...I would imagine that various types of creative teams work best when they can be together and easily interact as a group in most scenarios. I'm not certain of this, but I suspect that people who function like this may not realize that engineers just want to be left alone...
I duno... all creativity needs r-mode, when have you ever seen a brainstorming session among a group of people ever output anything particularly creative, group interactions tends to make it impossible to contribute anything that is not just prior knowledge.
Actual creativity needs peace and quiet to let ideas peculate through your brain, when actively and prematurely probed by external forces these ideas collapse like an illusive wave function as you scramble for solidified, easily verbalised thought.
Does the study actually show computer game specific negative effects? or is this another "do this to excess and the negatives outweighs the benefits" type of observation which applies to basically everything, (yes i'm sceptical... i'm also lazy/busy/not interested enough, someone read the study and give us the TL;DR of the truth of the article premise.)
The BSOD Blue Screen of Death is also getting an overhaul, and it would inherit the color scheme from the upgraded console. No longer limited to the standard blue, you can have a choice of translucent, iridescent, fluorescent, speckled and coruscant versions of blue.
No it's more advanced than that... the BSOD themes are going to be in-death purchases, the transactions will be handled by a intel ME firmware module to allow the system to continue crashing unhindered.
I mean after all if they are fixing unimportant things like this it must mean that they have fixed every other bug in existence. It will be wonderful to finally get to use 100% bug free software.
No need for sarcasm... Microsoft has had bug free software since 1981, it's called DOS, although they didn't write it - maybe that's why.
I don't see any reason why not selling petrol cars would "cripple" Britain. You do know that it's a tiny little island by American standards of distance-- all of the U.K. is still a little smaller than Michigan-- and few people drive long distances. As far as I can see, it's a great location for electric cars.
With 65 million vs 9 million, (just relevant in terms of the number of cars we are talking about replacing)
I disagree, distance is an issue still - It's about 300 miles across and 600+ miles up, not to mention that it's way longer than that to drive anywhere because unlike most of north america it's not flat and roads are very windy on anything but motorways. It all adds up to something beyond the range of most EVs for when we want to have a break and travel to the coast (which so many people in the UK do) so that still makes most of these vehicles a "non all-rounder" which is a put off for any buyer.
Full disclosure: I really want an EV, I'm really bored of unreliable cancer inducing ICE... but money and practicality.
You are really missing the point... this is supposed to stop kids visiting porn on the internet... (kids) the fastest to learn how to manipulate computers, compared to any other average citizen. You cannot block international sites, and kids will go there if they please, just like they use torrents and VPNs for everything else the UK already blocks. That's why it does have to be a white list, which of course nobody would seriously condone if they inderstood the consiquences. It's a foolish attempt in either case.
So yeah, the policy makers are ignorant, they have given me way more reasons than this to believe so.
seeing as computers have these addons called programs that can be used to pirate software... we know where this road goes, cars can be used by theives etc. FACT is a lie.
This kind of ignorant policy making is annoying because for it to actually work at all the following must be true:
Implement a global white list for all of the internet (AKA absolute censorship and 1x10^-9999999% of sites available)
Of course what they will actually do is approach it through legislation which will do about fuck all because UK !== internet... but a small piece of me wants them to attempt absolute censorship so the idiots in parliament can see first hand what a bunch of fucking pillocks they all are as they realise it would mean self destruction of the UK economy. Don't meddle with what you don't understand... oh wait that's basically the definition of politics, yes this shit makes me very cynical.
While it may make business sense for Exxon (for instance) to start developing batteries, there is nothing about their business that puts them in a better position to do so than any other company. It's not like operating off-shore oil rigs gives you some leg up on battery production.
Yes, it's forced, but that's my point really.. If you want an answer from me in real terms then I think the best example I can give is the EU's punishment for the VW emissions scandal, force them to invest in alternatives. Yes it's still a car, but internal combustion engines vs electric is an entirely different game. There's no reason big oil couldn't be forced to invest it's profits to internal projects for alternative energy sources.
At the risk of sounding repetitive... I'm saying they should be made to change... When a problem is systemic you need to change the system. Oil companies are not drug lords, they operate within the constraints of corporate law. They are only allowed to do what they do provided government agrees it is legal.
Unless you originated the project, the number one rule is consistency. If you do a lot of contributing to open source then you will find a lot of projects with spaces... and regardless of your preference you will stick to that style if you want your code to be merged.
I'm a tab guy, it's just a preference... Yet all of my open source contributions to projects other than my own use spaces.
no one is going to nuke the oil companies, they are both necessary and powerful, but they are few and therefor a perfect target, they have the means to change the system and should be target by those that can require them to change (governments, lawmakers etc).
You want to 'point the finger' at the companies that 'control the infrastructure', but what do you expect them to do? What magic can those companies (and only those companies) do that is going to convert all those cars to use something other than fossil fuels? Exactly what 'control' do you suppose those companies have?
I'm probably not expressing my point very clearly, let me try again:
1. No one is obligated or has any incentive to change, from both perspectives of supplier and consumer, their is no reasonable choice. There are no market forces or laws that would make big oil change.
2. Means for change: Consumers are few resources diveded by many, they cannot develop viable alternatives; the large multinational companies are large resources divided by the few, they have the means (just not the incentive).
So my point is the difference between these seemingly equally responsible parts to the equation are that the suppliers are the only ones with the means and position to be able to insight change - they just don't have the incentive because it's all about money. They are the week link that should be targeted by governments to change they are few, highly responsible and powerful.
I believe the future of transportation is going to be "a few electric cars for the super-rich and public buses and stuff for the rest."
Stop living in the past and try using your imagination.
First Tesla car: The 100k roadster. 2500 produced, for the very rich only, everybody said it was doomed.
Next Tesla car: The model S - selling about 50,000 cars per year.
Now it's the model 3, there's half a million pre-orders, tesla is busy building 'gigafactories' to manufacture them.
See a pattern here?
Try letting the kids play on your lawn every once in a while. You might learn something.
It's not quite that simple, I'm not saying either prediction is the absolute truth, but the fact is Tesla cannot guarantee anything about the future of EVs, it's the other 99% of automakers who control the existing market who are more invested in IC engines, they have a foot in the EV door for two purposes:
1. Insurance / future proofing
2. Control over the transition to maximise profit from existing infrastructure.
This "request" is them attempting to exercise the later. Unfortunately the competitive aspect of young companies does not survive into the later stages of capitalism, as a result it can stagnate superior technologies or even completely preventing them from ever coming to market. EV's are not a "never" because oil is obviously on a clock, but that clock can easily be made as long as possible by those interested at the expense of everyone else.
I guess every one on the 943 TRILLION airline passenger miles last year was an absolutely essential trip. Or is 'big oil' behind that, too?
People have lots of choices. Some people (like you) just don't want to admit they are part of the problem when it is so much easier to blame 'big oil'.
Oh sure we have choices.... But please for my sake, define "essential", and then chuck all your stuff away and go live in the woods.
I didn't say shut down oil companies, change them, it's the easiest place to intervene - are governments going to try to control 4 billion people against market forces or 100 companies?
Introspection doesn't mean self absorbed, although reading code in this way is weighted towards the novice; the process of questioning your internal processes is what leads to experts.
For once I feel like i'm a super minority on slashdot... who cares if it's a half bakes article, why are you all protecting these companies? You're selectively arguing against the consumer...
Everyone who is part of the equation is to blame. However the difference between me and one of these companies is that I can't change my mind and "go green" tomorrow, everything I touch is tainted with fossil fuels, there is no choice. The problem is systemic and it is correct to point the finger at the small number of companies who ultimately have control of the infrastructure that drives it... if you disagree then by all means remove yourself from society because that's the only way you can not contribute, you will quickly learn how little choice you have.
A company that provides you with fuel for your car does not actually produce the emissions, your car produces the emissions, you are the one driving it.
Global warming is systemic, that's the point to take away from this article.
Your argument is flawed because you can apply it to all players: the consumers are responsible because they keep consuming; the producers are responsible because they keep producing.
However there is a difference, individual consumers are powerless to make any difference, practical alternatives come from above, the control lies in the hands of the relative few who own the infrastructure and the businesses.
To see the consumer as the sole blame instead of just a part of the equation is the same argument that "save the planet" hippies use to guilt people into buying "green" branded bullshit that make no difference. Don't carry on pissing in the wind, take a step back and see the big picture!
Good luck trying to convince all 7.5+ billion people to stop aspiring to own a car and eat steak
Do you think convincing 0.5 billion people would be any less futile?
Yes overpopulation is a problem and a multiplier. But convincing them to not use any of the many pervasive modern conveniences of the 21st century that happen to also be or cause environmental pollution (yes I'm including green house gas)... I've said this for years and i'll keep saying it because I've never failed to come to the same conclusion:
These problems need to be fixed at the source, you can't expect people to not drive it's just not possible for too many people, and likewise you can't expect people to spend so much of their time sorting trash... We need to make things that are inherantly safe to the environment, especially when it's bought by the millions everyday and is disposable (plastic containers), those need to be biodegradable.
The UK government recently forced all supermarkets to charge customers 5p for plastic bags... yet 95% of the time I still forget to take bags when I go shopping, and even if I didn't they still need replacing because they brake or get dirty, it's going to end up in the bin, so the whole "reduce" attitude (which is the same as combining this with the population problem) is pissing in the wind - or in this case more like pissing into a hurricane on Jupiter.
All this isn't to say that some funny business didn't go on in Microsoft's test, but it seems less likely considering that they did publish their test procedure so that it could be duplicated by others. That said, it would not surprise me if there is such a wide variation in each run that Microsoft didn't choose the best one that supports their browser.
dude... that's the point, I'm not giving MS benefit of the doubt, they repeatedly cheated in these things, you give them way too much credit by suggesting others are more likely to purposely disadvantage them in a test. MS will do contrive an unfair test at the drop of a hat... every single time.
Perhaps isn't not as wide spread as before but they have publically anounced similar performance and security related comparisons putting IEDGE on top, they have all been debunked - I suppose the difference is that was probably only towards a mostly developer community.
Conceptually, I like the idea of an improved init system. I'm not entirely sure when that morphed into the kitchen sink approach or why they don't just give valid messages when processes fail to start?
It's never made me mad, but I really think it could be better - and possibly broken up into smaller parts.
Yeah I agree, and being more modular and minimal for the actual init system part should provide superior reliability and less bugs, pretty much anyone would agree, but that suggests the opposite should be unreliable and buggy - In practice though it's not because there are many other variables determining these properties of software. It doesn't negate advantages of being more modular and minimal, just shows that the opposite doesn't have to be as terrible as we probably think it will be.
How many times has Microsoft made false claims about it's browser, all their IE/Edge press BS originates from contrived statistics or benchmarks. You can never trust them and they will never change.
Slashdot Mirror
...I would imagine that various types of creative teams work best when they can be together and easily interact as a group in most scenarios. I'm not certain of this, but I suspect that people who function like this may not realize that engineers just want to be left alone...
I duno... all creativity needs r-mode, when have you ever seen a brainstorming session among a group of people ever output anything particularly creative, group interactions tends to make it impossible to contribute anything that is not just prior knowledge.
Actual creativity needs peace and quiet to let ideas peculate through your brain, when actively and prematurely probed by external forces these ideas collapse like an illusive wave function as you scramble for solidified, easily verbalised thought.
Does the study actually show computer game specific negative effects? or is this another "do this to excess and the negatives outweighs the benefits" type of observation which applies to basically everything, (yes i'm sceptical... i'm also lazy/busy/not interested enough, someone read the study and give us the TL;DR of the truth of the article premise.)
The BSOD Blue Screen of Death is also getting an overhaul, and it would inherit the color scheme from the upgraded console. No longer limited to the standard blue, you can have a choice of translucent, iridescent, fluorescent, speckled and coruscant versions of blue.
No it's more advanced than that... the BSOD themes are going to be in-death purchases, the transactions will be handled by a intel ME firmware module to allow the system to continue crashing unhindered.
I mean after all if they are fixing unimportant things like this it must mean that they have fixed every other bug in existence. It will be wonderful to finally get to use 100% bug free software.
No need for sarcasm... Microsoft has had bug free software since 1981, it's called DOS, although they didn't write it - maybe that's why.
Fairphone is great for repairability, but repairable does not necessarily mean open, whereas open tends to imply repairable.
I don't see any reason why not selling petrol cars would "cripple" Britain. You do know that it's a tiny little island by American standards of distance-- all of the U.K. is still a little smaller than Michigan-- and few people drive long distances. As far as I can see, it's a great location for electric cars.
With 65 million vs 9 million, (just relevant in terms of the number of cars we are talking about replacing)
I disagree, distance is an issue still - It's about 300 miles across and 600+ miles up, not to mention that it's way longer than that to drive anywhere because unlike most of north america it's not flat and roads are very windy on anything but motorways. It all adds up to something beyond the range of most EVs for when we want to have a break and travel to the coast (which so many people in the UK do) so that still makes most of these vehicles a "non all-rounder" which is a put off for any buyer.
Full disclosure: I really want an EV, I'm really bored of unreliable cancer inducing ICE... but money and practicality.
You are really missing the point... this is supposed to stop kids visiting porn on the internet... (kids) the fastest to learn how to manipulate computers, compared to any other average citizen. You cannot block international sites, and kids will go there if they please, just like they use torrents and VPNs for everything else the UK already blocks. That's why it does have to be a white list, which of course nobody would seriously condone if they inderstood the consiquences. It's a foolish attempt in either case.
So yeah, the policy makers are ignorant, they have given me way more reasons than this to believe so.
seeing as computers have these addons called programs that can be used to pirate software... we know where this road goes, cars can be used by theives etc. FACT is a lie.
This kind of ignorant policy making is annoying because for it to actually work at all the following must be true:
Implement a global white list for all of the internet (AKA absolute censorship and 1x10^-9999999% of sites available)
Of course what they will actually do is approach it through legislation which will do about fuck all because UK !== internet... but a small piece of me wants them to attempt absolute censorship so the idiots in parliament can see first hand what a bunch of fucking pillocks they all are as they realise it would mean self destruction of the UK economy. Don't meddle with what you don't understand... oh wait that's basically the definition of politics, yes this shit makes me very cynical.
While it may make business sense for Exxon (for instance) to start developing batteries, there is nothing about their business that puts them in a better position to do so than any other company. It's not like operating off-shore oil rigs gives you some leg up on battery production.
Yes, it's forced, but that's my point really.. If you want an answer from me in real terms then I think the best example I can give is the EU's punishment for the VW emissions scandal, force them to invest in alternatives. Yes it's still a car, but internal combustion engines vs electric is an entirely different game. There's no reason big oil couldn't be forced to invest it's profits to internal projects for alternative energy sources.
At the risk of sounding repetitive... I'm saying they should be made to change... When a problem is systemic you need to change the system. Oil companies are not drug lords, they operate within the constraints of corporate law. They are only allowed to do what they do provided government agrees it is legal.
Unless you originated the project, the number one rule is consistency. If you do a lot of contributing to open source then you will find a lot of projects with spaces... and regardless of your preference you will stick to that style if you want your code to be merged.
I'm a tab guy, it's just a preference... Yet all of my open source contributions to projects other than my own use spaces.
no one is going to nuke the oil companies, they are both necessary and powerful, but they are few and therefor a perfect target, they have the means to change the system and should be target by those that can require them to change (governments, lawmakers etc).
You want to 'point the finger' at the companies that 'control the infrastructure', but what do you expect them to do? What magic can those companies (and only those companies) do that is going to convert all those cars to use something other than fossil fuels? Exactly what 'control' do you suppose those companies have?
I'm probably not expressing my point very clearly, let me try again:
1. No one is obligated or has any incentive to change, from both perspectives of supplier and consumer, their is no reasonable choice. There are no market forces or laws that would make big oil change.
2. Means for change: Consumers are few resources diveded by many, they cannot develop viable alternatives; the large multinational companies are large resources divided by the few, they have the means (just not the incentive).
So my point is the difference between these seemingly equally responsible parts to the equation are that the suppliers are the only ones with the means and position to be able to insight change - they just don't have the incentive because it's all about money. They are the week link that should be targeted by governments to change they are few, highly responsible and powerful.
I believe the future of transportation is going to be "a few electric cars for the super-rich and public buses and stuff for the rest."
Stop living in the past and try using your imagination.
First Tesla car: The 100k roadster. 2500 produced, for the very rich only, everybody said it was doomed.
Next Tesla car: The model S - selling about 50,000 cars per year.
Now it's the model 3, there's half a million pre-orders, tesla is busy building 'gigafactories' to manufacture them.
See a pattern here?
Try letting the kids play on your lawn every once in a while. You might learn something.
It's not quite that simple, I'm not saying either prediction is the absolute truth, but the fact is Tesla cannot guarantee anything about the future of EVs, it's the other 99% of automakers who control the existing market who are more invested in IC engines, they have a foot in the EV door for two purposes:
1. Insurance / future proofing
2. Control over the transition to maximise profit from existing infrastructure.
This "request" is them attempting to exercise the later. Unfortunately the competitive aspect of young companies does not survive into the later stages of capitalism, as a result it can stagnate superior technologies or even completely preventing them from ever coming to market. EV's are not a "never" because oil is obviously on a clock, but that clock can easily be made as long as possible by those interested at the expense of everyone else.
I guess every one on the 943 TRILLION airline passenger miles last year was an absolutely essential trip. Or is 'big oil' behind that, too?
People have lots of choices. Some people (like you) just don't want to admit they are part of the problem when it is so much easier to blame 'big oil'.
Oh sure we have choices.... But please for my sake, define "essential", and then chuck all your stuff away and go live in the woods.
I didn't say shut down oil companies, change them, it's the easiest place to intervene - are governments going to try to control 4 billion people against market forces or 100 companies?
Introspection doesn't mean self absorbed, although reading code in this way is weighted towards the novice; the process of questioning your internal processes is what leads to experts.
For once I feel like i'm a super minority on slashdot... who cares if it's a half bakes article, why are you all protecting these companies? You're selectively arguing against the consumer...
Everyone who is part of the equation is to blame. However the difference between me and one of these companies is that I can't change my mind and "go green" tomorrow, everything I touch is tainted with fossil fuels, there is no choice. The problem is systemic and it is correct to point the finger at the small number of companies who ultimately have control of the infrastructure that drives it... if you disagree then by all means remove yourself from society because that's the only way you can not contribute, you will quickly learn how little choice you have.
A company that provides you with fuel for your car does not actually produce the emissions, your car produces the emissions, you are the one driving it.
Global warming is systemic, that's the point to take away from this article. Your argument is flawed because you can apply it to all players: the consumers are responsible because they keep consuming; the producers are responsible because they keep producing.
However there is a difference, individual consumers are powerless to make any difference, practical alternatives come from above, the control lies in the hands of the relative few who own the infrastructure and the businesses.
To see the consumer as the sole blame instead of just a part of the equation is the same argument that "save the planet" hippies use to guilt people into buying "green" branded bullshit that make no difference. Don't carry on pissing in the wind, take a step back and see the big picture!
Good luck trying to convince all 7.5+ billion people to stop aspiring to own a car and eat steak
Do you think convincing 0.5 billion people would be any less futile?
Yes overpopulation is a problem and a multiplier. But convincing them to not use any of the many pervasive modern conveniences of the 21st century that happen to also be or cause environmental pollution (yes I'm including green house gas)... I've said this for years and i'll keep saying it because I've never failed to come to the same conclusion:
These problems need to be fixed at the source, you can't expect people to not drive it's just not possible for too many people, and likewise you can't expect people to spend so much of their time sorting trash... We need to make things that are inherantly safe to the environment, especially when it's bought by the millions everyday and is disposable (plastic containers), those need to be biodegradable.
The UK government recently forced all supermarkets to charge customers 5p for plastic bags... yet 95% of the time I still forget to take bags when I go shopping, and even if I didn't they still need replacing because they brake or get dirty, it's going to end up in the bin, so the whole "reduce" attitude (which is the same as combining this with the population problem) is pissing in the wind - or in this case more like pissing into a hurricane on Jupiter.
All this isn't to say that some funny business didn't go on in Microsoft's test, but it seems less likely considering that they did publish their test procedure so that it could be duplicated by others. That said, it would not surprise me if there is such a wide variation in each run that Microsoft didn't choose the best one that supports their browser.
dude... that's the point, I'm not giving MS benefit of the doubt, they repeatedly cheated in these things, you give them way too much credit by suggesting others are more likely to purposely disadvantage them in a test. MS will do contrive an unfair test at the drop of a hat... every single time.
Perhaps isn't not as wide spread as before but they have publically anounced similar performance and security related comparisons putting IEDGE on top, they have all been debunked - I suppose the difference is that was probably only towards a mostly developer community.
Conceptually, I like the idea of an improved init system. I'm not entirely sure when that morphed into the kitchen sink approach or why they don't just give valid messages when processes fail to start?
It's never made me mad, but I really think it could be better - and possibly broken up into smaller parts.
Yeah I agree, and being more modular and minimal for the actual init system part should provide superior reliability and less bugs, pretty much anyone would agree, but that suggests the opposite should be unreliable and buggy - In practice though it's not because there are many other variables determining these properties of software. It doesn't negate advantages of being more modular and minimal, just shows that the opposite doesn't have to be as terrible as we probably think it will be.
How many times has Microsoft made false claims about it's browser, all their IE/Edge press BS originates from contrived statistics or benchmarks. You can never trust them and they will never change.