I have a friend who is a occupational therapist who specializes in hand function (i.e. rehab after a hand injury or surgery). He has told me several years ago average hand strength has declined significantly in the younger, "millennial" generation and it's very well-documented. So it's no surprise to me that the same trend is continuing down the generations. It's due to the greater use of all technology in our lives (not just just phones and tablets) and reduced importance/need for manual work/play in general. I am not a millennials basher or one to opine about good old days, but this is a change between generations that is demonstrably true.
Those speeds start to compete with land-based internet service, which create some interesting possibilities, like....
Mobile 5G could bring relatively fast internet service to many rural areas that are still starved of high speed internet. It would be much cheaper to build a tower to service many square miles than laying and maintaining cable/fiber down all rural roads.
"Low-bandwidth" home internet users (i.e. basic email and web-browsing) might forego the standard cable internet bill for a consolidated mobile internet bill and connect their home devices to that.
For both scenarios above the pricing structure would change, of course, but that's easily done if there is consumer demand.
Beyond tourism, there are private companies making plans to do manufacturing in orbit. ( https://www.popularmechanics.c... ) They may need a permanent station to a support equipment, crew, computers, etc., and may welcome a functional pre-fab option, so they can focus more of their efforts on their manufacturing.
Many industrial processes have greater economic benefits for society than household products.
An unpainted house is probably worth a quarter less to potential buyers. Partly due to ugliness and partly due to weather and pest damage that's bound to occur. How much is 25% of the US real estate market?
A house is no less valuable when painted with low-VOC or more environmentally friendly paint that performs equally to a conventional paint. Furthermore, I already said...
...the study is not recommending that household products should be restricted; it only provides evidence that developing new formulations of household products that do the same job with less pollution could be beneficial to everyone.
Many industrial processes have greater economic benefits for society than household products. Think of pollution like investing money; you don't want to spend money or pollute more than necessary, but you want to make sure the money spent or pollution created is going to return the most value.
Also, the study is not recommending that household products should be restricted; it only provides evidence that developing new formulations of household products that do the same job with less pollution could be beneficial to everyone.
To your point the theoretical shortest distance to Mars in ~33M miles, but the planets' orbits rarely ever get that close to each other. The average distance between Earth and Mars orbits is ~140M miles, and launches use the most fuel efficient path, which [counter-intuitively] is not the shortest path. So ShanhaiBill is correct that 40M miles doesn't get you to Mars.
Flabbergasted? Really? Have you visited Slashdot much in the past few years? The days of people commenting on Slashdot with actual interest and knowledge in scientific fields are long gone. Those people have left, because the trolls, political wanks [left and right], and racist ACs have made this their playground. There are still some decent articles posted, but don't expect anything from the "community."
Nolan Bushnell takes this bad news with far more grace than Slashdot's neo-cons. Rush to defend him if you want, but it looks like even he doesn't want you.
Except paying more for something that's not necessary is more likely to increase your enjoyment of it
True, but it's a not direct relationship and there is a diminishing returns, particularly for movie watching. I think declining ticket sales are showing that Hollywood is playing with that point of diminishing returns, especially as new competition, like Netflix, has risen.
Gates is parroting various post-scarcity or Star Trek-based economic theories that if technology can provide everything people want, so they will live for their own happiness and the well-being of society. Star Trek lore says they ended scarcity with "replicator" technology that can make anything people want; Gates is suggesting robotic automation will end scarcity instead, but the effect is the same.
Hollywood asks everyone to pay $10-$15+ for a theater ticket or DVD to see their movie.
That is completely irrelevant. Many of us have the disposable incomes to not care about spending...
You are right that pricing is [probably] irrelevant to the quality of the production, story, acting, etc., but it is very revelevent to popularity and actual views, which is what the article is about. Regardless, of one's disposable income level the monetary stake people need to place to watch a Netflix movie is orders of magnitude less than Hollywood... Netflix is more a time commitment than a monetary really.
Here's a related example.... When people go to an event with free alcohol bar service (e.g. wedding, company party, etc.) on average the drinks people order and/or how much they drink is very different than if it was a cash bar with the same bar offerings and same people. The overall popularity of various drinks change with the economics changes (anyone who's planned a wedding knows this). Netflix vs Hollywood movies is no different. Your personal spending may not follow this trend, but Netflix and Hollywood are battling for millions of customers, not just you.
The other big difference is their business models.
Hollywood asks everyone to pay $10-$15+ for a theater ticket or DVD to see their movie. Netflix includes the movie in their standard subscription fee, which also gives customers thousands of other movies and shows.
Guess which of those business models is going to encourage customers to be more picky about what they choose to watch/pay for?
Guess which of those business models is going to encourage customers to read online reviews before watching/paying for the product?
Hollywood doesn't want to accept that their 100 year old flat rate price model causes their problems, so they scapegoat everyone else.
Facebook reflects the people using it and is a symptom of society's problems, not a cause. Anyone who thinks killing Facebook will change the way people interact and share ideas online, does not understand society. They want easy scapegoat targets, to avoid the work of actually try to understand difficult social problems.
They probably would have solar backup, at least enough to survive. Wouldn't want to rely on one technology or one unit when you are a year away from resupply...The solar panels on the rovers had issues with dust, but for a permanent static installation that is solvable.
When a fission reactor cell is the about the size of a paper towel roll as stated by the summary, it's probably be easier to launch few spare cells than all of the extra weight of a redundant back-up solar panel system. Solar is tried, tested, and true in space applications, so the only logical reason to develop an alternative power source for a base is because solar is not feasible. Remember, the main limitation is launch weight/cost, and the energy per pound/cost is the main reason the fission reactor cell is being developed.
Counter Strike solved them 15 years ago.....So the perfect anti-cheat... in game voting. This was very simple, since killed off people could observe live plays, people could initiate kick votes that kicked a player suspected of cheating. Of course good players got kicked too, but they were clearly playing against armatures and should have moved onto more competitive grounds.
CS never solved the cheating problem, but they at least implemented basic functions to weed out the laziest of all the cheaters (VAC, updates, etc.), then the in-game vote kick gave the players the power they needed to regulate themselves. Of course good legit players were/are kicked but they can go elsewhere for a game more suited to their skill level. While that might not be completely fair to good players, it was no less fair to them than allowing them to pub-stomp everyone else playing.
The article's legal mess is basically the company offloading their development costs onto society rather than hire people with brains to deal with the real world.
Agreed on this. Putting the burden on government resources instead more effort on game development is an odd tactic and I'm surprised the police didn't tell the developer they have better things to do with their time.
My solution, too easy, PvE only, the arseholes tend to stay away... PvP as a gaming style will always be problematic...
True and true, but I think the high points of of PvP can be as good as it's lows, and it's your choice to focus on one or the other. Live players can and will do things that are more interesting and often times fun than an AI opponent. Even really good AI imparts a feeling of puppet strings being attached, and when you feel the AI puppeteer in your game it changes the experience... too easy?...too hard?...too scripted or contrived?...too predictable? When you play against or with a human those nagging questions fade or disappear, but they can be replaced with another set of concerns. I fully understand and have experienced how cheating and caustic attitudes can ruin a multiplayer gaming experience, but there are equally wonderful moments of pitting wits and skill against live opponents, or times I am laughing out loud at really funny things live players do or say. These are experiences that would never happen in a PvE experience, and why PvP is popular, despite it's other inherent problems.
Needless to say, the experience can depend heavily on the people you play with... If you're hanging with the dick-waggling 133t pros, you'll have one kind of experience. If you play with people who are relaxed, mature, and have sense of humor, you'll have a very different experience.
You must be a kid who wasn't alive at the time if you think the 80s was only hair metal. The best stuff by Metallica, Megadeth, Sepultura, King Diamond, Danzig, Manowar, Gwar, Slayer, Napalm Death, Morbid Angel and Cannibal Corpse came out in the 80s.
Absolutely there was some good metal from the 80's, but the article is about popular music, not good music. Generally the bands you listed weren't hitting the top of the billboard charts or filling stadiums like the classic [and mostly marginally talented] 80's glam/hair metal bands.
FWIW, I was born in 1980, Megadeth is my favorite band, I'm a big fan [still] of Gwar, Metallica post black album is shit...
...there is no dubt that today music is among the crappiest new music ever created. I am particularly annoyed at the fact that new music is getting louder and louder....I sincerely cannot stand it physically, my poor ears need something better (yes, better).
You can find a lot of documents on the subject, just google it. And it is not a new thing, it is a known and documented fact since at least the late 90s, when the trend became evident.
You can dress up your opinion with any documentation you desire, but ultimately music is art what is good or bad is dictated by what people like. I personally don't like new pop music either and make my own judgements*, but always remind myself good or bad music is up to the people who listen to it, and there's no other metric that matters as much.
* - I criticize modern pop music mainly for 1) excessive use of autotune software that let's anyone be a pop singer, and 2) incredibly simple composition or beats that serve little purpose than something to gyrate to or for DJs to mix into the next song.
Personally, the only pop music I really listen to is from the 80s. That was the best decade for music.
Except 80's hair/glam metal was awful, which is part of the reason it was swept aside so quickly by grunge.
As an aside heavy metal had a renaissance in the 90's after dumping the 80's hair metal crap, but for the most part metal stopped being pop music so not very relevant to the original article.
Slashdot Mirror
More like $15-$25 vs $500-$1000+ more then a few bucks.
So, in other words a ripe market for disruption by a new technology firm? I'm not joking...
I have a friend who is a occupational therapist who specializes in hand function (i.e. rehab after a hand injury or surgery). He has told me several years ago average hand strength has declined significantly in the younger, "millennial" generation and it's very well-documented. So it's no surprise to me that the same trend is continuing down the generations. It's due to the greater use of all technology in our lives (not just just phones and tablets) and reduced importance/need for manual work/play in general. I am not a millennials basher or one to opine about good old days, but this is a change between generations that is demonstrably true.
Those speeds start to compete with land-based internet service, which create some interesting possibilities, like....
Mobile 5G could bring relatively fast internet service to many rural areas that are still starved of high speed internet. It would be much cheaper to build a tower to service many square miles than laying and maintaining cable/fiber down all rural roads.
"Low-bandwidth" home internet users (i.e. basic email and web-browsing) might forego the standard cable internet bill for a consolidated mobile internet bill and connect their home devices to that.
For both scenarios above the pricing structure would change, of course, but that's easily done if there is consumer demand.
Beyond tourism, there are private companies making plans to do manufacturing in orbit. ( https://www.popularmechanics.c... ) They may need a permanent station to a support equipment, crew, computers, etc., and may welcome a functional pre-fab option, so they can focus more of their efforts on their manufacturing.
Many industrial processes have greater economic benefits for society than household products.
An unpainted house is probably worth a quarter less to potential buyers. Partly due to ugliness and partly due to weather and pest damage that's bound to occur. How much is 25% of the US real estate market?
A house is no less valuable when painted with low-VOC or more environmentally friendly paint that performs equally to a conventional paint. Furthermore, I already said...
...the study is not recommending that household products should be restricted; it only provides evidence that developing new formulations of household products that do the same job with less pollution could be beneficial to everyone.
Many industrial processes have greater economic benefits for society than household products. Think of pollution like investing money; you don't want to spend money or pollute more than necessary, but you want to make sure the money spent or pollution created is going to return the most value.
Also, the study is not recommending that household products should be restricted; it only provides evidence that developing new formulations of household products that do the same job with less pollution could be beneficial to everyone.
Your links don't really prove anything, but this one does: https://www.space.com/16875-ho...
To your point the theoretical shortest distance to Mars in ~33M miles, but the planets' orbits rarely ever get that close to each other. The average distance between Earth and Mars orbits is ~140M miles, and launches use the most fuel efficient path, which [counter-intuitively] is not the shortest path. So ShanhaiBill is correct that 40M miles doesn't get you to Mars.
Flabbergasted? Really? Have you visited Slashdot much in the past few years? The days of people commenting on Slashdot with actual interest and knowledge in scientific fields are long gone. Those people have left, because the trolls, political wanks [left and right], and racist ACs have made this their playground. There are still some decent articles posted, but don't expect anything from the "community."
Nolan Bushnell takes this bad news with far more grace than Slashdot's neo-cons. Rush to defend him if you want, but it looks like even he doesn't want you.
Except paying more for something that's not necessary is more likely to increase your enjoyment of it
True, but it's a not direct relationship and there is a diminishing returns, particularly for movie watching. I think declining ticket sales are showing that Hollywood is playing with that point of diminishing returns, especially as new competition, like Netflix, has risen.
Gates is parroting various post-scarcity or Star Trek-based economic theories that if technology can provide everything people want, so they will live for their own happiness and the well-being of society. Star Trek lore says they ended scarcity with "replicator" technology that can make anything people want; Gates is suggesting robotic automation will end scarcity instead, but the effect is the same.
https://www.wired.com/2016/05/...
https://medium.com/@RickWebb/t...
There's literally a book about it: https://www.amazon.com/Trekono...
Hollywood asks everyone to pay $10-$15+ for a theater ticket or DVD to see their movie.
That is completely irrelevant. Many of us have the disposable incomes to not care about spending...
You are right that pricing is [probably] irrelevant to the quality of the production, story, acting, etc., but it is very revelevent to popularity and actual views, which is what the article is about. Regardless, of one's disposable income level the monetary stake people need to place to watch a Netflix movie is orders of magnitude less than Hollywood... Netflix is more a time commitment than a monetary really.
Here's a related example.... When people go to an event with free alcohol bar service (e.g. wedding, company party, etc.) on average the drinks people order and/or how much they drink is very different than if it was a cash bar with the same bar offerings and same people. The overall popularity of various drinks change with the economics changes (anyone who's planned a wedding knows this). Netflix vs Hollywood movies is no different. Your personal spending may not follow this trend, but Netflix and Hollywood are battling for millions of customers, not just you.
The other big difference is their business models.
Hollywood asks everyone to pay $10-$15+ for a theater ticket or DVD to see their movie. Netflix includes the movie in their standard subscription fee, which also gives customers thousands of other movies and shows.
Guess which of those business models is going to encourage customers to be more picky about what they choose to watch/pay for?
Guess which of those business models is going to encourage customers to read online reviews before watching/paying for the product?
Hollywood doesn't want to accept that their 100 year old flat rate price model causes their problems, so they scapegoat everyone else.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not miss the joke and you are just doubling down on my sarcasm.
It is so smug and self aggrandizing. The very essence of Apple. Exponential smugness.
Don't worry, Apple will tell us when to stop using computers. Apple knows what's best for us.
But, it says "iPad" See? ...it doesn't say "computer" anywhere. You're so dumb.
*points*
Facebook reflects the people using it and is a symptom of society's problems, not a cause. Anyone who thinks killing Facebook will change the way people interact and share ideas online, does not understand society. They want easy scapegoat targets, to avoid the work of actually try to understand difficult social problems.
They probably would have solar backup, at least enough to survive. Wouldn't want to rely on one technology or one unit when you are a year away from resupply...The solar panels on the rovers had issues with dust, but for a permanent static installation that is solvable.
When a fission reactor cell is the about the size of a paper towel roll as stated by the summary, it's probably be easier to launch few spare cells than all of the extra weight of a redundant back-up solar panel system. Solar is tried, tested, and true in space applications, so the only logical reason to develop an alternative power source for a base is because solar is not feasible. Remember, the main limitation is launch weight/cost, and the energy per pound/cost is the main reason the fission reactor cell is being developed.
Counter Strike solved them 15 years ago.....So the perfect anti-cheat... in game voting. This was very simple, since killed off people could observe live plays, people could initiate kick votes that kicked a player suspected of cheating. Of course good players got kicked too, but they were clearly playing against armatures and should have moved onto more competitive grounds.
CS never solved the cheating problem, but they at least implemented basic functions to weed out the laziest of all the cheaters (VAC, updates, etc.), then the in-game vote kick gave the players the power they needed to regulate themselves. Of course good legit players were/are kicked but they can go elsewhere for a game more suited to their skill level. While that might not be completely fair to good players, it was no less fair to them than allowing them to pub-stomp everyone else playing.
The article's legal mess is basically the company offloading their development costs onto society rather than hire people with brains to deal with the real world.
Agreed on this. Putting the burden on government resources instead more effort on game development is an odd tactic and I'm surprised the police didn't tell the developer they have better things to do with their time.
My solution, too easy, PvE only, the arseholes tend to stay away... PvP as a gaming style will always be problematic...
True and true, but I think the high points of of PvP can be as good as it's lows, and it's your choice to focus on one or the other. Live players can and will do things that are more interesting and often times fun than an AI opponent. Even really good AI imparts a feeling of puppet strings being attached, and when you feel the AI puppeteer in your game it changes the experience... too easy? ...too hard? ...too scripted or contrived? ...too predictable? When you play against or with a human those nagging questions fade or disappear, but they can be replaced with another set of concerns. I fully understand and have experienced how cheating and caustic attitudes can ruin a multiplayer gaming experience, but there are equally wonderful moments of pitting wits and skill against live opponents, or times I am laughing out loud at really funny things live players do or say. These are experiences that would never happen in a PvE experience, and why PvP is popular, despite it's other inherent problems.
Needless to say, the experience can depend heavily on the people you play with... If you're hanging with the dick-waggling 133t pros, you'll have one kind of experience. If you play with people who are relaxed, mature, and have sense of humor, you'll have a very different experience.
Best does not equal popular, and the article is about pop music. In the 80's glam/hair was pop music, not thrash metal.
You must be a kid who wasn't alive at the time if you think the 80s was only hair metal. The best stuff by Metallica, Megadeth, Sepultura, King Diamond, Danzig, Manowar, Gwar, Slayer, Napalm Death, Morbid Angel and Cannibal Corpse came out in the 80s.
Absolutely there was some good metal from the 80's, but the article is about popular music, not good music. Generally the bands you listed weren't hitting the top of the billboard charts or filling stadiums like the classic [and mostly marginally talented] 80's glam/hair metal bands.
FWIW, I was born in 1980, Megadeth is my favorite band, I'm a big fan [still] of Gwar, Metallica post black album is shit...
Agreed. These studies unwittingly say more about our society than the music studied.
...there is no dubt that today music is among the crappiest new music ever created. I am particularly annoyed at the fact that new music is getting louder and louder....I sincerely cannot stand it physically, my poor ears need something better (yes, better).
You can find a lot of documents on the subject, just google it. And it is not a new thing, it is a known and documented fact since at least the late 90s, when the trend became evident.
You can dress up your opinion with any documentation you desire, but ultimately music is art what is good or bad is dictated by what people like. I personally don't like new pop music either and make my own judgements*, but always remind myself good or bad music is up to the people who listen to it, and there's no other metric that matters as much.
* - I criticize modern pop music mainly for 1) excessive use of autotune software that let's anyone be a pop singer, and 2) incredibly simple composition or beats that serve little purpose than something to gyrate to or for DJs to mix into the next song.
Personally, the only pop music I really listen to is from the 80s. That was the best decade for music.
Except 80's hair/glam metal was awful, which is part of the reason it was swept aside so quickly by grunge.
As an aside heavy metal had a renaissance in the 90's after dumping the 80's hair metal crap, but for the most part metal stopped being pop music so not very relevant to the original article.