It is in general a good idea for a company to buy back shares when they are low, especially if the company expects good business going forward. In a way, this plan makes clear that they are very confident in their upcoming new products.
I read through the article. I must say that I sympathise with him - he sees technology as something that should support life, not something that is pervasive, like people non-stop updating FB or twitter accounts.
I also think that there could be a better authentication system at FB.
I agree with your statement. However, as I wrote, it could (maybe!) be that thermodynamics work in a way that improves the conditions to go from dead matter to life and intelligence; compared to pure chaos.
I skimmed through the article.
The idea as entropy as a driving factor for intelligence is certainly novel (to my knowledge), I haven't even met it in science fiction stories !
But, while interesting in his small test set, I really wonder about the author's extrapolations. Intelligence and free will seem much more complex than a thermodynamic optimisation. Perhaps, just perhaps that his idea is part of the very first steps from matter towards life and intelligence but much more research needs to be done.
I looked at your links, and honestly would you want them? Don' think so.
If there is one thing that Apple is good at, it is making devices that people actually like to use. Similarly as we all know there were mp3 players and smartphones before the iphone, and they were simply far less pleasant to use. It is not simply marketing.
As an example, looking back, it seems so simple and evident how the original iPhone works, but it cannot have been easy to come up with the general usability as smartphones were so awful before. Back then I had a Windows based smartphone that my company gave me and the thing was simply an irritating pain in the butt. I even went back to my non-smart Nokia back then.
Mind, I expect the same user-focus from whatever Google is cooking up at this moment.
You must really be in a different part of the world and/or different age group than me. Most people around me (I just looked around the office, many CS engineers here fyi) wear a watch.
I am all for the development of a proper smartwatch.
None that are now on the market are really compelling in my opinion. I expect Google and Apple to come up with something much more useful.
For me, Apple developing a watch is a more interesting rumour than the television set rumors. Like the Google Glass, I see a proper smart watch as the next step towards fully wearable, near invisible computing.
Initially I can see it working together with a phone in your pocket, eventually I think it will not need a separate phone anymore..
If the rumour is correct that Apple plans to run a version of iOS on it, then that means that the device will be much more powerful than what is on the market today. I expect Google also to work in this vein.
So what could such a watch do next to what the limited models can't do now? In the case of Apple I can imagine it working together with Siri, you could for example ask your watch the way to X and it shows a map as you go. Or do an immediate video call. Etcetera.
As I wrote above, the idea of having completely wearable computing is very attractive to me. Slashdot may have many nay-sayers (then again many slashdotters ridiculised the ipad and iphone...), I think that Google Glass and proper smartwatches will start the next step in truly personal computing.
> lazy and stupid IT people, whose jobs are to at least adhere to minimal security practices, deserve to reap the rewards of their negligence. as do the people who hire and manage them.
These are two different things. Yes, IT people should do their job. But, no, it doesn't mean that they deserve to get hacked. There is no justification for criminal behaviour of the aggressor.
You can easily apply your incorrect reasoning to various other things in life and see how wrong it is.
As Game of Thrones demonstrates, a decent production budget combined with modern movie/effects technology makes it possible to create truly lavish looking and intelligent TV series that were previously impossible to do convincingly.
I have been thinking, wouldn't it be great if some of the best modern intelligent SF books / book series got such a treatment? Technically, it should be feasible. For example, imagine a TV series about the Simmons' Hyperion series, or the Reynolds' Revelation Space series, or Hamilton's Commonwealth and The Void series. These books could not be properly filmed in the runtime of a movie, they would need a TV series for their richness to shine.
Sorry to take so long to come to the point: my question is whether you think that there is a realistic possiblity & appetite for such dense books to be adapted? I ask because, with a few exceptions, most SF that I see on TV tend to be simpler, lighter fare.
Slashdot Mirror
It is in general a good idea for a company to buy back shares when they are low, especially if the company expects good business going forward. In a way, this plan makes clear that they are very confident in their upcoming new products.
I read through the article. I must say that I sympathise with him - he sees technology as something that should support life, not something that is pervasive, like people non-stop updating FB or twitter accounts. I also think that there could be a better authentication system at FB.
I agree with your statement. However, as I wrote, it could (maybe!) be that thermodynamics work in a way that improves the conditions to go from dead matter to life and intelligence; compared to pure chaos.
I skimmed through the article. The idea as entropy as a driving factor for intelligence is certainly novel (to my knowledge), I haven't even met it in science fiction stories ! But, while interesting in his small test set, I really wonder about the author's extrapolations. Intelligence and free will seem much more complex than a thermodynamic optimisation. Perhaps, just perhaps that his idea is part of the very first steps from matter towards life and intelligence but much more research needs to be done.
I looked at your links, and honestly would you want them? Don' think so. If there is one thing that Apple is good at, it is making devices that people actually like to use. Similarly as we all know there were mp3 players and smartphones before the iphone, and they were simply far less pleasant to use. It is not simply marketing. As an example, looking back, it seems so simple and evident how the original iPhone works, but it cannot have been easy to come up with the general usability as smartphones were so awful before. Back then I had a Windows based smartphone that my company gave me and the thing was simply an irritating pain in the butt. I even went back to my non-smart Nokia back then. Mind, I expect the same user-focus from whatever Google is cooking up at this moment.
You must really be in a different part of the world and/or different age group than me. Most people around me (I just looked around the office, many CS engineers here fyi) wear a watch.
I am all for the development of a proper smartwatch. None that are now on the market are really compelling in my opinion. I expect Google and Apple to come up with something much more useful. For me, Apple developing a watch is a more interesting rumour than the television set rumors. Like the Google Glass, I see a proper smart watch as the next step towards fully wearable, near invisible computing. Initially I can see it working together with a phone in your pocket, eventually I think it will not need a separate phone anymore.. If the rumour is correct that Apple plans to run a version of iOS on it, then that means that the device will be much more powerful than what is on the market today. I expect Google also to work in this vein. So what could such a watch do next to what the limited models can't do now? In the case of Apple I can imagine it working together with Siri, you could for example ask your watch the way to X and it shows a map as you go. Or do an immediate video call. Etcetera. As I wrote above, the idea of having completely wearable computing is very attractive to me. Slashdot may have many nay-sayers (then again many slashdotters ridiculised the ipad and iphone...), I think that Google Glass and proper smartwatches will start the next step in truly personal computing.
I must say that I much preferred Kim Jong-un when he was doing Gangnam Style.
I have am not mistaken they also have mines digging up some valuable elements.
> lazy and stupid IT people, whose jobs are to at least adhere to minimal security practices, deserve to reap the rewards of their negligence. as do the people who hire and manage them. These are two different things. Yes, IT people should do their job. But, no, it doesn't mean that they deserve to get hacked. There is no justification for criminal behaviour of the aggressor. You can easily apply your incorrect reasoning to various other things in life and see how wrong it is.
> every owner of every machine that fell to the n. korean attack richly deserved what they got They don't deserve it. Nobody deserves it.
They still don't deserve it. Nobody deserves it.
As Game of Thrones demonstrates, a decent production budget combined with modern movie/effects technology makes it possible to create truly lavish looking and intelligent TV series that were previously impossible to do convincingly. I have been thinking, wouldn't it be great if some of the best modern intelligent SF books / book series got such a treatment? Technically, it should be feasible. For example, imagine a TV series about the Simmons' Hyperion series, or the Reynolds' Revelation Space series, or Hamilton's Commonwealth and The Void series. These books could not be properly filmed in the runtime of a movie, they would need a TV series for their richness to shine. Sorry to take so long to come to the point: my question is whether you think that there is a realistic possiblity & appetite for such dense books to be adapted? I ask because, with a few exceptions, most SF that I see on TV tend to be simpler, lighter fare.