A colleague of mine (I work for Google) spent last year teaching at a predominantly-black university (on Google's dime), as part of an initiative to try to address these pipeline problems. That's a good start, but the real problem is the in pre-college pipeline.
Or, the economy in the area improves and now more people can afford to get their health problems looked at. Unless specific billing codes are increasing, this is the second most likely explanation. The most likely explanation is that they did a bunch of tests and didn't correct for multiple testing in their stats.
Another very likely explanation is that the correlation is cherry-picked. A good way to achieve a study like this is to look for correlations across numerous statistics (e.g. health costs, mortality rate, days of work missed due to illness, etc., etc., it's easy to come up with a dozen proxies for "health"), and if you cast a net wide enough you're statistically guaranteed to find at least one with a correlation that exceeds the standard threshold for statistical significance. The definition of "statistical significance" ensures it. Then you publish that one while discarding the rest.
Moreover, you can achieve this same effect merely by having many research teams tackle aspects of the question. The negative results will go unpublished, or published in obscure journals and receive no mainstream press attention, while the one that "hits" shows up on slashdot, and not even the researchers will believe they've done anything wrong.
Or maybe the correlation is real, in which case we'll eventually find a cause. Time will tell, but it general goes against the sky-is-falling types.
At least for Linux there's a command-line tool that keeps the server always running. That's what I use. Not sure about Windows or Mac. As for Chrome Desktop, Chrome is always running; works fine.
In any case, the questioner indicated that he's previously used a RD solution that required some action on the remote end to initiate it, and that worked (though perhaps less than ideal). So even if you have to have someone at the remote end start Chrome, or even initiate a per-connection invitation, I expect it's still workable for his use case.
It sounds like the motivation for the change isn't that remote desktop didn't work well, but that it has stopped working, so you don't have a good way to remotely administer their machines. If so, rather than setting up a VPN, a remote desktop that does work would would do the job.
Chrome Remote Desktop (a Chrome browser extension from Google) does this quite handily. You can set up one-time remote sessions, where someone on the other end has to give you an invitation for each connection, or you can set up persistent connections which you can use any time. It's cross-platform (Windows, Mac, Linux).
I haven't looked into the underlying network protocols in detail, but I understand it uses libjingle, which implements ICE for NAT traversal (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5245). What I do know is that I've used it in many bizarre network configurations and it's been flawless... if both hosts can reach the net, they can reach one another.
Meh. I'll stick with my small rollerboard.
If I fly, I just check everything and only take a Kindle on board. So much easier that way.
I never check anything if I can avoid it. Too much hassle to pick up luggage at the destination. It's so much more convenient just to walk straight out of the airport.
Is that even a thing? How do bits rot?
Yes, it's a thing. An important one, well-known to all software developers with a few years of experience.
Barring some sort of hardware failure the bits themselves don't change, of course. What changes is the context in which the bits are used. The article seems to be focusing mostly on performance, and that's one area of bit rot, a minor one. As hardware changes, the best performance optimization methods change, but the bits don't. Updating the code can improve performance. More important forms of bit rot have to with supporting libraries, or even business context. Causes and effects vary, but at bottom some assumption made by the old code is no longer true. If the assumption was never true, or for some reason the developer should not have expected it to be true, we call this a bug. But sometimes the code did make perfect sense as it was... but no longer. It's a bug now, but was correct previously.
That is bit rot.
Wikipedia has a fairly decent article if you want to read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
our general penchant for unemployment
You you prefer unemployment? I don't think penchant is the word you wanted. It does means something like "tendency", but with strong overtones of preference.
They only get your contact list if you give it to them. When my name is in somebody else's contact list, it's still no problem for me. If it is not in mine, it goes through the spam filter, very simple. It has proven far and away the best solution.
You don't have to give it to the spammers. They get it from others who have you in their contact list -- which often means they're in yours as well.
It's worked for you so far, but that's just because you've been lucky... or have a very small contact list containing nothing but very security-conscious people.
The only workable solution is to whitelist your inbox to contacts only.
Workable? That's nearly useless. Too many spammers harvest contact lists and forge "From" fields. That sort of whitelist will allow a lot of spam through.
Sure, that could be done. I don't think the approach will be practical until the drones can find the delivery point on their own most of the time, though. GPS isn't sufficiently precise, and maps may or may not be, depending. I have some friends on the Google Maps teams and it's surprising how much effort goes into trying to align maps with reality -- and how often they still don't line up. Manual survey could work, but things change.
Getting to the right address isn't too hard, but beyond that I think we're going to need visual processing to analyze the area and shape of the structure to find delivery points which are accessible to the drone, protected from the weather, don't bring the drone too close to people, etc.
Without that, perhaps a better approach is a designated drone delivery box with a beacon. The drone would still need to examine the area to determine if it can approach safely, but that would solve many of the problems, including sheltering the package from weather (I'm assuming the box would close).
Chromecast all but requires another smart device running (continuously) to control it.
No, it does not. You start the streaming from a smart device, but it does not need to be switched on after that.
Depends on what you're casting. If you're casting something from your device screen then your device has to remain connected. If you're using one of the services that is directly supported by Chromecast then the smart device is just a remote -- in some cases a really cool one, though. If you use Google Movies most of the flicks are annotated so that your smart device shows you information about the music, the actors, etc. I've grown to love that feature.
You still have to see the screen to press it.
And you can't see your backlit phone screen in a darkened room? I could see people complaining that the typical phone screen is too bright, but not too dim.
A real remote with real buttons doesn't require this.
Unless the buttons are lit, a real remote is worse than a phone. I suppose some people spend enough time with the remote that they can operate it without being able to see it, but for my once-a-week (or less) TV watching, a phone screen is far superior to most remotes.
The technology isn't there yet
The tech is definitely there.
For fully-autonomous drones finding and delivering to appropriate spots at random addresses? I don't think so. I also think there would be a lot of engineering challenges in building a sufficiently-bulletproof system. As I said, I don't think we're there yet, but close.
In sub-urban and rural areas I think drone-based delivery can be cost-effective. I think the key is to use a hybrid model with a "drone carrier" truck which serves as a mobile base station so the drones are only making relatively short flights. Imagine a truck that pulls into a sub-urban neighborhood, stops in one central location and then launches a dozen drones to deliver packages to all of the homes within a half mile or so. Or perhaps the truck might not even have to stop, but just drive along launching drones which deliver along its path and then return to it, still in motion.
The advantage to the delivery service is that they could deliver to many nearby locations simultaneously, and trucks wouldn't have to be able to enter difficult locations (which currently constrains the design of package cars). This means the trucks could be larger, carrying more packages, and would deliver much faster, requiring fewer trucks and drivers. Given a self-driving truck, the "drivers" might end up being drone tenders/troubleshooters, rather than drivers. They could remotely designate appropriate drop-off locations when the drones can't find a good locations themselves, as well as handle any problems that arise with the equipment, and maybe still do package handling, to retrieve packages from storage in the truck and move them to where the drones can pick them up, at least until that can be adequately automated.
I think it makes a lot of sense. The technology isn't there yet, but I don't think it's far away.
You've been modded troll, but this is pretty much accurate.
It's also not a win/win, and here's why: 1) Most people are not most productive at home. In fact, most people are significantly less productive at home due to many more distractions around them. 2) Commuting (at least relatively short commutes) has been shown to be a good way of clearing your brain, and getting it into or out of work mode. It doesn't really hurt productivity unless you're doing it for hours. 3) Skype does not make communication with coworkers a snap. It imparts a major cognitive overhead. 4) Communication does not just come down to a few meetings a week that could (with more effort) be done via Skype. By working at home you remove any chance of corridor conversations, which typically, are by far the most productive communication in an office.
Basically, working at home is not in any way good for the company, and it's usually not good for the employee at all, so most companies won't let you do it.
All sort of true.
First, a bit of background on my context. I'm a software engineer for Google, and I work from home full-time. This is not a common situation in Google, which has an institutional belief in the value of co-located teams in open-plan offices as a way to facilitate communication. Google engineering methodologies are heavy on communication and light on process and documentation. They rely heavily on face to face communication, be it over cubicle walls, in hallways, at the cafes, etc.
On its face, this appears to just about the worst possible organization in which to work remotely. But I've been doing it for over a year now, and it's working just fine -- but only because my co-workers and I make it work. It's challenging, but it absolutely can be done.
Regarding your points:
1) Productivity at home. This depends heavily on the individual. I'm motivated and I like what I do, so even with the distractions at home I'm highly productive. If anything, my challenge is to avoid working too much. That's not the same for everyone, so YMMV.
2) Commuting. Commuting sucks. Even if it's a short commute. Some people do seem to like it, though, as a way of separating home and work life. My home and work lives blend, with more of a dynamic balance between them rather than sharp separation. Personally, I prefer that, but I know not everyone does.
3) Video conferencing is not a panacea, but it can really help. I have a Chromebox on my home office desk and another in my team's "bullpen" area, which are both set to an always-on video conference, so I have a virtual presence in the team area. It's not quite the same as being there, but I can hear and participate in random conversations that happen amongst the rest of my team, at least when they're at their desks. And of course, I attend all of my meetings the same way. It's kind of funny for my co-workers who see my face on the VC unit in the bullpen as they get up to walk to the meeting room, then see me "already arrived" when they get there. Because of course for me "traveling" from the bullpen to the meeting room is instantaneous.
4) Communication is challenging. In my case it helps that Google runs on e-mail, and much communication happens that way. I do find myself out of the loop occasionally, but my colleagues are generally pretty good about letting me know stuff, and sometimes even deliberately deciding to move a conversation to e-mail in order to make sure I'm involved. The inclusive culture is a big help, even at the same time as the co-located culture creates challenges.
The bottom line, to me, is that there are pros and cons, and those pros and cons are different for different employees and different companies. In my personal case, I think I'm probably 95% as effective working from home as I would be in the office, and that only by putting in a little extra time. For me, that's great, though. I'm perfectly happy to spend the time I would have wasted on commutin