1. Watch Silicon Valley.
2. Note jaw droppingly bizarre tech 'splaining by Erlich Bachman (and other selected characters).
3. Note similarity to Windows driver decision tree explanation.
Or not.
but when? When they collapse? They didn't learn from the Xcode / Intel debacle, they haven't learned from grinding machines to dust with CC (10 daemons, 50+ threads for background?!) They need self-contained standalone apps. They are the reason I suggest Pages, GIMP Acorn Pixelmator with PS / ID as a (very) last resort. PS5 was the last thing I bought with my own money. Bigger is not always better.
But it's very hard to do now. Why do I find it better? (1) you have 24 or 36 shots on a roll - you tend to compose more carefully. (2) Unless you're shooting raw, you have greater latitude with what you can get out of a negative (made of atoms that are relatively hard to ruin) compared to a digital shot (made of electrons that you can make go poof with one wrong finger press). Sunsets for me are the kicker. I have film shots of sunsets that are still gorgeous 30 years later, and that I can reprint and tweak and find certain highlights in. Digital sunset shots include blowouts that you can never recover from. And before some of you start, it's no more old fashioned than reading print materials or building things out of wood.
it doesn't make the everyday experience any better. More specifically, nobody stops watching TV or complains that a TV looks flat and the picture is not believable. Good media is based on good story. How would 3D make Fargo better? To Kill a Mockingbird? NewsHour? Modern Family? The Sopranos? Answer: it wouldn't. As for sports, you do not see the action with any noticeable parallax changes unless you are on the field, and you rarely see a shot that close in play, typically only via the sidelines and in close-ups in-between plays.
Steve Ocko - two thirds of the team at the Media Lab who along with Mitch Resnick provided the leadership that kept new cool things in front of kids and let them express creativity in tech in ays that were engaging and fun. The three of them once presented via satellite from our place to kids who said hi then quickly wanted to speak to the kids on set building the whatever out of legos and code. They realized that the kids knew where the real action was.
Guns or butter. Bill can do his work independent of Musk. The two do not compete for resources as they made / are making their money with new markets. But there is a bit of an eye opener when Musk decides he is too impatient to sit in traffic and thinks about doing something that will drain money even from him faster than he can calculate it.
We made huge strides in this country thanks to eradication and control of diseases. We have near zero occurrences of diseases here that people routinely die of in what would be shocking numbers in the US. Gates is applying it elsewhere, but "elsewhere" to some looks like throwing it down a rat hole. The US was once that rat hole. We took solid approaches to farming (to use your example) and those farming changes did not take a moon shot - it was farm by farm with relatively simple solutions (look up the history of 4-H).
And no one has the foggiest idea what life would be like for a given person if robots did all the manual labor. Why? Because there is no way to ensure that it would be the one tech advance we make with zero unintended consequences. There's a reason Michael Crichton could write the same story over an over again with different genre veneers.
I did specify a portion of drivers, not all of them in general. About a third of the drivers you find anywhere simply want to be at the front of the pack, passing whomever they can, regardless of the speed involved.
That said, give me back my Neon R/T and some Vermont secondaries.
I'm down with the solar and the rockets. And with the open source tech that could lead to more efficient cars. But thinking you're going to make commutes better by digging holes in the ground that cost an order of magnitude more than roads is not his most though out idea.
Slashdot Mirror
3D house prints YOU!
stop watching "Thunderbirds" in the break room.
and where was the brouhaha then?
So how soon can we see Ted Williams as skipper?
middle-out.
To maintain internal salt/water balance, freshwater fish pretty much constantly excrete liquid waste.
Or start every sentence with "so", or "clearly". Or be as pedantic about these details as I'm being...
From Back to the Future Part 4, 2045.
If the former then we already know who designed them...
1. Watch Silicon Valley. 2. Note jaw droppingly bizarre tech 'splaining by Erlich Bachman (and other selected characters). 3. Note similarity to Windows driver decision tree explanation. Or not.
stop posting deleted scene Bachman dialog from Silicon Valley.
Film at 11.
Phil McCracken!
but when? When they collapse? They didn't learn from the Xcode / Intel debacle, they haven't learned from grinding machines to dust with CC (10 daemons, 50+ threads for background?!) They need self-contained standalone apps. They are the reason I suggest Pages, GIMP Acorn Pixelmator with PS / ID as a (very) last resort. PS5 was the last thing I bought with my own money. Bigger is not always better.
to do with all those Galaxy Note 7 batteries.
false positives or false negatives or what mix of those?
She hears "...reports say Syria..." on CNN and then starts listening, I get a whole paragraph of attempted actions.
"Get a Mac."
But it's very hard to do now. Why do I find it better? (1) you have 24 or 36 shots on a roll - you tend to compose more carefully. (2) Unless you're shooting raw, you have greater latitude with what you can get out of a negative (made of atoms that are relatively hard to ruin) compared to a digital shot (made of electrons that you can make go poof with one wrong finger press). Sunsets for me are the kicker. I have film shots of sunsets that are still gorgeous 30 years later, and that I can reprint and tweak and find certain highlights in. Digital sunset shots include blowouts that you can never recover from. And before some of you start, it's no more old fashioned than reading print materials or building things out of wood.
it doesn't make the everyday experience any better. More specifically, nobody stops watching TV or complains that a TV looks flat and the picture is not believable. Good media is based on good story. How would 3D make Fargo better? To Kill a Mockingbird? NewsHour? Modern Family? The Sopranos? Answer: it wouldn't. As for sports, you do not see the action with any noticeable parallax changes unless you are on the field, and you rarely see a shot that close in play, typically only via the sidelines and in close-ups in-between plays.
Steve Ocko - two thirds of the team at the Media Lab who along with Mitch Resnick provided the leadership that kept new cool things in front of kids and let them express creativity in tech in ays that were engaging and fun. The three of them once presented via satellite from our place to kids who said hi then quickly wanted to speak to the kids on set building the whatever out of legos and code. They realized that the kids knew where the real action was.
Guns or butter. Bill can do his work independent of Musk. The two do not compete for resources as they made / are making their money with new markets. But there is a bit of an eye opener when Musk decides he is too impatient to sit in traffic and thinks about doing something that will drain money even from him faster than he can calculate it. We made huge strides in this country thanks to eradication and control of diseases. We have near zero occurrences of diseases here that people routinely die of in what would be shocking numbers in the US. Gates is applying it elsewhere, but "elsewhere" to some looks like throwing it down a rat hole. The US was once that rat hole. We took solid approaches to farming (to use your example) and those farming changes did not take a moon shot - it was farm by farm with relatively simple solutions (look up the history of 4-H). And no one has the foggiest idea what life would be like for a given person if robots did all the manual labor. Why? Because there is no way to ensure that it would be the one tech advance we make with zero unintended consequences. There's a reason Michael Crichton could write the same story over an over again with different genre veneers.
I did specify a portion of drivers, not all of them in general. About a third of the drivers you find anywhere simply want to be at the front of the pack, passing whomever they can, regardless of the speed involved. That said, give me back my Neon R/T and some Vermont secondaries.
I'm down with the solar and the rockets. And with the open source tech that could lead to more efficient cars. But thinking you're going to make commutes better by digging holes in the ground that cost an order of magnitude more than roads is not his most though out idea.
That's likely the fantasy a third of the drivers have. Otherwise they would buy the reliable boring car.