Some mental adjustment will be necessary at first.
That's the understatement of the year. I've rarely read a more nerd-centric, normal-human-ignorant proposal. I suppose some things have to be written to scare the spiders away from keyboards. But giving them attention and consideration is a step beyond reasonable.
If you haven't managed to convince people in the USA to switch to metric, which is in use in the rest of the world, easier and more convenient, good luck making them wake up at two p.m. Oops, sorry, there won't be any a.m. or p.m, of course.
I notice that you didn't include India as a former colony, or the African colonies. Here is another alternate hypothesis. British culture is racist and genocidal and in some countries it invaded, it managed to exterminate the natives, creating in the process a homogeneous society, that can develop easier. French or Spanish invaders stopped killing the locals when they surrendered, and mixed with them, creating less cohesive societies, with different backgrounds and ways. It's just an hypothesis. See how well it checks with reality as compared with yours.
Imagine what would have happened if it was the iPhone 7 battery the one exploding here and there. The hit that iOS would have taken would have been brutal. However, while Samsung suffers, Android doesn't even register the Note 7 debacle. Samsung could disappear tomorrow and other companies would take its sales in a blink. Evolution at work. That's because Android is a platform, not a company. In the end, platforms, specially if they are somewhat open, always trump companies.
Some day Apple will make a bad mistake, like Samsung has done, and then its trademark will suffer. If the mistake is bad enough, they might never recover from it. If they don't make a big mistake, they might make lots of small ones, and also lose ground. If they don't make either a big or many small mistakes, then some innovative company with a better product will pop up somewhere and be the next cool thing. And the important thing is that this company will be forced to use Android because Apple does not license iOS.
So in the end Apple always loses, because they use a closed environment and that means that they don't allow evolution to work. That fact has been obscured by the real genius that Apple has shown these past years in creating a whole new category of devices. That gives you a nice head start, of course, but it's finished now. Their market share is starting to reflect the realities of the dead hand of markethistory:-)
Well, if your share of the market drops below a certain point (technically known as the Blackberry point) then you won't get the new apps developed for your platform. And then you die. Slowly at first, then all of a sudden.
Of course rich people has Apple so it cannot die, and bla, bla. Well, rich people has money to change their phone in seconds if the NewHipApp isn't available for iOS. It's not like they are married to their iPhones, or rather it is like they are married to them, seeing how easily everybody divorces nowadays.
Well, no necessarily. You see, when full autonomous vehicles ride, there is the question of who pays for an accident if it was the "fault" of the autonomous driver. In could be Tesla, possibly by law. If it is, they can certainly restrict the kind of uses of the car, to be covered by that insurance. That's a still-to-be-decided practicality of autonomous cars, and one that will provide us with hours of entertainment.
I suppose it's impossible to stop people from feeling that this time is different, but it's never different. According to Wikipedia:
In 1870, almost 50 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture.[16] As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture.
The unemployment rate has shrugged off that "job disappearance", somehow. Now other swathes of jobs will also disappear, and people will find other things to do. There is nothing different about this new "technical revolution".
In principle, if you buy a company, your risk exposure is limited to your investment (that's what the "limited" in the companies' names mean). That's why you don't lose your house when you own stock in a company, even if it goes bust with billions in debt (see Enron there).
Of course if the investment is big and/or you intend to use capital to prop up it, or you incorporate it in your own company, the risks are different. But for a private person, the $5 bill is all you are to lose there. And you could censor all the tweets you didn't like in the meantime!
The only part of a laptop that has to be changed for each country is the keyboard, hampering logistics. If you can have a software-configurable keyboard, that would help reduce costs for unsold laptops, stock breaks, etc. Even in no application ever uses the facility, just that advantage should be enough, once you get to the right price-durability-functionality combo.
Also the resale value would be increased, as you can now sell it in any country.
...why this wasn't more widely used, specially by the US. It's the logical development from the "big drone bomb". A swarm of small drones with cameras and explosives locate the enemy, approach it, stick to it, and explode. You don't need a big charge for that, as you are sticking to the enemy. The enemy can blow up a couple of the drones, but you have tens in each operation. No civilian casualties, no risk to your own troops. You force the enemy to get out of sight where it cannot maneuver. You make thousands of the things and they go always ahead of the troops, to minimize risk. It seems such a no-brainer that the only thing I can think of, is that the developed armies are waiting to have good counter-measures for them before deploying it.
My first mail address was furnished by my bank, as a free service, not even tied to you remaining in the bank, in a neutral domain name. In those times, it seemed like a good idea to have it, as good free e-mail was then a scarce commodity.
Fast forward six years and the beginning of gmail, and they decide to drop the service. They didn't even transfer the domain to other service provider. They did a very lame thing of offering you another free service with a different domain. My inconveniences retiring that account were considerable, and to date I don't know if I lost any business due to some old contact not being able to mail me.
From them on, I have my own domain name, and a service provider that gives me mail services for that domain, for a small fee. I run now little risk of that kind of problems.
If we lived in a computer simulation, surely we would have some remaining concept of a Scientist that created the Simulation, and us inside it. The Scientist, who can change the software parameters, and can do absolutely anything in our Universe, and knows everything too, but limits His own powers to observe what we do, and, even if He knows the end result, let us choose our destiny with free will (FreeWill_Parameter = True).
As no such idea exists anywhere, I guess it's safe to say that we aren't in a simulation.
Suddenly current anti-cheating technologies mean nothing, and enough people using these would quick ruin a game.
Contrariwise, imagine a world where you can play in your computer against any number of AI opponents, regulated to the level that makes the game interesting to you. Then you don't need other people and cheating becomes meaningless, as it should be in a game.
People well and truly vote for candidates in the USA, and in general they seem to be confused at situations like Australia or the UK where we vote for parties.
Sorry to disagree, but that doesn't check with the fact that, in the USA, only candidates from the two big parties have a chance to run successfully for the presidency. If people really voted for candidates, then an independent candidate would have an even chance of winning, and that's absolutely not the case. Even in this election, with two deeply flawed candidates, independents cannot even make it to the TV live debate.
People don't vote candidates, in general. They vote if they are happy about how things are, or if they are not. Usually, is the incumbent (I'm happy about how things are in MY life), or the challenger (I'm not happy, let's change something).
In this particular case the incumbent cannot run, so the proxy is the candidate of the same party. Also, people suspect that the usual challengers are not really a change at all. But in this case it is, or at least it appears to be. So the excitement about it.
Voting or defending Trump has nothing to do with Trump, really, and all to do with a desire for profound change. The people express that desire in the only way that the election game allows them, and that's not a good way, that's for sure, but it's the only one.
You are surprised of intelligent people defending Trump, and I am surprised of how this blatant fact, the desire, of so many people, for many current politics to change or reverse course, is completely bypassed by the media, that chooses to center in the, admittedly rather pathetic, personification of that desire. That's an ad-hominem fallacy if I ever saw one, and you fall into that trap and try to keep the discussion there (the person), instead of on the politics.
I'll keep on waiting for the fist-sized, ultrasound-enabled, electroshock-emitter, mosquitoes hunt-and-destroy, nocturnal-guardian drone. When it arrives, I'll have a couple dozens, please.
So, on one side, you have the game program converting conceptual objects from a database to 3D images, using a powerful GPU in the process.
And in the other side you have the AI program taking that 3D image and converting it to a conceptual object, and putting it in a database, using a powerful GPU in the process.
It's curious how many big companies, when they reach a certain age, think that it's a good idea to take whatever make them big, and change it. It's probably the human instinctive rejection of simple inaction.
Twitter is famous because it forces people to be concise. Tweets are cited in news outlets because they are concise and so provide the short text bite that is easy to digest by the public. Nobody is going to cite a tweet that is longer than the article.
So basically, what they are doing is giving a step to get closer to a mailing list service. Way to go!
Slashdot Mirror
Some mental adjustment will be necessary at first.
That's the understatement of the year. I've rarely read a more nerd-centric, normal-human-ignorant proposal. I suppose some things have to be written to scare the spiders away from keyboards. But giving them attention and consideration is a step beyond reasonable.
If you haven't managed to convince people in the USA to switch to metric, which is in use in the rest of the world, easier and more convenient, good luck making them wake up at two p.m. Oops, sorry, there won't be any a.m. or p.m, of course.
I notice that you didn't include India as a former colony, or the African colonies. Here is another alternate hypothesis. British culture is racist and genocidal and in some countries it invaded, it managed to exterminate the natives, creating in the process a homogeneous society, that can develop easier. French or Spanish invaders stopped killing the locals when they surrendered, and mixed with them, creating less cohesive societies, with different backgrounds and ways. It's just an hypothesis. See how well it checks with reality as compared with yours.
...how well does that escalate? Can you create a big (big like in fingernail-sized) artificial diamond? Would the 25% cheaper rule hold?
Imagine what would have happened if it was the iPhone 7 battery the one exploding here and there. The hit that iOS would have taken would have been brutal. However, while Samsung suffers, Android doesn't even register the Note 7 debacle. Samsung could disappear tomorrow and other companies would take its sales in a blink. Evolution at work. That's because Android is a platform, not a company. In the end, platforms, specially if they are somewhat open, always trump companies.
Some day Apple will make a bad mistake, like Samsung has done, and then its trademark will suffer. If the mistake is bad enough, they might never recover from it. If they don't make a big mistake, they might make lots of small ones, and also lose ground. If they don't make either a big or many small mistakes, then some innovative company with a better product will pop up somewhere and be the next cool thing. And the important thing is that this company will be forced to use Android because Apple does not license iOS.
So in the end Apple always loses, because they use a closed environment and that means that they don't allow evolution to work. That fact has been obscured by the real genius that Apple has shown these past years in creating a whole new category of devices. That gives you a nice head start, of course, but it's finished now. Their market share is starting to reflect the realities of the dead hand of markethistory :-)
Well, if your share of the market drops below a certain point (technically known as the Blackberry point) then you won't get the new apps developed for your platform. And then you die. Slowly at first, then all of a sudden.
Of course rich people has Apple so it cannot die, and bla, bla. Well, rich people has money to change their phone in seconds if the NewHipApp isn't available for iOS. It's not like they are married to their iPhones, or rather it is like they are married to them, seeing how easily everybody divorces nowadays.
Well, no necessarily. You see, when full autonomous vehicles ride, there is the question of who pays for an accident if it was the "fault" of the autonomous driver. In could be Tesla, possibly by law. If it is, they can certainly restrict the kind of uses of the car, to be covered by that insurance. That's a still-to-be-decided practicality of autonomous cars, and one that will provide us with hours of entertainment.
Has nobody heard of the Streissand effect?
I suppose it's impossible to stop people from feeling that this time is different, but it's never different. According to Wikipedia:
In 1870, almost 50 percent of the US population was employed in agriculture.[16] As of 2008, less than 2 percent of the population is directly employed in agriculture.
The unemployment rate has shrugged off that "job disappearance", somehow. Now other swathes of jobs will also disappear, and people will find other things to do. There is nothing different about this new "technical revolution".
In principle, if you buy a company, your risk exposure is limited to your investment (that's what the "limited" in the companies' names mean). That's why you don't lose your house when you own stock in a company, even if it goes bust with billions in debt (see Enron there).
Of course if the investment is big and/or you intend to use capital to prop up it, or you incorporate it in your own company, the risks are different. But for a private person, the $5 bill is all you are to lose there. And you could censor all the tweets you didn't like in the meantime!
The only part of a laptop that has to be changed for each country is the keyboard, hampering logistics. If you can have a software-configurable keyboard, that would help reduce costs for unsold laptops, stock breaks, etc. Even in no application ever uses the facility, just that advantage should be enough, once you get to the right price-durability-functionality combo.
Also the resale value would be increased, as you can now sell it in any country.
...why this wasn't more widely used, specially by the US. It's the logical development from the "big drone bomb". A swarm of small drones with cameras and explosives locate the enemy, approach it, stick to it, and explode. You don't need a big charge for that, as you are sticking to the enemy. The enemy can blow up a couple of the drones, but you have tens in each operation. No civilian casualties, no risk to your own troops. You force the enemy to get out of sight where it cannot maneuver. You make thousands of the things and they go always ahead of the troops, to minimize risk. It seems such a no-brainer that the only thing I can think of, is that the developed armies are waiting to have good counter-measures for them before deploying it.
My first mail address was furnished by my bank, as a free service, not even tied to you remaining in the bank, in a neutral domain name. In those times, it seemed like a good idea to have it, as good free e-mail was then a scarce commodity.
Fast forward six years and the beginning of gmail, and they decide to drop the service. They didn't even transfer the domain to other service provider. They did a very lame thing of offering you another free service with a different domain. My inconveniences retiring that account were considerable, and to date I don't know if I lost any business due to some old contact not being able to mail me.
From them on, I have my own domain name, and a service provider that gives me mail services for that domain, for a small fee. I run now little risk of that kind of problems.
If we lived in a computer simulation, surely we would have some remaining concept of a Scientist that created the Simulation, and us inside it. The Scientist, who can change the software parameters, and can do absolutely anything in our Universe, and knows everything too, but limits His own powers to observe what we do, and, even if He knows the end result, let us choose our destiny with free will (FreeWill_Parameter = True).
As no such idea exists anywhere, I guess it's safe to say that we aren't in a simulation.
Suddenly current anti-cheating technologies mean nothing, and enough people using these would quick ruin a game.
Contrariwise, imagine a world where you can play in your computer against any number of AI opponents, regulated to the level that makes the game interesting to you. Then you don't need other people and cheating becomes meaningless, as it should be in a game.
People well and truly vote for candidates in the USA, and in general they seem to be confused at situations like Australia or the UK where we vote for parties.
Sorry to disagree, but that doesn't check with the fact that, in the USA, only candidates from the two big parties have a chance to run successfully for the presidency. If people really voted for candidates, then an independent candidate would have an even chance of winning, and that's absolutely not the case. Even in this election, with two deeply flawed candidates, independents cannot even make it to the TV live debate.
People don't vote candidates, in general. They vote if they are happy about how things are, or if they are not. Usually, is the incumbent (I'm happy about how things are in MY life), or the challenger (I'm not happy, let's change something).
In this particular case the incumbent cannot run, so the proxy is the candidate of the same party. Also, people suspect that the usual challengers are not really a change at all. But in this case it is, or at least it appears to be. So the excitement about it.
Voting or defending Trump has nothing to do with Trump, really, and all to do with a desire for profound change. The people express that desire in the only way that the election game allows them, and that's not a good way, that's for sure, but it's the only one.
You are surprised of intelligent people defending Trump, and I am surprised of how this blatant fact, the desire, of so many people, for many current politics to change or reverse course, is completely bypassed by the media, that chooses to center in the, admittedly rather pathetic, personification of that desire. That's an ad-hominem fallacy if I ever saw one, and you fall into that trap and try to keep the discussion there (the person), instead of on the politics.
Racist! \s
No, the poster is probably right..... Islamic countries are very strict on how you interact with the opposite sex...
Since when being right is any defense against being accused of racism?
I'll keep on waiting for the fist-sized, ultrasound-enabled, electroshock-emitter, mosquitoes hunt-and-destroy, nocturnal-guardian drone. When it arrives, I'll have a couple dozens, please.
It's a pity that they didn't enroll little Bobby Tables in that website. That would have taught them to sanitize their SQL input.
I only kept Flash for accessing absolute basic-needs sites. The moment xvideos switched to html5, I de-installed Flash and never looked back.
Surprise, surprise, the Germans had already thought about the objections that could muster the Slashdot crowd.
And the rest of porn sites? Why are these two singled out? What's the sense of banning just two?
If you offer free potatoes, you must take into account that somebody will come with a truck.
So, on one side, you have the game program converting conceptual objects from a database to 3D images, using a powerful GPU in the process.
And in the other side you have the AI program taking that 3D image and converting it to a conceptual object, and putting it in a database, using a powerful GPU in the process.
And then you wonder about global warming.
It's curious how many big companies, when they reach a certain age, think that it's a good idea to take whatever make them big, and change it. It's probably the human instinctive rejection of simple inaction.
Twitter is famous because it forces people to be concise. Tweets are cited in news outlets because they are concise and so provide the short text bite that is easy to digest by the public. Nobody is going to cite a tweet that is longer than the article.
So basically, what they are doing is giving a step to get closer to a mailing list service. Way to go!