Windowless planes are coming. And they will be awesome.
Yeah because someone drew a picture, it must be true. I've compared 100" UHD images with reality and reality still wins. And last time I checked a piece of glass costs less than fully formed UHD screens covering the entire surface of something, and being able to deal with perspective of different viewers looking from different angles.
Don't hold your breath for this one...
Houses don't need as many windows as they currently have so that people can see stuff outside. The reason houses have so many windows is so that people have an escape route in the event of a fire.
Crap. I've designed a few houses, all of the windows, all of the time are to allow light in and let people see outside. Fire escapes, at least in my local area, are required by law to be a functioning door.
The fact that this got mentioned is even stupider. What we're going to pay thousands extra for a robot car but skimp $50 on some glass? What fucking child would even postulate such a ridiculous scenario. It's almost as if someone wanted an excuse to use the phrase "rethink the platform" and "robot car" in one paragraph.
Qantas Flight 32 lost an engine mid-flight a few years ago. The pilots heard the bang and saw the alerts but weren't sure of the full nature of the problem. A passenger witnessed the exploding engine and alerted crew who informed the pilot, who in turn came down to take a look. From visuals they were able to make decisions on the best course of action, and safely land the plane. Without windows you are literally flying blind.
I kinda feel sad for all the freedom to enjoy life a bit more has been lost in the era of fear and forced safety.
Your grandfather probably feels the same way because you never had the freedom of riding a horse on the open plains, and his grandfather probably thought the same because his grandson missed out on discovering new lands and sailing uncharted oceans...
What do you think is more realistic, your generation was the peak of human development, or nostalgia goggles are a human trait which fools us into thinking things were better in the "good old days"?
I've never owned anything but 2-seater sports cars,
Says the guy with an SUV as a name.
I don't think of driving as just a drudge, I actually have an adventure every time I fire up the engine and go for a drive!!!
At least that's what the Sportscar marketing dept would like you to believe. If you live in any decent sized city, then driving and adventures are mutually exclusive. I have friends with $200k sportscars. Getting in and out of them is a drudge. Stop, start, stop, start in traffic is a drudge. Finding a park that you feel safe leaving your car is a drudge. I can get anywhere quicker on my $5000 sportsbike, and it's a lot more fun too.
What the industry has to accept is that just because they had a monopoly for 50 years of human history doesn't mean they deserve that for all eternity. There's no law of nature that says musicians should be millionaires, even a popular one.
I can't see any issue where artists publish their recordings on streaming services and only earn a token income, while music enthusiasts (DJs and critics etc) vie for attention by recommending and publishing playlists, to which consumers listen then pay to see their favourite artists live and/or buy a T-Shirt. A popular artist can gross $200million on a successful tour, without a single penny being earnt from record sales. That alone will ensure there are always musicians producing music, no draconian copyright laws required.
No clear winners and losers in a democracy? What about when the 99% vote to murder the 1% and divide up their assets?
When did that happen?
There are definitely clear winners and losers with all of these sorts of restrictions, and society is hardly being "improved" because of them.
You seemed to have missed the point. The result of the change will have winners and losers, but those seeking policy change all think they lost. (as an example, gun nuts don't think there are enough guns, hippies want less, regardless of what law is passed (or not), both sides will claim they are losers).
And overall society does improve we can measure this through things like life expectancy, crime rates, access to health and education etc. You may choose to wear nostalgia goggles and think the old days were good, but by every measurable metric for most people they weren't, and that is due to the policy decisions that made it that way.
As I said I've had experience here so think this isn't true. Just like Bieber, or Tom Cruise, or kissing babies, Politicians pay lip service to populist trash, but it won't sway any policy decisions.
The headline should read: "Does Facebook make it harder for stupid people to do anything" Which of course the answer is probably yes. Whenever I see stories about Facebook, I think you could replace "Facebook" with "Real Housewives of..." and get the same answer.
Does Facebook make it harder for people with different political views to get along?
Politics is about making other people do what you think is right.
In a dictatorship maybe. In a democracy, politics is about navigating decisions which there is never a clear winner or loser. Each decision you make will have losers so whichever course you take will result in complaints of cronyism or corruption by the side that gets the shorter end of the stick. And even the side with the long end of the stick will complain the didn't get enough of the pie. Politics is a game where everyone thinks they are missing out while overall society is being improved.
This is how it's always been. They said the same about the church, newspapers, then TV, now the Internet. Rest assured, smart people will always exist, so whatever path stupid people choose, the smart people will be around to take care of them (or execute them). Either way, it's only a loss if you are stupid, which is how evolution works.
I consider myself neutral politically and try to expose myself to all sides for balance. The problem I've noticed is that whatever your viewpoint you tend to herd into groups with similar views. You then feel compelled to continue to commit to these views by further engaging in more of the same. It seems to be a built-in mechanism no matter who we are or what we believe, we try to align with our peers (who ever they happen to be at the time) This is true whether BBC/ABC/PBS/NPR or Fox News, or Slashdot. The trick I've found to maintain balance is to take a break from whatever it is you believe and go do something else for a while.
So whatever you believe, go take a break for a few months. Switch off and do something completely different, then come back and see if what you thought was really that important still matters. Chances are it won't
Same here and never looked back. FB slowly devolved from social information I has some interest in, to lowest common denominator garbage with ads and spying.
Just like TV it's now mostly shit, so look elsewhere for stimulation.
Mine don't, so chances are my nieces and nephews will end up with better jobs than yours. Just because stupid people exist doesn't mean there aren't smart people out there who will be their bosses one day.
People who get their politics from Facebook generally have no political power. I've worked in politics and can't remember any of the major players even knowing what FB was. Even those with FB accounts were run by other people as a marketing exercise.
So have no fear, even though it's fun to knock politicians, most of them and their respective advisers and think tanks are a lot smarter than that.
If you think the publisher in the OP were picking a fight then you obviously have anger management issues and an inability to distinguish a threat from a disagreement. I'd recommend you seek help before you get into trouble on the street.
Nice dodging and weaving, but I'm guessing you know the point will find you in the end.
What the fuck are you talking about. You gave some idiotic analogy about Witch Doctors and tried to apply that to real life.
Money has value. You even believe this even if you don't admit to because saying money has no value you then apply value to it.
The sure-fire 100% guaranteed way to verify someone's belief is to get them to commit something of value for their cause. Since you won't do this you're yet another blow hard in the long list of blow hards who talk big and walk small.
Slashdot Mirror
And even then we still want windows. There is no case I can imagine where I wouldn't want windows.
All mirrors have blind spots, it's a 2D surface reflecting a 3D space. No amount of adjusting changes this fact.
Windowless planes are coming. And they will be awesome.
Yeah because someone drew a picture, it must be true. I've compared 100" UHD images with reality and reality still wins. And last time I checked a piece of glass costs less than fully formed UHD screens covering the entire surface of something, and being able to deal with perspective of different viewers looking from different angles.
Don't hold your breath for this one...
Houses don't need as many windows as they currently have so that people can see stuff outside. The reason houses have so many windows is so that people have an escape route in the event of a fire.
Crap. I've designed a few houses, all of the windows, all of the time are to allow light in and let people see outside. Fire escapes, at least in my local area, are required by law to be a functioning door.
The fact that this got mentioned is even stupider. What we're going to pay thousands extra for a robot car but skimp $50 on some glass? What fucking child would even postulate such a ridiculous scenario. It's almost as if someone wanted an excuse to use the phrase "rethink the platform" and "robot car" in one paragraph.
Qantas Flight 32 lost an engine mid-flight a few years ago. The pilots heard the bang and saw the alerts but weren't sure of the full nature of the problem. A passenger witnessed the exploding engine and alerted crew who informed the pilot, who in turn came down to take a look. From visuals they were able to make decisions on the best course of action, and safely land the plane. Without windows you are literally flying blind.
I kinda feel sad for all the freedom to enjoy life a bit more has been lost in the era of fear and forced safety.
Your grandfather probably feels the same way because you never had the freedom of riding a horse on the open plains, and his grandfather probably thought the same because his grandson missed out on discovering new lands and sailing uncharted oceans...
What do you think is more realistic, your generation was the peak of human development, or nostalgia goggles are a human trait which fools us into thinking things were better in the "good old days"?
I've never owned anything but 2-seater sports cars,
Says the guy with an SUV as a name.
I don't think of driving as just a drudge, I actually have an adventure every time I fire up the engine and go for a drive!!!
At least that's what the Sportscar marketing dept would like you to believe. If you live in any decent sized city, then driving and adventures are mutually exclusive. I have friends with $200k sportscars. Getting in and out of them is a drudge. Stop, start, stop, start in traffic is a drudge. Finding a park that you feel safe leaving your car is a drudge. I can get anywhere quicker on my $5000 sportsbike, and it's a lot more fun too.
What the industry has to accept is that just because they had a monopoly for 50 years of human history doesn't mean they deserve that for all eternity. There's no law of nature that says musicians should be millionaires, even a popular one.
I can't see any issue where artists publish their recordings on streaming services and only earn a token income, while music enthusiasts (DJs and critics etc) vie for attention by recommending and publishing playlists, to which consumers listen then pay to see their favourite artists live and/or buy a T-Shirt. A popular artist can gross $200million on a successful tour, without a single penny being earnt from record sales. That alone will ensure there are always musicians producing music, no draconian copyright laws required.
. But without popular and wide spread recordings of the music, will anyone show up to the concerts?
There is still popular and wide spread recordings via radio and streaming. The death of the studio distribution monopoly doesn't change this.
Elton John wrote one of his biggest hits 'Your Song' in 20 minutes. Even if it takes a whole month, it's still not worth 70 years of royalties.
No.
No clear winners and losers in a democracy? What about when the 99% vote to murder the 1% and divide up their assets?
When did that happen?
There are definitely clear winners and losers with all of these sorts of restrictions, and society is hardly being "improved" because of them.
You seemed to have missed the point. The result of the change will have winners and losers, but those seeking policy change all think they lost. (as an example, gun nuts don't think there are enough guns, hippies want less, regardless of what law is passed (or not), both sides will claim they are losers). And overall society does improve we can measure this through things like life expectancy, crime rates, access to health and education etc. You may choose to wear nostalgia goggles and think the old days were good, but by every measurable metric for most people they weren't, and that is due to the policy decisions that made it that way.
As I said I've had experience here so think this isn't true. Just like Bieber, or Tom Cruise, or kissing babies, Politicians pay lip service to populist trash, but it won't sway any policy decisions.
The headline should read: "Does Facebook make it harder for stupid people to do anything" Which of course the answer is probably yes. Whenever I see stories about Facebook, I think you could replace "Facebook" with "Real Housewives of..." and get the same answer.
Does Facebook make it harder for people with different political views to get along?
Politics is about making other people do what you think is right.
In a dictatorship maybe. In a democracy, politics is about navigating decisions which there is never a clear winner or loser. Each decision you make will have losers so whichever course you take will result in complaints of cronyism or corruption by the side that gets the shorter end of the stick. And even the side with the long end of the stick will complain the didn't get enough of the pie. Politics is a game where everyone thinks they are missing out while overall society is being improved.
This is how it's always been. They said the same about the church, newspapers, then TV, now the Internet. Rest assured, smart people will always exist, so whatever path stupid people choose, the smart people will be around to take care of them (or execute them). Either way, it's only a loss if you are stupid, which is how evolution works.
I consider myself neutral politically and try to expose myself to all sides for balance. The problem I've noticed is that whatever your viewpoint you tend to herd into groups with similar views. You then feel compelled to continue to commit to these views by further engaging in more of the same. It seems to be a built-in mechanism no matter who we are or what we believe, we try to align with our peers (who ever they happen to be at the time) This is true whether BBC/ABC/PBS/NPR or Fox News, or Slashdot. The trick I've found to maintain balance is to take a break from whatever it is you believe and go do something else for a while.
So whatever you believe, go take a break for a few months. Switch off and do something completely different, then come back and see if what you thought was really that important still matters. Chances are it won't
Same here and never looked back. FB slowly devolved from social information I has some interest in, to lowest common denominator garbage with ads and spying. Just like TV it's now mostly shit, so look elsewhere for stimulation.
Mine don't, so chances are my nieces and nephews will end up with better jobs than yours. Just because stupid people exist doesn't mean there aren't smart people out there who will be their bosses one day.
People who get their politics from Facebook generally have no political power. I've worked in politics and can't remember any of the major players even knowing what FB was. Even those with FB accounts were run by other people as a marketing exercise.
So have no fear, even though it's fun to knock politicians, most of them and their respective advisers and think tanks are a lot smarter than that.
Yeah yeah, coulda shoulda woulda... but didn't.
If you think the publisher in the OP were picking a fight then you obviously have anger management issues and an inability to distinguish a threat from a disagreement. I'd recommend you seek help before you get into trouble on the street.
You get it now?
Nice dodging and weaving, but I'm guessing you know the point will find you in the end.
What the fuck are you talking about. You gave some idiotic analogy about Witch Doctors and tried to apply that to real life. Money has value. You even believe this even if you don't admit to because saying money has no value you then apply value to it.
The sure-fire 100% guaranteed way to verify someone's belief is to get them to commit something of value for their cause. Since you won't do this you're yet another blow hard in the long list of blow hards who talk big and walk small.
Which is why we need new leaders who have enough vision to think about our children and their children, not just themselves.