Research is being done on things like Google Glasses.
With augmented reality and the ability to overlay images from every possible perspective onto the eye, there will be no need for a desktop display screen. Voice recognition can be cumbersome for navigation(at least now), so you might still have a desire to have a keyboard(if for nothing else than tactile feedback)..
Research is also being done on ways for computers to read brainwaves and to actually implant thoughts into people's heads. That will do some very interesting things. First, it would enable communication that approximated telepathy, not just in communication but in education. It would allow me to instantaneously convey to you everything I knew about a subject. It would also get rid of the need for input devices like mouses and keyboards, because whatever system you were using could type words at the speed that you think them. It would enable augmented reality, but it would also enable fantasy-type environments, in which your brain could believe that it was experiencing inputs it actually isn't. It would be much better than Star Trek's holodecks, because you could experience entirely different states, like being an animal, being someone of the opposite gender, living a million years, flying, having magical powers, having orgasms on demand, et cetera.
Tablets are nothing but a stepping stone. But no, desktops will definitely not be around forever.
The drawback of using an OS that stopped getting security updates more than two years ago is that any new exploits are unlikely to be fixed.
The benefit of using an OS that stopped getting security updates more than two years ago is that because of its low marketshare it's much less likely to be targeted.
How does chewing tobacco endanger the health of others?
(When answering, please keep in mind that I'm someone who doesn't even drink caffeine, much less use alcohol or tobacco, and who is very much for banning smoking in businesses and public areas.)
So, It's illegal to refuse to hire somebody because of sexual orientation,skin color, country or origin,religion, and a bunch of other stuff. But it's ok to discriminate based on after-hours smoke-inhaling? The world is fucking stupid.
When you give an example like that, typically you compare things that are allowed but shouldn't be against things that aren't allowed but should be.
None of the reasons you listed should be valid reasons to deny employment.
Doctors, can you please clarify this? Eating breakfast is becoming a terrifying experience. (Circle all that apply)
Coffee is good / bad for you. Eggs are good / bad for you. The healthier topping for my toast is butter(which has lots of saturated fat) / margarine(which is trans fat) .
I anticipate the stories of how whole wheat toast is secretly the cause of cancer.
When I worked in a call center, it was the reps' responsibility to hit a button on the phone so that after the call our phone would be put into a special mode, not dropped right back into the queue. This let us have enough time to document the call. After documenting the call, we were supposed to hit the button again to be dropped back into the queue to get another call.
We had to have an average of less than 30 seconds per call in this mode.
At the times of day when we weren't getting calls, I wouldn't hit the button. I'd go straight back into the queue and know with about 90% certainty that I wasn't going to get a call.
I kept track of the number of times I went straight back into the queue, and at the times when we were getting slammed the hardest, I'd use up the extra time I had saved up, and stay out of the queue for a minute or 90 seconds, until we stopped being slammed again.
I was really good at the job, and my average call time was about half of the average of most people on the floor, and for the ~6 months I was there, my lowest review was 97%.
I would be surprised if it took a decade for that requirement to be removed, and if it wasn't removed within two decades I'd be astounded.
Computers' ability to multitask grows exponentially as time goes on. At this point in time, autonomous cars don't have a track record. But in ten years they will. I think the requirement for a human in the driver's seat to be able to override is based on the fear that the computer will fail and the car will be out of control, but given enough time it will be obvious that the computers' ability to maintain safety will be greater than humans' ability to do so, and then I expect that requirement to be removed.
I don't think so. I think self-driving cars will catch on very quickly.
Imagine when you get up for work in the morning if you could safely do things like comb your hair or eat breakfast while driving to work. You could save 15 minutes to maybe a half-hour. And a computerized system where the cars drive as close as possible to one another and optimize their placement, and where everyone is allowed to merge when they want to will make rush hour not completely suck.
Very quickly the number of accidents will go down, the number of people getting pulled over for speeding would drop to almost zero, and road rage will evaporate.
Not only that, but because of the cooperation aspect of automating cars(meaning since they all think in almost the same ways), speed limits may actually be increased. Because a computer program can consider multiple variables much more reliably than humans can, their ability to stop or avoid accidents should be drastically better than ours. And because of that, there's a real possibility that automated cars could be legally allowed to drive at significantly faster speeds than human-operated cars are legally allowed to drive.
Self-driving cars will eventually be the majority.
Driving 20 over the speed limit may make you get there more quickly, but not having to focus on the road for the whole trip will make the trip more enjoyable and will make it feel like you get there more quickly.
I am congenitally missing several teeth, and have had to undergo significant treatment(braces and surgeries) because of it. I have always had excellent oral hygiene habits, but people have often assumed the opposite because of the missing teeth.
Genetic engineering might mean as little as stimulating cells so that a recessive trait(like the "perfect" teeth common in one of my parents' families) becomes dominant.
Although I don't intend to have children, occasionally I have considered the possibility. I know that people are often fearful of the results of genetic engineering and believe that it would be done for bad reasons, but is it so wrong to not want to inflict what I have gone through on someone else?
There's no reason that copyrights should last anywhere near 30 years. The fact that they do is the reason that almost every television show(Hawaii 5-0, Dallas, The Munsters, Teen Wolf, Charlie's Angels, Melrose Place, 90210, Nikita, Beauty & The Beast, Bewitched, The Flintstones, The Rifleman, The Simpsons[oh, wait, The Simpsons has just been on forever?]) and every movie(Spider-Man, Nightmare on Elm Street, King Kong, Dirty Dancing, Annie, Child's Play, Snow White, RoboCop, Short Circuit, The Crow, The NeverEnding Story, Escape From New York, Porky's, Romancing The Stone, Scarface, Lethal Weapon) are remakes of things that have been under copyright for decades. There is no incentive to make anything new.
How does someone make a "rearranging the kitchen" comparison with no mention of "menus"?
First they completely get rid of menus in Office programs, then hide the menus in Internet Explorer, then make it impossible to put menus above the toolbars, then they get rid of menus throughout the operating system.
So if the Prius has customer satisfaction so much higher that it takes overall hybrid loyalty from 25% to 35% that must mean that well over 35% of Prius drivers would buy another Prius.
It seems that this article's misstating its own claims. Instead of saying "Most hybrid owners don't want another hybrid" it seems like it should be saying "The Prius seems to be a lot better than other hybrids(according to the people who own them)."
Slashdot Mirror
There is no need for national-scale desalinization. Some areas do have enough water.
There is a need for certain areas to start using desalinization.
Research is being done on things like Google Glasses.
With augmented reality and the ability to overlay images from every possible perspective onto the eye, there will be no need for a desktop display screen. Voice recognition can be cumbersome for navigation(at least now), so you might still have a desire to have a keyboard(if for nothing else than tactile feedback)..
Research is also being done on ways for computers to read brainwaves and to actually implant thoughts into people's heads. That will do some very interesting things. First, it would enable communication that approximated telepathy, not just in communication but in education. It would allow me to instantaneously convey to you everything I knew about a subject. It would also get rid of the need for input devices like mouses and keyboards, because whatever system you were using could type words at the speed that you think them. It would enable augmented reality, but it would also enable fantasy-type environments, in which your brain could believe that it was experiencing inputs it actually isn't. It would be much better than Star Trek's holodecks, because you could experience entirely different states, like being an animal, being someone of the opposite gender, living a million years, flying, having magical powers, having orgasms on demand, et cetera.
Tablets are nothing but a stepping stone. But no, desktops will definitely not be around forever.
The drawback of using an OS that stopped getting security updates more than two years ago is that any new exploits are unlikely to be fixed.
The benefit of using an OS that stopped getting security updates more than two years ago is that because of its low marketshare it's much less likely to be targeted.
The other 70% was being used to download updates to Adobe Reader and Flash.
How does chewing tobacco endanger the health of others?
(When answering, please keep in mind that I'm someone who doesn't even drink caffeine, much less use alcohol or tobacco, and who is very much for banning smoking in businesses and public areas.)
The fact that smoking may lead to a particular set of health issues shouldn't lead you to believe that smokers are the only ones with issues.
I was born with some congenital medical issues. Should I also be denied healthcare because you don't want to raise your health insurance premiums?
Some people have osteoporosis. Should they be denied healthcare because they tend to break bones?
How ridiculous is it that the U.S. has a system in which the need to possibly receive healthcare is a disqualifier to be able to get it?
When you give an example like that, typically you compare things that are allowed but shouldn't be against things that aren't allowed but should be.
None of the reasons you listed should be valid reasons to deny employment.
Doctors, can you please clarify this? Eating breakfast is becoming a terrifying experience. (Circle all that apply)
Coffee is good / bad for you.
Eggs are good / bad for you.
The healthier topping for my toast is butter(which has lots of saturated fat) / margarine(which is trans fat) .
I anticipate the stories of how whole wheat toast is secretly the cause of cancer.
When I worked in a call center, it was the reps' responsibility to hit a button on the phone so that after the call our phone would be put into a special mode, not dropped right back into the queue. This let us have enough time to document the call. After documenting the call, we were supposed to hit the button again to be dropped back into the queue to get another call.
We had to have an average of less than 30 seconds per call in this mode.
At the times of day when we weren't getting calls, I wouldn't hit the button. I'd go straight back into the queue and know with about 90% certainty that I wasn't going to get a call.
I kept track of the number of times I went straight back into the queue, and at the times when we were getting slammed the hardest, I'd use up the extra time I had saved up, and stay out of the queue for a minute or 90 seconds, until we stopped being slammed again.
I was really good at the job, and my average call time was about half of the average of most people on the floor, and for the ~6 months I was there, my lowest review was 97%.
I would be surprised if it took a decade for that requirement to be removed, and if it wasn't removed within two decades I'd be astounded.
Computers' ability to multitask grows exponentially as time goes on. At this point in time, autonomous cars don't have a track record. But in ten years they will. I think the requirement for a human in the driver's seat to be able to override is based on the fear that the computer will fail and the car will be out of control, but given enough time it will be obvious that the computers' ability to maintain safety will be greater than humans' ability to do so, and then I expect that requirement to be removed.
I don't think so. I think self-driving cars will catch on very quickly.
Imagine when you get up for work in the morning if you could safely do things like comb your hair or eat breakfast while driving to work. You could save 15 minutes to maybe a half-hour. And a computerized system where the cars drive as close as possible to one another and optimize their placement, and where everyone is allowed to merge when they want to will make rush hour not completely suck.
Very quickly the number of accidents will go down, the number of people getting pulled over for speeding would drop to almost zero, and road rage will evaporate.
Not only that, but because of the cooperation aspect of automating cars(meaning since they all think in almost the same ways), speed limits may actually be increased. Because a computer program can consider multiple variables much more reliably than humans can, their ability to stop or avoid accidents should be drastically better than ours. And because of that, there's a real possibility that automated cars could be legally allowed to drive at significantly faster speeds than human-operated cars are legally allowed to drive.
Self-driving cars will eventually be the majority.
Driving 20 over the speed limit may make you get there more quickly, but not having to focus on the road for the whole trip will make the trip more enjoyable and will make it feel like you get there more quickly.
You can't have internet freedom without net neutrality.
You can't have internet freedom with 1-2 companies having a monopoly on internet access.
You can't create freedom by restricting the power of only some of those who would deny you freedom.
I am congenitally missing several teeth, and have had to undergo significant treatment(braces and surgeries) because of it. I have always had excellent oral hygiene habits, but people have often assumed the opposite because of the missing teeth.
Genetic engineering might mean as little as stimulating cells so that a recessive trait(like the "perfect" teeth common in one of my parents' families) becomes dominant.
Although I don't intend to have children, occasionally I have considered the possibility. I know that people are often fearful of the results of genetic engineering and believe that it would be done for bad reasons, but is it so wrong to not want to inflict what I have gone through on someone else?
It would.
I don't know. It looks like Metro needs to be baked for about twice as long.
Why would you insist on comparing an iPad with 3G against a Surface which doesn't have 3G, when 3G is an optional feature on iPads?
It seems dishonest when comparing two products to insist on comparing one that has optional pricy features not available on the other.
These are the prices of the devices with (what I expect will be the most) comparable specs:
Surface without 3G: ???
iPad 16GB without 3G: $499
iPad 32GB without 3G: $599
iPad 64GB without 3G: $699
There's no reason that copyrights should last anywhere near 30 years. The fact that they do is the reason that almost every television show(Hawaii 5-0, Dallas, The Munsters, Teen Wolf, Charlie's Angels, Melrose Place, 90210, Nikita, Beauty & The Beast, Bewitched, The Flintstones, The Rifleman, The Simpsons[oh, wait, The Simpsons has just been on forever?]) and every movie(Spider-Man, Nightmare on Elm Street, King Kong, Dirty Dancing, Annie, Child's Play, Snow White, RoboCop, Short Circuit, The Crow, The NeverEnding Story, Escape From New York, Porky's, Romancing The Stone, Scarface, Lethal Weapon) are remakes of things that have been under copyright for decades. There is no incentive to make anything new.
Copyright should last 5 years MAYBE...
They change their password from time to time because they forgot their old one and went through the password recovery process.
Fortunately for them, their security questions are "What is my favorite color?" and "How many kids do I have?" so that's not too difficult.
How does someone make a "rearranging the kitchen" comparison with no mention of "menus"?
First they completely get rid of menus in Office programs, then hide the menus in Internet Explorer, then make it impossible to put menus above the toolbars, then they get rid of menus throughout the operating system.
On what planet is money a form of speech but indicating your support for something not?
So next Tuesday then?
So if the Prius has customer satisfaction so much higher that it takes overall hybrid loyalty from 25% to 35% that must mean that well over 35% of Prius drivers would buy another Prius.
It seems that this article's misstating its own claims. Instead of saying "Most hybrid owners don't want another hybrid" it seems like it should be saying "The Prius seems to be a lot better than other hybrids(according to the people who own them)."
Google does ignore the plus sign now. Now it uses the exact same syntax as if you're searching for an exact phrase. You just put the word in quotes.
You can read about it and other syntax on the Google syntax page: http://support.google.com/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=136861
He means that Democrats are Doubleplusunscience.