Apps will still be important, and undoubtedly there will be some that become popular and some that will be economically important for either their users or their developers or both. But the novelty of an app for the sake of having an app has ended.
I'm guessing they mean the size of microwave ovens. Though interestingly, both microwave ovens and actual spiders fall into the size range of microwave wavelengths.
The point is that Facebook has disproportionate bargaining power when hiring. So does almost every other employer, but only a very small number of job-seekers.
I understand that advertising has its place in a market economy, but I can't help but think that advertisers have gone completely insane. They've become stalkers and harassers, if not outright sociopaths, who only become more persistent, aggressive, and disconnected from reality each time they are rejected by the object of their obsession, and I truly think they must have many of the same mental health issues. There are a few rare adverts that make an effort to offer a minimum of entertainment value in exchange for your time and attention, but most display an astonishing sense of entitlement with the way they freely impose nuisance and other costs on their victims. And when the tactics turn out to be dysfunctional and counter-productive, they escalate the aggression rather than reconsidering their world view. They've become addicts who have long since stopped caring about the actual business reasons they are advertising in the first place.
Now they have reached a new level of anti-social behaviour with a new way of endangering their victims.
Just today I went to an office supply website and searched for a chair. In their enthusiasm for trying to blindly guess what else I might want to buy, they showed me dozens of items that were vaguely related to office furniture. They did not, however, show me a single item that was actually a chair.
And before anyone asks, no, I'm not suggesting that this is really comparable to the physical danger that a woman (or man) is in from a mentally deranged ex-boyfriend (or ex-girlfriend) who is stalking them in the criminal law sense. But advertisers are catching up.
Facebook is not the only workplace where this is happening.
Or if you want to think specifically in terms of Facebook, consider the number of people who want to work at Facebook versus the number who actually do.
On top of that, there are already lotteries where the prize is life-time annuity, or who have a stable unearned income from a trust, so the experiment is already being done. It's just a matter of tracking the participants down.
And also the real questions about a universal income are about the long-term impacts. If I quit my job, and in five years decide I'm no longer happy with the minimal standard of living and want to return to the workforce, what will potential employers feel about five years of idleness? Will the number of people wanting to work be high enough that employers can drive down wages, or low enough that workers can drive up wages?
Right... because everyone will agree that paid employment is a much more natural fit for men than for women.
If men are motivated to work and women aren't, what will that do to workplace equality? How will women ever get high-paying jobs if there's no incentive to gain experience with entry-level jobs?
What might make some sense is to say that raising children is something like half-way between employment and self-employment, and a kind of token salary plus child care payments could be made to the parent with legal custody that is a stay-at-home parent (or split 50-50 whenever that meant both of them). By itself that will mean women receiving the money 90% of time because of gender-based life-style preferences, without being sexist. That might simplify divorce too.
It was an excellent idea for assembly language programming.
It became a weapon of mass brain cell destruction when 1) 16-bit Hungarian notation was used in 32-bit programming, and 2) it escaped assembly programming and vandalized C programming.
And tragically too many programmers took too long to question Microsoft's authority.
Personally I think the politicians keep arguing about toilets
What they do is *avoid* talking about it, quite skilfully, while creating the illusion that they are very passionate about whatever the voters are passionate about.
Probably because as soon as anyone actually started a rational dialogue they'd resolve the conflicts in a matter of minutes, and then they'd have to go back to things that are real problems. You know - their jobs.
Everyone assumes artificial intelligence means a human-line consciousness of above-average intelligence.
I think it more likely that artificial intelligence would start with the intelligence of a worm or a mouse, and then work its way up from there.
Now, these humbler creatures *do* have intelligence and an ability to learn to *some* degree, and except for the very simplest of cases, we don't understand what intelligence even *is* in these situations, much less being ready to duplicate it in software.
There are lots of things that can be intelligent within a narrow scope and still be far less than a human-like or even mouse-like consciousness. This I believe is the fundamental reason that we are so much farther away from actual artificial intelligence like we see in movies than people think. Eventually, we'll get there, but it's still a long way off.
Trump saying things that are obvious lies is what Trump is doing the *same* as every other politician.
Focus on what Trump is doing *differently* if you want to understand his appeal.
By speaking very vaguely about issues like the economy and immigration, Trump gives votes the impression he hears their concerns. In fact people often have some very unfocused anxiety that they can't clearly articulate, but if Trump is hearing their concern he's ahead of his competition. That's why Clinton has no chance against him but Sanders does, even though Sanders is far less like Trump than Clinton is.
Slashdot Mirror
Apps will still be important, and undoubtedly there will be some that become popular and some that will be economically important for either their users or their developers or both. But the novelty of an app for the sake of having an app has ended.
I'm not comfortable with a reduction in mail service but if there has to be a compromise this doesn't sound bad.
All that because they have to wait until Wednesday for their mail?
Now think of the size of a single CPU. Now consider how much smaller said CPU already is.
What?
People often tend to spend money they "win" very differently from their "income."
None of lottery prizes, trust funds, or a universal basic income are earned income.
So, it turns out Skynet starts as a bunch of spider bots. I guess that's why we won't be expecting it.
I'm guessing they mean the size of microwave ovens. Though interestingly, both microwave ovens and actual spiders fall into the size range of microwave wavelengths.
I mean, come on, it's hardly a secret.
The point is that Facebook has disproportionate bargaining power when hiring. So does almost every other employer, but only a very small number of job-seekers.
I understand that advertising has its place in a market economy, but I can't help but think that advertisers have gone completely insane. They've become stalkers and harassers, if not outright sociopaths, who only become more persistent, aggressive, and disconnected from reality each time they are rejected by the object of their obsession, and I truly think they must have many of the same mental health issues. There are a few rare adverts that make an effort to offer a minimum of entertainment value in exchange for your time and attention, but most display an astonishing sense of entitlement with the way they freely impose nuisance and other costs on their victims. And when the tactics turn out to be dysfunctional and counter-productive, they escalate the aggression rather than reconsidering their world view. They've become addicts who have long since stopped caring about the actual business reasons they are advertising in the first place.
Now they have reached a new level of anti-social behaviour with a new way of endangering their victims.
Just today I went to an office supply website and searched for a chair. In their enthusiasm for trying to blindly guess what else I might want to buy, they showed me dozens of items that were vaguely related to office furniture. They did not, however, show me a single item that was actually a chair.
And before anyone asks, no, I'm not suggesting that this is really comparable to the physical danger that a woman (or man) is in from a mentally deranged ex-boyfriend (or ex-girlfriend) who is stalking them in the criminal law sense. But advertisers are catching up.
Facebook is not the only workplace where this is happening.
Or if you want to think specifically in terms of Facebook, consider the number of people who want to work at Facebook versus the number who actually do.
Unemployment is so high that workers feel powerless and afraid and employers can abuse their power.
Duh....
On top of that, there are already lotteries where the prize is life-time annuity, or who have a stable unearned income from a trust, so the experiment is already being done. It's just a matter of tracking the participants down.
And also the real questions about a universal income are about the long-term impacts. If I quit my job, and in five years decide I'm no longer happy with the minimal standard of living and want to return to the workforce, what will potential employers feel about five years of idleness? Will the number of people wanting to work be high enough that employers can drive down wages, or low enough that workers can drive up wages?
Right... because everyone will agree that paid employment is a much more natural fit for men than for women.
If men are motivated to work and women aren't, what will that do to workplace equality? How will women ever get high-paying jobs if there's no incentive to gain experience with entry-level jobs?
What might make some sense is to say that raising children is something like half-way between employment and self-employment, and a kind of token salary plus child care payments could be made to the parent with legal custody that is a stay-at-home parent (or split 50-50 whenever that meant both of them). By itself that will mean women receiving the money 90% of time because of gender-based life-style preferences, without being sexist. That might simplify divorce too.
It was an excellent idea for assembly language programming.
It became a weapon of mass brain cell destruction when 1) 16-bit Hungarian notation was used in 32-bit programming, and 2) it escaped assembly programming and vandalized C programming.
And tragically too many programmers took too long to question Microsoft's authority.
have oddly decided that what the human race most needs right now is --- wait for it --- self driving cars.
Self-driving cars, when they reach a requisite level of maturity, will be of enormous practical value.
What I don't understand is the people who think predatory advertising is some kind of public service rather than malicious harassment.
You accelerometer indicates that the air bag should be deployed.
Are you sure? Yes. No. Cancel.
Personally I think the politicians keep arguing about toilets
What they do is *avoid* talking about it, quite skilfully, while creating the illusion that they are very passionate about whatever the voters are passionate about.
Probably because as soon as anyone actually started a rational dialogue they'd resolve the conflicts in a matter of minutes, and then they'd have to go back to things that are real problems. You know - their jobs.
Everyone assumes artificial intelligence means a human-line consciousness of above-average intelligence.
I think it more likely that artificial intelligence would start with the intelligence of a worm or a mouse, and then work its way up from there.
Now, these humbler creatures *do* have intelligence and an ability to learn to *some* degree, and except for the very simplest of cases, we don't understand what intelligence even *is* in these situations, much less being ready to duplicate it in software.
There are lots of things that can be intelligent within a narrow scope and still be far less than a human-like or even mouse-like consciousness. This I believe is the fundamental reason that we are so much farther away from actual artificial intelligence like we see in movies than people think. Eventually, we'll get there, but it's still a long way off.
when are we going to get smart USERS???
When corporations no longer possess the sense of entitlement that says they can inflict whatever harmful advertising they want on the innocent.
Expect to wait a long time.
I can see why some people would put "internet" in the same category as utilities like cable, telephone, or telegraph, which are common nouns.
But you would think journalists of all people would take a little more pride in their use of language, and recognize a proper noun.
Then again, given the state of "journalism", I doubt if pride is in their vocabulary.
Trump's rhetoric is half the problem.
The other half is left-wing political correctness bullying that cheapens the concept of hate speech by labelling any dissenting opinion as hate.
Neither half is more responsible than the other.
Neither half is less responsible than the other.
He's not that likely to be elected.
People said that about George W. Bush.
Trump saying things that are obvious lies is what Trump is doing the *same* as every other politician.
Focus on what Trump is doing *differently* if you want to understand his appeal.
By speaking very vaguely about issues like the economy and immigration, Trump gives votes the impression he hears their concerns. In fact people often have some very unfocused anxiety that they can't clearly articulate, but if Trump is hearing their concern he's ahead of his competition. That's why Clinton has no chance against him but Sanders does, even though Sanders is far less like Trump than Clinton is.
Rushing off and blaming every adverse environmental outcome on climate change is in itself a religious belief system.
Which is why no-one listens to people like that.
But we do listen to actual scientists.