With the example of Jim Carrey, you're making the mistake of assuming that his sole motivation was to become rich. It wasn't. If it was, he would have pursued a career that had a much better guarantee of success. No, Carrey's motivation was fame. He's almost pathologically needy to be in the spotlight and needs constant attention from everyone. He pursued fame even to the point of putting his whole life in a station wagon. He stuck with it and was good enough that he got famous, and the money's more of a side-effect. I'm sure he loves being wealthy, but if he'd been motivated by money he probably would have gone into investment banking. In conclusion, some people get rich by chasing money, others get rich by relentlessly pursuing their passion.
Back to the discussion topic, I'm not sure what impact this has on evolution, but the idea that there will be so little interbreeding among wealthy and poor, or ugly and beautiful that it will eventually create a fork in the species is interesting, but it seems likely that there's enough social mobility to prevent this from happening any time soon. Unless wealthy families in-breed like old royalty, and that goes on for millenia, we aren't like to see a derivative species to H. Sapiens break off from the main tree.
I support an area where users "had" to have 21" monitors (capable of 1600x1200 and beyond) who *refused* to set their resolution above 1024x768 because if they did suddenly text got too small for them to read. Pointing out that they can change document zoom on screen within the application, and set Windows to display fonts larger within Explorer fell on deaf ears.
A good number of the users weren't comfortable above 800x600, which is just painful to use.
We're talking about users who "need" to have icons all over their desktop so they can find ANYTHING they need.
If you want to see productivity gains through better technology, first ensure that the users of that technology are fully trained and getting the most out of the tools that you've already provided. Only then will you know if better tools are needed. And if they are, be sure to train them on the new tools.
It's like roaming profiles, except roaming profiles live on an server somewhere in your AD, and these portable account directories live on little devices that you carry with you.
"With computers becoming so small and easy to distribute over a wireless network, do we really need data centers to house computers or are the computers going to be placed where they are really needed?"
Yes. Duh. *Plonk.*
My usual consulting fees will apply for this call. Thank you.
Personally, I'm more worried about what would happen if Google bought the rest of the internet. As I understand it, this "you-tube" is merely the first in a series of high-profile acquisitions that, once completed, will leave google in sole possession of all our base. While many, for several, might be willing to be the first to welcome their new google overlords, I remain cautiously circumspect.
Better still would be a weighted random shuffle that generated equal play count, but weighted by how many stars you assigned a song, and which you could adjust on the fly to suit your tastes at the moment.
The problem isn't that all fathers want to keep their children safe. The problem is that the corrupt social order enables rich fathers to pull strings while poor fathers get to watch hopelessly while their children are devoured by the beast of war, and that wars invariably serve the needs of the rich and powerful.
2) It searches for exact matches of the image, and shows you the URLs where they're hosted as well as any pages href'ing them, what the image has been renamed to, etc.
It can do some sort of advanced pattern recognition, allowing it to compare your uploaded query pic against images which look similar to it in the search engine's index. Upload a smiley face, for example, and it'll find you other smiley faces, or perhaps frowny-faces, etc.
The problem is, the Daily Show is primarily interested in connecting the dots to "funny" and to the producers/creators/audiences biases, and not connecting the dots to "truth". There's often truth in humor, but there's just as often exaggeration, hyperbole, and outright falseness. I like the show because it's blunt and biased in a way that I find agreeable, but I can't say that I believe everything I hear on that show, or that I believe that they care passionately about "getting it right" every time out.
The pollution (and therefore environmental damage) caused by using a rocket to put one ton of payload into space is about a zillion times what would be caused by
The only bright side to this that I can see is MAYBE George Lucas will get sued for the term "pod racing" and all known copies of Episode I will be forced to undergo re-editing to bring the film in line with his true original vision.
The summary also mentions processing 3000 tons of garbage a day, and yielding 600 tons of sludge. Unless they're converting mass directly into energy, a la nuclear fission, I'd say there's about 2400 tons of apparent gas that needs to be accounted for still.
How will this vaporized garbage be disposed of? If it's just dumped into the atmosphere, won't it just contribute to the global warming problem or smog or make cancer rates skyrocket?
Slashdot Mirror
What percentage of YouTube's hosted content does this represent?
Just keep explaining that it's not a truck, and eventually they'll understand.
With the example of Jim Carrey, you're making the mistake of assuming that his sole motivation was to become rich. It wasn't. If it was, he would have pursued a career that had a much better guarantee of success. No, Carrey's motivation was fame. He's almost pathologically needy to be in the spotlight and needs constant attention from everyone. He pursued fame even to the point of putting his whole life in a station wagon. He stuck with it and was good enough that he got famous, and the money's more of a side-effect. I'm sure he loves being wealthy, but if he'd been motivated by money he probably would have gone into investment banking. In conclusion, some people get rich by chasing money, others get rich by relentlessly pursuing their passion.
Back to the discussion topic, I'm not sure what impact this has on evolution, but the idea that there will be so little interbreeding among wealthy and poor, or ugly and beautiful that it will eventually create a fork in the species is interesting, but it seems likely that there's enough social mobility to prevent this from happening any time soon. Unless wealthy families in-breed like old royalty, and that goes on for millenia, we aren't like to see a derivative species to H. Sapiens break off from the main tree.
NotATruck.com has also experienced a major spike in traffic, due to confused congressmen.
I support an area where users "had" to have 21" monitors (capable of 1600x1200 and beyond) who *refused* to set their resolution above 1024x768 because if they did suddenly text got too small for them to read. Pointing out that they can change document zoom on screen within the application, and set Windows to display fonts larger within Explorer fell on deaf ears.
A good number of the users weren't comfortable above 800x600, which is just painful to use.
We're talking about users who "need" to have icons all over their desktop so they can find ANYTHING they need.
If you want to see productivity gains through better technology, first ensure that the users of that technology are fully trained and getting the most out of the tools that you've already provided. Only then will you know if better tools are needed. And if they are, be sure to train them on the new tools.
It's like roaming profiles, except roaming profiles live on an server somewhere in your AD, and these portable account directories live on little devices that you carry with you.
Did the Chinese government just realize they can hire a million-strong standing army of Wikipedia editors? Why censor when you can edit to taste?
I hope they decide to call it "thEUnDeORAbird".
Debian will have to come up with something else, of course.
"With computers becoming so small and easy to distribute over a wireless network, do we really need data centers to house computers or are the computers going to be placed where they are really needed?"
Yes. Duh. *Plonk.*
My usual consulting fees will apply for this call. Thank you.
Personally, I'm more worried about what would happen if Google bought the rest of the internet. As I understand it, this "you-tube" is merely the first in a series of high-profile acquisitions that, once completed, will leave google in sole possession of all our base. While many, for several, might be willing to be the first to welcome their new google overlords, I remain cautiously circumspect.
Better still would be a weighted random shuffle that generated equal play count, but weighted by how many stars you assigned a song, and which you could adjust on the fly to suit your tastes at the moment.
The problem isn't that all fathers want to keep their children safe. The problem is that the corrupt social order enables rich fathers to pull strings while poor fathers get to watch hopelessly while their children are devoured by the beast of war, and that wars invariably serve the needs of the rich and powerful.
An image search where...
1) You upload an image to the engine.
2) It searches for exact matches of the image, and shows you the URLs where they're hosted as well as any pages href'ing them, what the image has been renamed to, etc.
It can do some sort of advanced pattern recognition, allowing it to compare your uploaded query pic against images which look similar to it in the search engine's index. Upload a smiley face, for example, and it'll find you other smiley faces, or perhaps frowny-faces, etc.
If someone could build this, it'd be huge.
The problem is, the Daily Show is primarily interested in connecting the dots to "funny" and to the producers/creators/audiences biases, and not connecting the dots to "truth". There's often truth in humor, but there's just as often exaggeration, hyperbole, and outright falseness. I like the show because it's blunt and biased in a way that I find agreeable, but I can't say that I believe everything I hear on that show, or that I believe that they care passionately about "getting it right" every time out.
Besides, at some point in the future, $7 USD c.2006 will be $4000 USD c.2xxx adjusted dollars. So he'll be right either way.
I tried this, but it was hard to cut the hole, and then it all ran out on my shoes. Something's not right here...
Based on my understanding of the industry as it presently stands, there currently exists a market for 3,000,000,000,000 computers.
The pollution (and therefore environmental damage) caused by using a rocket to put one ton of payload into space is about a zillion times what would be caused by
Wait, wait -- is that U.S. or British zillions?
Pods is a slang term meaning "testicles".
Way to kick everyone in the crotch, Apple.
The only bright side to this that I can see is MAYBE George Lucas will get sued for the term "pod racing" and all known copies of Episode I will be forced to undergo re-editing to bring the film in line with his true original vision.
Lasers on a motherfuckin' chip.
That's because Nethack isn't a game... Nethack is life.
NO!!!111
The conclusion I draw from this is that there are a lot more than 5 video games.
;-)
That IBM chairman guy in 1943 was just way off on his estimate of the potential world market.
Come to think of it, 1943 is a pretty fun game
The summary also mentions processing 3000 tons of garbage a day, and yielding 600 tons of sludge. Unless they're converting mass directly into energy, a la nuclear fission, I'd say there's about 2400 tons of apparent gas that needs to be accounted for still.
How will this vaporized garbage be disposed of? If it's just dumped into the atmosphere, won't it just contribute to the global warming problem or smog or make cancer rates skyrocket?