There are a lot of definitions of cloud, true, with one of the most prevalent bring whatever will separate you from your wallet. However the NIST definition is fairly well accepted.
True -- but if you add up, say, the bandwidth needed for a wall-sized display at 600ppi and 80fps I think you'll be surprised at how much bandwidth is required. We have a ways to go.
I'm certainly not an expert, but I think there is a compulsory license at allows anyone to cover the song and pay royalties. Perhaps the question is how royalties should be assigned?
The patterns of the past are continual change and technological improvement, and the pattern now is continual change and technological improvement. Change is involved, and the same pattern is involved. I don't think those two things are contradictory.
I think the best argument for the idea that "this time is different" is that the rate of change is increasing, so that it's harder for people to adapt. However, I don't think that a lot of the previous changes happened over the span of generations (so that people retired or died off and simply weren't replaced in those jobs). People have lost their jobs to technological advances consistently for the past 200 years. Perhaps there's some 'tipping point' where the rate of change and the rate of job loss increases to a point where people can't adapt -- maybe you can handle being automated out of your job once or twice in your working life but not ten times? Certainly if it happened every month you couldn't adapt that often, but I don't see anyone making that argument.
There has been technological change for 200 years, and while it has caused numerous problems, overall it has increased the standard of living. Why is it not OK now? Why do you think we're going to run out of jobs now, when we didn't run out of jobs with improvements in manufacturing, farming, etc.?
The Luddite argument has been wrong for 200 years and will continue to be wrong. The only thing I see changing this is the possibility of strong AI -- and that will change EVERYTHING.
True! But that's the way farming (and many other industries) has gone, but we haven't run out of jobs yet. I don't think the current unemployment problems are due to neo-Luddite attributed causes (we've had unemployment like this before and it has gotten better, which wouldn't have actually happened if we had run out of jobs).
That's true -- the number of actors might go down, but a person still has to write the scripts, make the CGI work, etc. Robots won't be able to do all of that without (as I mentioned) strong AI.
How about -- "Actually automated looms and all the related technology is causing the downfall of western civilization." There, now you're a true Luddite instead of a neo-Luddite.:)
Strong AI is the only thing that I can think of that is truly a game changer and makes the Luddite argument possibly valid after two centuries of being incorrect. But strong AI leads to the singularity (if you believe that theory) and we really don't have ANY idea of what's on the other side.
It sounds good, but I have heard this argument many times over the years. Supermarket scanners didn't cause the downfall of western civilization. What's different this time?
I would argue there are plenty of jobs that simply cannot be done by any machine (barring strong AI). Most entertainment jobs, as an example, and that segment of the market keeps growing. Human desires are practically infinite. I don't see getting to post-scarcity any time soon, but let's hope it happens.
Bzzzt! Wrong answer. OSes should be case-preserving but not case sensitive. Just because *ix systems have been doing it that way for ~40 years doesn't make it right. It certainly beats the hell out of all-uppercase 8.3, but still.
It would probably be a nightmare (cause a lot of compatibility problems) to change this with the filesystem or variable names at this point, but there's really no good reason I can think of to make new tools case sensitive.
You will always need access devices, true. However, there are a lot of orgs out there running servers who a) don't need a whole server and b) really don't want to run servers. You think your local mechanic shop wants to do anything more complicated than than plug in a laptop and router?
I agree completely. I have caught myself a number of times acting in a way that I couldn't completely explain, and after thinking for a while -- sometimes a long while -- I have figured out what I was subconsciously doing. I think this is one of the primary benefits of therapy; a trained professional may be able to spot what's really bothering you when you don't know.
You're right, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with demographics.
Re:The 21st century formula for a successful compa
on
HP To Cut 30,000 Jobs
·
· Score: 1
Look up "singular they". Most style manuals do not permit it and at this point the consensus seems to be that it's not correct English, although I imagine this will change over time.
The American educational system teaches that you match the plurality of a pronoun with its antecedent, which is correct.
I can understand that you might be upset that you didn't learn anything in the American education system (which certainly has its problems), but in this case I think it's your fault that you didn't learn.
Re:The 21st century formula for a successful compa
on
HP To Cut 30,000 Jobs
·
· Score: 1
As others have pointed out, "they" is a plural pronoun. It is not correct to match it with the singular "CEO". I wouldn't have bothered to reply, except that I felt like rubbing your nose in your final snarky comment.
Since you're avoiding #2 above, I assume you simply don't drive. What? There's a practical amount of risk you must accept to live? Well, at least you only drive 5 mph, right?
Do you honestly think that the posted speed limit is some magical number above which your risk jumps significantly? There is some science to the posted limit -- traffic engineers know a few things! But in many cases it's there for revenue reasons or political reasons. Think for yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a lot of definitions of cloud, true, with one of the most prevalent bring whatever will separate you from your wallet. However the NIST definition is fairly well accepted.
I'm 236 years old, you insensitive clod!
True -- but if you add up, say, the bandwidth needed for a wall-sized display at 600ppi and 80fps I think you'll be surprised at how much bandwidth is required. We have a ways to go.
Interesting. And where do you shop that accepts pieces of eight? Idiot.
Sure, let's stop that. You first.
I'm certainly not an expert, but I think there is a compulsory license at allows anyone to cover the song and pay royalties. Perhaps the question is how royalties should be assigned?
The patterns of the past are continual change and technological improvement, and the pattern now is continual change and technological improvement. Change is involved, and the same pattern is involved. I don't think those two things are contradictory.
I think the best argument for the idea that "this time is different" is that the rate of change is increasing, so that it's harder for people to adapt. However, I don't think that a lot of the previous changes happened over the span of generations (so that people retired or died off and simply weren't replaced in those jobs). People have lost their jobs to technological advances consistently for the past 200 years. Perhaps there's some 'tipping point' where the rate of change and the rate of job loss increases to a point where people can't adapt -- maybe you can handle being automated out of your job once or twice in your working life but not ten times? Certainly if it happened every month you couldn't adapt that often, but I don't see anyone making that argument.
There has been technological change for 200 years, and while it has caused numerous problems, overall it has increased the standard of living. Why is it not OK now? Why do you think we're going to run out of jobs now, when we didn't run out of jobs with improvements in manufacturing, farming, etc.?
The Luddite argument has been wrong for 200 years and will continue to be wrong. The only thing I see changing this is the possibility of strong AI -- and that will change EVERYTHING.
True! But that's the way farming (and many other industries) has gone, but we haven't run out of jobs yet. I don't think the current unemployment problems are due to neo-Luddite attributed causes (we've had unemployment like this before and it has gotten better, which wouldn't have actually happened if we had run out of jobs).
Also true. But it doesn't have to be good, just good enough for people to buy it and keep others employed. :)
That's true -- the number of actors might go down, but a person still has to write the scripts, make the CGI work, etc. Robots won't be able to do all of that without (as I mentioned) strong AI.
How about -- "Actually automated looms and all the related technology is causing the downfall of western civilization." There, now you're a true Luddite instead of a neo-Luddite. :)
Strong AI is the only thing that I can think of that is truly a game changer and makes the Luddite argument possibly valid after two centuries of being incorrect. But strong AI leads to the singularity (if you believe that theory) and we really don't have ANY idea of what's on the other side.
It sounds good, but I have heard this argument many times over the years. Supermarket scanners didn't cause the downfall of western civilization. What's different this time?
I would argue there are plenty of jobs that simply cannot be done by any machine (barring strong AI). Most entertainment jobs, as an example, and that segment of the market keeps growing. Human desires are practically infinite. I don't see getting to post-scarcity any time soon, but let's hope it happens.
Yes, but give an example where you would want both of those names above in the same directory. I said case preserving, just not case sensitive.
Bzzzt! Wrong answer. OSes should be case-preserving but not case sensitive. Just because *ix systems have been doing it that way for ~40 years doesn't make it right. It certainly beats the hell out of all-uppercase 8.3, but still.
It would probably be a nightmare (cause a lot of compatibility problems) to change this with the filesystem or variable names at this point, but there's really no good reason I can think of to make new tools case sensitive.
You will always need access devices, true. However, there are a lot of orgs out there running servers who a) don't need a whole server and b) really don't want to run servers. You think your local mechanic shop wants to do anything more complicated than than plug in a laptop and router?
I agree completely. I have caught myself a number of times acting in a way that I couldn't completely explain, and after thinking for a while -- sometimes a long while -- I have figured out what I was subconsciously doing. I think this is one of the primary benefits of therapy; a trained professional may be able to spot what's really bothering you when you don't know.
You're right, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with demographics.
Look up "singular they". Most style manuals do not permit it and at this point the consensus seems to be that it's not correct English, although I imagine this will change over time.
The American educational system teaches that you match the plurality of a pronoun with its antecedent, which is correct.
I can understand that you might be upset that you didn't learn anything in the American education system (which certainly has its problems), but in this case I think it's your fault that you didn't learn.
As others have pointed out, "they" is a plural pronoun. It is not correct to match it with the singular "CEO". I wouldn't have bothered to reply, except that I felt like rubbing your nose in your final snarky comment.
I'm dead and I want privacy too, you insensitive clod!
Having tried both, I happen to prefer grain fed beef. I suspect this is not an uncommon preference.
Stop being rational. Clearly the tornadoes on the sun are a climate change problem, and, let's face it, are George Bush's fault. :)
Since you're avoiding #2 above, I assume you simply don't drive. What? There's a practical amount of risk you must accept to live? Well, at least you only drive 5 mph, right?
Do you honestly think that the posted speed limit is some magical number above which your risk jumps significantly? There is some science to the posted limit -- traffic engineers know a few things! But in many cases it's there for revenue reasons or political reasons. Think for yourself.
...for the brain.