Is there something in particular that makes you think today is special, and different from the past? Because automation has happened a lot, historically, and people have just shifted into different jobs, and the life of the average person has been improving. Our economy may not be booming right now, but even so, the unemployment rate isn't as terrible as it has been in downturns in the past when there was less automation.
Companies should aim to have the optimal, not the minimal, number of employees. That will include some excess in basically every department to handle a surge in demand (you don't want to have to hire in reaction, that is an exceedingly bad position to be in).
There's no mention of a lawsuit involved here. Can we criticize disney etc for not using real actors? Sure. Because honestly, both of those movies were so terrible they could only have been improved by real actors.
I think the point of the article is that even though everybody knows all models in all fashion magazines are shopped, that it still puts out an unattainable standard of beauty. People still see it, their brains process the images and are affected, regardless of the fact that they know it isn't real.
Deal with it. Modern concepts of beauty as promoted by clothiers might be unrealistic, that doesn't mean anyone has the right to tell them what they can consider beautiful.
Oh yes they do, they just can't back it up with force. Deal with that.
And oh yes they can. Backing up your opinion with force is a time-honored tradition.
Same thing they did before mass media made it possible to have a career as a model. They haven't come up with a computer that can do the world's oldest profession yet.
Indeed, it was a network called the internet that did that. But I hear you can get access to the internet on a computer now.
I mean, the answer is utterly clear, isn't it? You data is not safe in the cloud. Break ins have happened already, and will continue to happen. Your data also isn't safe at home, or at work. Your company's data isn't safe at their site, or the cloud providers. It's a relative safety issue, and one that should be weighed carefully. If you really care about the safety of your data, you probably want to use local apps, combined with cloud storage of encrypted data. That way you get the distributed benefits of the cloud (reduced risk of data loss due to disaster thanks to replication across multiple physical sites... your cloud provider does do multi-site replication, right?), but you don't leave control of your data security in their hands.
Just never trust a cloud app. Local apps, encrypted cloud storage. Very simple rule.
My point was that a dam typically transforms an area that was not used for living, to an area that is, increasing livability at the site rather than decreasing it. Land area is not yet the limiting factor on human habitation. My point is exclusively that that is not a reasonable argument against hydro. The lack of remaining good sites is a much better one.
Just look at the games on consoles. Vendor lock in has killed creativity in the industry. The only bright spot is XBLA, and even there the censorship is a big problem.
The dam one is rather unfair. If you look at a slightly wider area, the land behind a dam usually rises in overall value (because people like lake-view properties with access to cheap power).
On the positive side, you can frequently interview your US-based developers before employing them. Then if you suck at interviewing, at least you have no one to blame but yourself. But with outsourcing, you can't even guarantee the outsourcing company will have the same employees a day after you hire them.
Well, in case it was unclear, my point was only that since they obviously have artificial gravity (e.g. take that as a premise because they show that in other contexts) then there is actually no reason, other than the difficulty of filming, for elevators to need more than a fraction of a second to take you the entire length of a spaceship.
Given artificial gravity and materials only marginally advanced from those we have now, you ought to be able to operate your elevators at 20-30g. That gets you places pretty darn quick.
Yeah that's mainly my point. Small fabs can't deliver devices with even 10% of the density of commercial fabs right now. That deficit is a huge problem. A similar problem exists with displays.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there something in particular that makes you think today is special, and different from the past? Because automation has happened a lot, historically, and people have just shifted into different jobs, and the life of the average person has been improving. Our economy may not be booming right now, but even so, the unemployment rate isn't as terrible as it has been in downturns in the past when there was less automation.
Companies should aim to have the optimal, not the minimal, number of employees. That will include some excess in basically every department to handle a surge in demand (you don't want to have to hire in reaction, that is an exceedingly bad position to be in).
There's no mention of a lawsuit involved here. Can we criticize disney etc for not using real actors? Sure. Because honestly, both of those movies were so terrible they could only have been improved by real actors.
I think the point of the article is that even though everybody knows all models in all fashion magazines are shopped, that it still puts out an unattainable standard of beauty. People still see it, their brains process the images and are affected, regardless of the fact that they know it isn't real.
Well that would be a ridiculous assertion. Nobody makes mannequins that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannequin
Deal with it. Modern concepts of beauty as promoted by clothiers might be unrealistic, that doesn't mean anyone has the right to tell them what they can consider beautiful.
Oh yes they do, they just can't back it up with force. Deal with that.
And oh yes they can. Backing up your opinion with force is a time-honored tradition.
Same thing they did before mass media made it possible to have a career as a model. They haven't come up with a computer that can do the world's oldest profession yet.
Indeed, it was a network called the internet that did that. But I hear you can get access to the internet on a computer now.
I mean, the answer is utterly clear, isn't it? You data is not safe in the cloud. Break ins have happened already, and will continue to happen. Your data also isn't safe at home, or at work. Your company's data isn't safe at their site, or the cloud providers. It's a relative safety issue, and one that should be weighed carefully. If you really care about the safety of your data, you probably want to use local apps, combined with cloud storage of encrypted data. That way you get the distributed benefits of the cloud (reduced risk of data loss due to disaster thanks to replication across multiple physical sites ... your cloud provider does do multi-site replication, right?), but you don't leave control of your data security in their hands.
Just never trust a cloud app. Local apps, encrypted cloud storage. Very simple rule.
My point was that a dam typically transforms an area that was not used for living, to an area that is, increasing livability at the site rather than decreasing it. Land area is not yet the limiting factor on human habitation. My point is exclusively that that is not a reasonable argument against hydro. The lack of remaining good sites is a much better one.
Just look at the games on consoles. Vendor lock in has killed creativity in the industry.
The only bright spot is XBLA, and even there the censorship is a big problem.
The dam one is rather unfair. If you look at a slightly wider area, the land behind a dam usually rises in overall value (because people like lake-view properties with access to cheap power).
Loss leader hardware consoles are a problem for the gaming industry, not a benefit. Consumers would be much better off if that were illegal.
Now I'm afraid you've lost me. Or did you mean to reply to another post?
Do they take up drinking because they can't get sex with the beautiful women? Is that why their population is so low?
You can't get a ton cheaper, because at some point, they can't even pretend to suck, because they can't afford a computer at all.
On the positive side, you can frequently interview your US-based developers before employing them. Then if you suck at interviewing, at least you have no one to blame but yourself. But with outsourcing, you can't even guarantee the outsourcing company will have the same employees a day after you hire them.
If the short term is your working lifetime, tough luck!
They are having their lunch eaten by smarter banks. All of the big 6 banks have relatively modern software for all of their core systems.
Well, in case it was unclear, my point was only that since they obviously have artificial gravity (e.g. take that as a premise because they show that in other contexts) then there is actually no reason, other than the difficulty of filming, for elevators to need more than a fraction of a second to take you the entire length of a spaceship.
It's a flying car, just with minor flaws like it only holds one passenger, and the passenger arrives dead.
Given artificial gravity and materials only marginally advanced from those we have now, you ought to be able to operate your elevators at 20-30g. That gets you places pretty darn quick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Anti-circumvention_exemptions
Please go update
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Anti-circumvention_exemptions
with a link if you don't mind.
Because it claims there is no such exemption.
I would have expected deadbeef to indicate another platform.
Yeah that's mainly my point. Small fabs can't deliver devices with even 10% of the density of commercial fabs right now. That deficit is a huge problem. A similar problem exists with displays.