But AIDS is so 1980s. Cancer is what the cool kids have these days.
Oh wait, the word 'cool' is now retro too, having been replaced by the word "sick". So I guess the proper way to say it is "Cancer is what all the sick kids have these days."
It's not a flat UI. The first giveaway that it isn't is at the very top of the page. The shadow in the search box and the gradient on the search icon both give hints of depth, which is unacceptable in flat UI.
Material design is not a flat UI in that it uses plenty of hints of depth, including overlapping objects, shadows, and gradients. It's also not necessarily minimalist, though it can be. An example of minimalism would be www.google.com. Youtube doesn't seem to embrace that concept that much, on the other hand, as any one screen seems to be filled with graphics and other objects.
Flat UI, on the other hand, is the crap that Microsoft does, and in order to distinguish UI objects in a flat UI, you have to use deeply contrasting colors, contributing to the fisher-price look.
That's actually the strange kicker, too. Basically every non-Microsoft consumer OS made except doesn't come with any ads, and yet they're all free. Yet Microsoft includes ads and adware built in to the OS and still charges you money for it. I think Microsoft stole the cable/satellite TV industry's playbook.
To be honest, it would have otherwise been surprising, because even Microsoft themselves know that their crappy store is a wasteland, but they kind of had to. They probably wouldn't have bothered doing this if it hadn't been for the upcoming release of "Windows 10 S", which stands for "Windows 10, Shit edition".
If Microsoft actually wanted Office in this way for any other reason, I'm sure they would have gone the extra mile and outright made it into a UWP app, but even they don't want to swallow that turd.
Just because you have observed some trend in the past, it doesn't mean that trend will necessarily continue forever, especially when the fundamentals behind that trend are changing radically.
Let's suppose the trend does end: Who will buy your automatically produced goods if nobody has any money to do so? If that truly was the case, then you'd be looking at more of a Star Trek style economy, and money would become mostly irrelevant. In such a scenario, consumption inequality would likely still be a thing, but a basic income would be rather pointless, as would any other form of money redistribution.
I honestly don't think it will come to that though. Instead what will happen is personal goods you own become better, and you become wealthier, with or without an increase in income (and in fact we always have become wealthier even with a reduction of income. Remember that wealth is neither money or income, it is material goods.)
Take the telecom sector example I gave earlier. With manual switchboards, you had an inferior product. Namely, you had a local exchange and all of your neighbors were on the same line as one another and had to take turns using it. Furthermore, the price was higher as well. Eventually it became one number per household, then later more than one (think "teen lines" of the 90's), and now practically everybody has their own personal phone number. And to add to that, we're paying less for it now.
But that isn't just an added convenience and a lower price; it's much more than that. Think about how much more work you can get done now that you're not waiting for other people to get off of the phone.
Or if we applied this concept to computers, think about how much more it would cost to start your own business if you had to hire mathematicians instead of just buying computers. Chances are, you'd be unable to even start a business at all, and thus you'd be producing less. But we have computers, so you can, which means the economy has a higher GDP in a way that wasn't possible in the past.
Does that mean we have less demand for mathematician jobs than we otherwise would? You bet. But instead the mathematicians we do have are now solving more complex problems, and are overall more wealthy than they would have been if there weren't computers.
Apparently, you consider sitting around and letting robots do work for you to be "earning".
Well, how are we going to define a robot? If it's a machine that can accomplish physical tasks automatically without human input, then it's quite broad; calculators would be included, for example.
At work I was asked to configure a bunch of switches (about 70) with the same command set with small variation, and it was expected to take about a day to do, which would mean I'd have to manually open an SSH session numerous times. Instead I just wrote a script in 10 minutes that completed the job in 5 minutes.
Does that mean I'd have to pay a tax? If so, that's absurd, and I'd fight that tooth and nail.
We can't just tax shit just because somebody came up with a way to automate it, otherwise the tech industry itself would have to be taxed to basically nonexistence. The word "computer" used to refer to a person, whereas nowadays it refers to an object. The economy simply cannot scale without automation, and it will severely hamper growth if we have to tax every little thing that gets automated.
By the way, I'm calling BS on anybody who thinks automation will make human labor obsolete or will otherwise result in long-term job losses. Yes, frictional unemployment is a real thing, but every time it happens it always ends up being temporary. You may as well argue that the telecom industry should have less employees now than in the past because automated switchboards replaced manual switchboards.
And off on a tangent, UBI is a retarded concept that won't help anything. People assume that income inequality actually matters, but in reality it's irrelevant. What is relevant and important is consumption inequality. For perspective, slashdot had an article that explained that $100,000 a year income is considered low income in San Francisco, yet that's considered high income in most other major cities. Why is this? Because costs of consumption vary by region.
UBI may increase incomes (it certainly won't do any favors for income inequality, by the way,) but it won't help consumption inequality at all, and will probably just make it worse.
And what usability did they sacrifice? Simpler designs can increase usability if they use better psychological cues that make the exact steps needed to take your desired actions more obvious, and/or if they remove steps required to take the same action.
You can actually confirm this on your own if you'd like.
Go to backpage.com, look at the "women > men" section (it's all prostitute ads) and you'll find plenty of listings that outright say "no black men" or "no AA men". You'll even find black prostitutes that do the same. I've never tried calling any of them, but I've read about people who have in order to investigate this, and the moment they think you're black (i.e. if they can tell based on your voice, or if you just say you are) they'll get standoffish and probably refuse.
Microsoft failed because they tried to make a platform that had all of the weaknesses of iOS and Android, with none of the strengths of either:
- Whitelist only app publishing model - "Live tiles" that aren't actually live, and compared to Android's widget system are just big icons that change at an interval that neither the developer nor the end user can control. - Demanded ridiculous prices for app development and publishing (until only very recently) - Not once, or twice, but THREE times changed the app framework in such a way that broke compatibility. Windows phone evangelists loved talking up a storm about Android fragmentation, but at least Android apps work across different major versions of the OS. - Not once, or twice, but THREE times broke OS compatibility across devices, and they knew before they even released WP7 that they'd be doing this (technically speaking, there's no real reason WP7 devices couldn't run WP8 so long as new drivers would have been provided by Microsoft, and the filesystem converted to NTFS. The argument of "it's a different kernel" is not a valid one in this regard, rather it's just a combination of trying to rush to market with what they had at the time, and then cheaping out on upgrades.)
And if all of that isn't enough, they created a weak ass API framework that isn't actually capable of doing anything interesting.
Its all or nothing the last time I checked, iOS at least makes it easy to turn off/on what apps can access.
Android 6 and up essentially disables permissions by default, and you have to grant the app access to different things as it needs them, and you can always decline any particular permission. Even Google's built in apps are subject to this (for example, Google Maps requests permission to access GPS, which you can either allow or deny.)
There's still an app manifest, so you'll see the permissions needed when the app installs, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the app will actually be able to do those things.
Also, when a second party logs your activity, they own that data not you, despite the data being about you, because they created the data. You didn't.
And why would they have any opportunity to do that? Contrary to popular belief, even if Google was pure evil, it would make all of about zero economic sense for them to make your data available to third parties. Google is an ad company, if they were to give that kind of information out, all it would do is help somebody else compete in their primary market.
It sounds like a terrible idea. In work environments, there's a legitimate reason to limit people's access to the internet, i.e. customer data can be at risk (or in the case of where I work, patient data.) But in a home setting, it's just straight up annoying to have your ISP start blocking shit that you may not want to be blocked.
My ISP blocks incoming email and web ports because it's presumed that everyday customers running any servers on those ports are participating in a spam botnet. So that means I can't host my own small webserver for example.
And if we did what you suggest, it would be a whole lot worse. For example, most security vendors consider bitcoin software to be risky and will block it. Hell, some even consider really benign software like tftpd32 to be too risky to allow end users to run (I just got an email a few days ago from our infosec guy asking why I was running it on my PC, and I had to explain to him that I use it to upload IOS images to our switches.)
But if I need to use this stuff at home, and my ISP blocks it, what then? I have to buy a business class account?
What I've found interesting is that the industry that will do just about anything for the right price overwhelmingly has an exception by most of its practitioners -- no black men under any circumstances.
By that I'm referring to the oldest industry. And yes, even black prostitutes very often have this rule. However many will make exceptions so long as when they speak to the john on the phone, his voice timber/accent doesn't sound black, as that person typically hasn't been exposed to black culture, which is the main problem in their eyes, and not the skin color.
The strongest proof of this I can offer you is that while most white girls can be persuaded to see a black client if he is well-spoken and/or lives in an affluent neighborhood or stays in an expensive hotel, many black escorts will not see a black man under any circumstances; in the words of Tina (a simply gorgeous black girl who was Flavor of the Month for quite a while), “They’re too cheap, too rough and too full of themselves.”
Obviously, this isn’t true of all black men; I had several black regulars over the years (including a salesman who saw me about once a week for quite a while), and the only complaint I ever had about any of them was that one poor guy tried so hard to make himself agreeable to me that his skin always smelled and tasted like soap! But what about the rest of them? I’m afraid I have to agree with Tina; the majority do tend to be exactly as she described, and I think the reason they are that way has to do with their subculture. For reasons others are more qualified to analyze than I, the typical male role model for young black men is exaggeratedly masculine, physical rather than intellectual and tends toward violence; he is a sports star, a “gangsta” or a “bad-ass” action hero. And one doesn’t need to be a sociologist to recognize that this self-inflicted stereotype is related to a deep current of misogyny in the black community;
That's pretty much all that needs to be said. Unfortunately, if you try to talk openly about this, you're instantly labeled a racist, which is pretty much THE word to use these days if you want to shut somebody up, especially if that person is white, because once that accusation is thrown at somebody, it's basically impossible to prove otherwise.
Walmart and other retailers pressing prices lower and lower, story after story of how this pressure is a race to the bottom when it comes to quality and jobs... are Walmarts sales really hurting?
Except stores like walmart pay more and offer more opportunities for growth than the mom and pop shops that they tend to replace:
- Mom and pop stores typically only pay minimum wage and rarely dole out pay increases. - Mom and pop stores rarely ever issue promotions, except to family members.
No, what happened here is that the drug cartels didn't care one way or another how this rolling went, so normal judicial processes were followed for once.
No, but you can certainly go lower than 120. The theoretical minimum from Honolulu to Los Angeles over fiber is 19ms. Honolulu to Chicago is 32ms.
So long as your path is direct enough and the equipment is fast enough, you could easily put that in the 40ms-60ms range, which is more than acceptable for almost all gaming scenarios.
In most wealthy countries, kids are a liability because you have to feed, clothe, and shelter them without them delivering any kind of return on investment. In poor countries they tend to be an asset because they end up being extra farm hands, laborers, etc.
Having kids in western countries is thus a luxury, whereas in places like Africa it's a necessity.
Notice I said "take hormones or do anything else beyond just looking like he does". And of course, you just stuck to the hormones because you're a pedantic narcissist asshole.
Slashdot Mirror
But AIDS is so 1980s. Cancer is what the cool kids have these days.
Oh wait, the word 'cool' is now retro too, having been replaced by the word "sick". So I guess the proper way to say it is "Cancer is what all the sick kids have these days."
It's not a flat UI. The first giveaway that it isn't is at the very top of the page. The shadow in the search box and the gradient on the search icon both give hints of depth, which is unacceptable in flat UI.
https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
Material design is not a flat UI in that it uses plenty of hints of depth, including overlapping objects, shadows, and gradients. It's also not necessarily minimalist, though it can be. An example of minimalism would be www.google.com. Youtube doesn't seem to embrace that concept that much, on the other hand, as any one screen seems to be filled with graphics and other objects.
Flat UI, on the other hand, is the crap that Microsoft does, and in order to distinguish UI objects in a flat UI, you have to use deeply contrasting colors, contributing to the fisher-price look.
You'd think that if UWP was actually worth a shit, Microsoft would port their best selling software to it.
That's actually the strange kicker, too. Basically every non-Microsoft consumer OS made except doesn't come with any ads, and yet they're all free. Yet Microsoft includes ads and adware built in to the OS and still charges you money for it. I think Microsoft stole the cable/satellite TV industry's playbook.
To be honest, it would have otherwise been surprising, because even Microsoft themselves know that their crappy store is a wasteland, but they kind of had to. They probably wouldn't have bothered doing this if it hadn't been for the upcoming release of "Windows 10 S", which stands for "Windows 10, Shit edition".
If Microsoft actually wanted Office in this way for any other reason, I'm sure they would have gone the extra mile and outright made it into a UWP app, but even they don't want to swallow that turd.
Just because you have observed some trend in the past, it doesn't mean that trend will necessarily continue forever, especially when the fundamentals behind that trend are changing radically.
Let's suppose the trend does end: Who will buy your automatically produced goods if nobody has any money to do so? If that truly was the case, then you'd be looking at more of a Star Trek style economy, and money would become mostly irrelevant. In such a scenario, consumption inequality would likely still be a thing, but a basic income would be rather pointless, as would any other form of money redistribution.
I honestly don't think it will come to that though. Instead what will happen is personal goods you own become better, and you become wealthier, with or without an increase in income (and in fact we always have become wealthier even with a reduction of income. Remember that wealth is neither money or income, it is material goods.)
Take the telecom sector example I gave earlier. With manual switchboards, you had an inferior product. Namely, you had a local exchange and all of your neighbors were on the same line as one another and had to take turns using it. Furthermore, the price was higher as well. Eventually it became one number per household, then later more than one (think "teen lines" of the 90's), and now practically everybody has their own personal phone number. And to add to that, we're paying less for it now.
But that isn't just an added convenience and a lower price; it's much more than that. Think about how much more work you can get done now that you're not waiting for other people to get off of the phone.
Or if we applied this concept to computers, think about how much more it would cost to start your own business if you had to hire mathematicians instead of just buying computers. Chances are, you'd be unable to even start a business at all, and thus you'd be producing less. But we have computers, so you can, which means the economy has a higher GDP in a way that wasn't possible in the past.
Does that mean we have less demand for mathematician jobs than we otherwise would? You bet. But instead the mathematicians we do have are now solving more complex problems, and are overall more wealthy than they would have been if there weren't computers.
I don't know what you're seeing, but to me it looks mostly the same as it always has, save for some different layouts for the controls and whatnot.
Apparently, you consider sitting around and letting robots do work for you to be "earning".
Well, how are we going to define a robot? If it's a machine that can accomplish physical tasks automatically without human input, then it's quite broad; calculators would be included, for example.
At work I was asked to configure a bunch of switches (about 70) with the same command set with small variation, and it was expected to take about a day to do, which would mean I'd have to manually open an SSH session numerous times. Instead I just wrote a script in 10 minutes that completed the job in 5 minutes.
Does that mean I'd have to pay a tax? If so, that's absurd, and I'd fight that tooth and nail.
We can't just tax shit just because somebody came up with a way to automate it, otherwise the tech industry itself would have to be taxed to basically nonexistence. The word "computer" used to refer to a person, whereas nowadays it refers to an object. The economy simply cannot scale without automation, and it will severely hamper growth if we have to tax every little thing that gets automated.
By the way, I'm calling BS on anybody who thinks automation will make human labor obsolete or will otherwise result in long-term job losses. Yes, frictional unemployment is a real thing, but every time it happens it always ends up being temporary. You may as well argue that the telecom industry should have less employees now than in the past because automated switchboards replaced manual switchboards.
And off on a tangent, UBI is a retarded concept that won't help anything. People assume that income inequality actually matters, but in reality it's irrelevant. What is relevant and important is consumption inequality. For perspective, slashdot had an article that explained that $100,000 a year income is considered low income in San Francisco, yet that's considered high income in most other major cities. Why is this? Because costs of consumption vary by region.
UBI may increase incomes (it certainly won't do any favors for income inequality, by the way,) but it won't help consumption inequality at all, and will probably just make it worse.
And what usability did they sacrifice? Simpler designs can increase usability if they use better psychological cues that make the exact steps needed to take your desired actions more obvious, and/or if they remove steps required to take the same action.
You'd have to turn on AMT to begin with in order for this to work.
You can actually confirm this on your own if you'd like.
Go to backpage.com, look at the "women > men" section (it's all prostitute ads) and you'll find plenty of listings that outright say "no black men" or "no AA men". You'll even find black prostitutes that do the same. I've never tried calling any of them, but I've read about people who have in order to investigate this, and the moment they think you're black (i.e. if they can tell based on your voice, or if you just say you are) they'll get standoffish and probably refuse.
and even Google's gotten the hint, since every phone that has Lollipop and beyond is upgradable
It's not up to Google, it's up to the handset OEM. That said, I especially doubt most of them will actually provide timely updates.
Microsoft failed because they tried to make a platform that had all of the weaknesses of iOS and Android, with none of the strengths of either:
- Whitelist only app publishing model
- "Live tiles" that aren't actually live, and compared to Android's widget system are just big icons that change at an interval that neither the developer nor the end user can control.
- Demanded ridiculous prices for app development and publishing (until only very recently)
- Not once, or twice, but THREE times changed the app framework in such a way that broke compatibility. Windows phone evangelists loved talking up a storm about Android fragmentation, but at least Android apps work across different major versions of the OS.
- Not once, or twice, but THREE times broke OS compatibility across devices, and they knew before they even released WP7 that they'd be doing this (technically speaking, there's no real reason WP7 devices couldn't run WP8 so long as new drivers would have been provided by Microsoft, and the filesystem converted to NTFS. The argument of "it's a different kernel" is not a valid one in this regard, rather it's just a combination of trying to rush to market with what they had at the time, and then cheaping out on upgrades.)
And if all of that isn't enough, they created a weak ass API framework that isn't actually capable of doing anything interesting.
Its all or nothing the last time I checked, iOS at least makes it easy to turn off/on what apps can access.
Android 6 and up essentially disables permissions by default, and you have to grant the app access to different things as it needs them, and you can always decline any particular permission. Even Google's built in apps are subject to this (for example, Google Maps requests permission to access GPS, which you can either allow or deny.)
There's still an app manifest, so you'll see the permissions needed when the app installs, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the app will actually be able to do those things.
Also, when a second party logs your activity, they own that data not you, despite the data being about you, because they created the data. You didn't.
And why would they have any opportunity to do that? Contrary to popular belief, even if Google was pure evil, it would make all of about zero economic sense for them to make your data available to third parties. Google is an ad company, if they were to give that kind of information out, all it would do is help somebody else compete in their primary market.
It sounds like a terrible idea. In work environments, there's a legitimate reason to limit people's access to the internet, i.e. customer data can be at risk (or in the case of where I work, patient data.) But in a home setting, it's just straight up annoying to have your ISP start blocking shit that you may not want to be blocked.
My ISP blocks incoming email and web ports because it's presumed that everyday customers running any servers on those ports are participating in a spam botnet. So that means I can't host my own small webserver for example.
And if we did what you suggest, it would be a whole lot worse. For example, most security vendors consider bitcoin software to be risky and will block it. Hell, some even consider really benign software like tftpd32 to be too risky to allow end users to run (I just got an email a few days ago from our infosec guy asking why I was running it on my PC, and I had to explain to him that I use it to upload IOS images to our switches.)
But if I need to use this stuff at home, and my ISP blocks it, what then? I have to buy a business class account?
What I've found interesting is that the industry that will do just about anything for the right price overwhelmingly has an exception by most of its practitioners -- no black men under any circumstances.
By that I'm referring to the oldest industry. And yes, even black prostitutes very often have this rule. However many will make exceptions so long as when they speak to the john on the phone, his voice timber/accent doesn't sound black, as that person typically hasn't been exposed to black culture, which is the main problem in their eyes, and not the skin color.
http://forum.blackhairmedia.co...
Here's the most important part:
The strongest proof of this I can offer you is that while most white girls can be persuaded to see a black client if he is well-spoken and/or lives in an affluent neighborhood or stays in an expensive hotel, many black escorts will not see a black man under any circumstances; in the words of Tina (a simply gorgeous black girl who was Flavor of the Month for quite a while), “They’re too cheap, too rough and too full of themselves.”
Obviously, this isn’t true of all black men; I had several black regulars over the years (including a salesman who saw me about once a week for quite a while), and the only complaint I ever had about any of them was that one poor guy tried so hard to make himself agreeable to me that his skin always smelled and tasted like soap! But what about the rest of them? I’m afraid I have to agree with Tina; the majority do tend to be exactly as she described, and I think the reason they are that way has to do with their subculture. For reasons others are more qualified to analyze than I, the typical male role model for young black men is exaggeratedly masculine, physical rather than intellectual and tends toward violence; he is a sports star, a “gangsta” or a “bad-ass” action hero. And one doesn’t need to be a sociologist to recognize that this self-inflicted stereotype is related to a deep current of misogyny in the black community;
That's pretty much all that needs to be said. Unfortunately, if you try to talk openly about this, you're instantly labeled a racist, which is pretty much THE word to use these days if you want to shut somebody up, especially if that person is white, because once that accusation is thrown at somebody, it's basically impossible to prove otherwise.
Walmart and other retailers pressing prices lower and lower, story after story of how this pressure is a race to the bottom when it comes to quality and jobs... are Walmarts sales really hurting?
Except stores like walmart pay more and offer more opportunities for growth than the mom and pop shops that they tend to replace:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ma...
TL;DR version of it:
- Mom and pop stores typically only pay minimum wage and rarely dole out pay increases.
- Mom and pop stores rarely ever issue promotions, except to family members.
No, what happened here is that the drug cartels didn't care one way or another how this rolling went, so normal judicial processes were followed for once.
No, but you can certainly go lower than 120. The theoretical minimum from Honolulu to Los Angeles over fiber is 19ms. Honolulu to Chicago is 32ms.
So long as your path is direct enough and the equipment is fast enough, you could easily put that in the 40ms-60ms range, which is more than acceptable for almost all gaming scenarios.
In most wealthy countries, kids are a liability because you have to feed, clothe, and shelter them without them delivering any kind of return on investment. In poor countries they tend to be an asset because they end up being extra farm hands, laborers, etc.
Having kids in western countries is thus a luxury, whereas in places like Africa it's a necessity.
Notice I said "take hormones or do anything else beyond just looking like he does". And of course, you just stuck to the hormones because you're a pedantic narcissist asshole.
Or start a stock exchange in Hawaii. That kind of thing tends to drive a strong economic demand for high bandwidth, low latency transit links.
dollar bills in a wallet
Money isn't wealth.
Yep, for some bizzaro reason I was thinking I was replying to the "neh" post below this one, and I haven't had my drop of liquor yet.