Had they said nothing up until the moment of an actual announcement, we'd all have laughed out loud (spelled out because many of us literally would) at ourselves for not seeing it coming.
It became too late to become an ethical hacker when the FBI started bullying people into working for them. "Here, come disrupt your life no matter the consequences to you or your family, or we'll destroy your life." Screw that. Some fields can't pay enough to be worth their risk. When story after story about the people who can hack involve their being bullied by their government, it's just not worth it to learn those skills.
Or at least this is my impression. If I'm wrong, then it might help if electronic security were further legitimized at the academic level. We haven't had an overhaul of related academic majors in too long. You can study "Information Technology," which boils down to how to connect routers and work spreadsheets, or you can study Computer Science, which these days boils down to a practical approach to calculus and a primer to teach yourself how to actually produce software. But the shortcomings of this academic template aren't going to matter until the PhDs making money on it speak up.
I start with your attitude about evidence, at least so far as what you say here; not with evidence itself. Skeptics and lukewarmers aren't formally studying the field. There's a big difference between having an interest in a topic and busting your ass to really learn it.
Doctors don't advise people to know the facts before they commit. They advise people to get a second opinion. There's nothing wrong with reading up about what your doctor tells you, but a medical doctor will never advise people to sit at home and try to diagnose themselves. The things you mention come after the visit to the doctor.
Medical doctors, in fact, give great advice about how to study science at the layperson level. Read the findings of an expert, and then augment that by reading up on the tangents. Do the same for the next expert, and so on.
Medical doctors will never advise people to go to an online forum to discuss their symptoms. What can come of that? Joe Blow somewhere thinks they know what's wrong with you?
You don't have to agree with the experts. Nature will not be changed by that, but you're free to think whatever you want. You don't even have to respect the experts. You don't know those people! But it's an honorable thing to respect hard work, and actual climate scientists have worked hard to earn a voice on this topic. They've worked damn hard, giving up years to decades of their lives for it, and have one way or another spent a ton of money doing so. Give them a chance to make their case themselves.
If they start doing Office and professional services (Azure, etc) by tiered subscription, then that would actually work! But we're still talking niche markets; developers and students, professionals. I get the feeling there's going to be a new product that we don't know about yet. Something with very wide appeal.
Okay, here's my evidence that I don't want to teach climate science, which isn't my field, to somebody who thinks the majority of the work in the field is wrong. Are you ready for it? I don't want to teach climate science, which isn't my field, to somebody who thinks the majority of the work in the field is wrong. There you go.
You're basically trying to turing test me. Stop it.
Which assertion? You're arguing with me whether I want to discuss the topic with you. Clearly, you'll argue anything. Let me know when you figure out a way to prove to me what I want better than I can decide for myself.
You're right. They don't work for free. But you post for free. So, which conclusions are worth more, even in the literal sense? Your free posts, or their expensive research?
I don't have to provide evidence to you that I'm knowledgeable. I need only defer you to the experts. You should take their findings over my words anyway. It's not my field. And I'm starting to think you don't really have a firm grasp of what that means. Would you press me so hard for medical or legal advice?
I applaud your empirical ethic! But what you're not accepting is that you're looking for evidence in the wrong place. I'll read the evidence myself, and make up my own mind, and you should do the same. Similarly, if I go to the doctor, I'll trust the person who busted their ass for a decade plus some odd years, did some years in residency, and then practiced for some years to decades.
In both cases, I won't trust some random person on a forum over the people who have invested their lives in the topic. In both cases, if somebody on a forum tries to debate the facts with me, I should defer them to the experts. Climate change, like medicine, is serious enough a topic that it's above this level of discourse. That would be true even if you were correct.
The Linux community is amazing, but Windows is tried by fire. Black hats have more motivation to target Windows because it's the predominant consumer operating system, and vulnerabilities can only be patched at a rate less than or equal to the rate at which they are found. Windows has held that status for a long time now, giving it a head start.
The NSA does not set their priorities like black hats do; they're after intel rather than grandma's pension or little Billy's passwords. If we assume that the NSA studies Linux with veracity equal to Windows, then they know about exploits that black hats wouldn't find for years to come if Linux and Windows swapped places in the market.
On the other hand, it's impossible to know the extent to which Microsoft cooperates with the NSA. Paranoia where that's concerned is not constructive, but that doesn't mean we have to blindly trust either. It's okay to say that we don't know (though people hate to do that). However, this remains true for teams developing Linux distros.
I can't find where the Linux developers and Windows developers aren't one-to-one in traits relevant to this topic aside from the security head start that Windows has, which in turn means that Linux is a softer target. The only argument I can come up with to tell myself that I'm wrong, stupid, and my opinion is yucky is that we could just blindly trust Linux developers to know what they don't know. That's just silly, even if they're damn fine examples of technically proficient people.
I mean this to be a neutral comment; neither pro nor anti Microsoft. Basically, they're going to give away the latest version of Windows for free. But they're also an enormous business, and let's face it, they have bills. Employees to pay, lights to keep on, penguin cages to clean. So, people get on Windows 10, and then maybe send data that helps with advertising, and maybe buy stuff from the Windows store.
There are two other possibilities. The less popular thing to suggest will be that Windows 10 isn't exactly the most private thing. Don't beat me up! I'm not saying it's that way; only that it's within the great wide world of possibility that it's that way. It's also within the great wide world of possibility that we'll all have flying cars next year, so there are degrees of likeliness and truth. Our flying cars next year could be RC and have a max altitude of three inches. It doesn't say much for something to simply be possible, but this isn't a possibility we'll analyze much unless we end up with reason to.
The other possibility is that Windows 10 users will be an enormous testing pool that will help perfect the operating system to get businesses, governments, and other important people using it. Then, money comes from organizational licensing and support. We know that MS has lost some ground in that market with W8, so this could be the plan. It would make sense, wouldn't it? It's a strategy that can make people like them and in the long run keep them on top.
I don't have the answer to this question, but I really want to know it. It's not only a matter of wanting to see Microsoft do well enough to stick around, though that's part of it. They've also played a huge, awesome intrigue card.
I need evidence to support the assertion that I don't want to teach climate science, which isn't my field, to somebody who thinks the majority of work in the field is wrong? I couldn't teach algebra to you if you thought it's wrong. You'd just argue with me from the moment when I tell you what a variable is.
I need evidence to support that you're not a god? Really?
So, what you're saying is that it would take hundreds of thousands of dollars over several years for the opinion you want me to believe to be empirical. In other words, you just decided what you want to be true, and you expect nature to conform to that.
I didn't say that I'm not knowledgeable about it. I said that it's not my field. Your mechanic might actually know something about the law, but a mechanic still isn't an attorney. You could follow your own advice and not have an opinion on something you're not knowledgeable about.
I don't link to anything because I don't want to debate this with you. How could I possibly be more clear about that? And if you're not denying climate change then what are you getting at?
My argument is missing scientific thought and rhetoric because I do not want to be the one to explain scientific thought and rhetoric to you. If that's what you want then why are you pushing this "debate" on me when you could use the Internet that you're already on?
If all you want to say is that combating climate change should not be the top priority yet, then why don't you use that Internet you're on to check into whether we even CAN right now? Then, if you go back to the post you originally replied to, I think you might notice this time that I addressed what has to happen first. And the market will take care of that for us in these early stages.
We have a systematic bias in climate change research because nature is biased. Nature can not have two realities at once, above the Planck scale. Seriously, this is why I don't want to discuss the science with you. You present nonsense as if it means something, attack my words as if I've even debated with you at all, and try to discredit my saying that there's nothing to gain from this? Again, just what the hell do you think you have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing me about?
If you think the body of scientific work regarding climate change is wrong, then write down your findings, get it peer-reviewed, and get it published. Trying to convince me to listen to some random person on a forum over actual experts in the field isn't going to accomplish anything at all. Were I a particularly influential person, then I might even understand your trying, but I'm not; not even among my peers. I intentionally avoid being influential for now, and if ever I strive for that then it won't even be any field of climate science.
Now, if you want to debate neurophilosophy as it pertains to approaches in artificial intelligence, then there are a few topics I'm equipped for. Otherwise, maybe you should approach climate scientists to discuss climate science. That is, unless you're in the habit of going to your mechanic for legal advice, attorney for medical advice, and doctor to get your car fixed.
This isn't an ideological nor a religious belief. It's a matter of natural fact that is inconvenient for some people, so they've spent time trying to make it all not true. Every single influential paper to ever be published that concluded that there is no anthropocene it turned out was written by somebody paid to lie.
I don't have to justify anything to you, and I'm not talking about beliefs. This doesn't have anything to do with beliefs. You can't just believe hard enough and make reality as you want it to be. This isn't fairy land.
I'm trying really hard to be more polite to you than you deserve on this topic out of respect for this website and the other people on it. I'm also avoiding looking at your user name because the moment you deny climate change, you've basically made an announcement that you're either uninformed and gullible, a religious fanatic so zealous that you've decided not to participate in reality, simply stupid (which probably isn't the case), or you're a genuine psychopath.
Please. Every time the topic of climate change comes up, it's not an automatic invitation for you to recruit for your ignorant cause. It's not worth debating you about this because every time one of you comes out of the woodwork, it's the same old stupid arguments, the same debunked studies, and the same political baloney as if nature is beholden to what you think is convenient. You're not a god.
Furthermore, if you want to learn about climate change then there are better sources than me. There is nothing but a migraine for me to gain by discussing this further with you. There is nothing for you to gain because I don't have the patience to do this. Some people out there do, and they can do more for you than I can. So, there's no point in discussing this.
Nature is not beholden to what you want to be true. It's not beholden to what you think is economically necessary. It's not beholden to what you "believe". It is not beholden to what you think is politically convenient. It is not beholden to what some amoral sociopath was paid to repeat at you through your television. You're not a god, and you're not going to convince anybody.
Oh, so the National Weather Service will field and maintain its own weather satellites then, right? And the US Geological Survey will launch its own experiments to gather data too. Intelligence services enabled by space ventures will just need their own launch complexes. Pharmaceutical companies benefiting from research aboard the ISS can build their own space station. I could go on...
All those things pertain to matters on Earth, and you don't want NASA doing any of them. It COULDN'T be that, I don't know, you can see a lot of the Earth from orbit, can it? Maybe the Earth is part of space, almost like some kind of planet or something? Nah, couldn't be.
You're allowed to have your own interests, aesthetic preferences, lifestyle, and opinion. You are not allowed to have your own reality and were you a rational person then it might occur to you that when practically everybody on the planet treats people with your "different thinking" as if you're either insane or stupid, maybe you're wrong.
Or maybe you're just the kind of person who can't handle being told that they're wrong. Is that it? Do you think you're a god?
Or maybe you benefit from the status quo, in which case you could be a decent human being by being honest about it instead of spreading baloney to serve yourself. It's not as if this is easy stuff to solve.
Most of humanity does not agree with you, and most of humanity doesn't constantly have it on their mind because it's not constantly brought up or they can't constantly do something about it personally.
Please don't speak to me about this again in the future. I'm sure there's a kindergarten playground somewhere that you can use to soapbox on. While you're at it, preach about horoscopes and whatever other superstitions and nonsense fits with your "denier" mindset these days.
Learning mathematics actually restructures your brain. Programming involves math, but it's more natural because as much as we use math, we define our own in code. It's actually a great vehicle for studying mathematics. But more importantly, it teaches problem solving skills and solution modelling, and it trains the brain to think in terms of systems and separations of concerns.
That makes teaching criminals to program actually a great idea! We don't have to teach them how to do anything bad. There's no need to teach network code, nor how to mess with anything at the system level. Now think about the motivations and mentalities involved in criminality, especially among repeat offenders.
In programming, if they teach low enough level, there's a need to either do book keeping to maintain memory or a need to trust (and properly use) systems that do book keeping for you. Hey, just like managing money! There are rules that must be followed for code to work, consequently systems build upon code, and then that produces new rules that also must be followed. Just like society! What is the most overlooked cause of recidivism? Unemployable convicts. Programming can enable them to be self-starters who hire themselves, and they can start building their future products while they're locked up.
This couldn't possibly make more sense. The only argument I can see against it is that sociopaths infatuated with money might think people will go to prison just to learn to program or to develop software. I'd say that if somebody will do that, they'd go anyway.
Your argument about the resilience of flash only holds so long as we're opening and closing one app that writes one variable. Obviously, that's not what's going on here, and trying to quantify this for the average user requires data we don't have. But you could use my own argument to knock down the idea that keeping apps running helps save flash memory.
Just how many smartphone apps aren't loading data from the Internet anyway? Even apps that have nothing to do with online content are usually ad-enabled. So, how fast does flash die when your phone keeps several apps open and each is reading from some server so many times a minute? The point of saving the flash memory negates itself when we think about what these apps do, and we don't even need to grasp at a concrete quantification to see that.
Note that I'm not trying to defend nor condemn the design in question here. Aesthetically (at the very least), I'd prefer that apps actually exit when I close them. Also, we have to wonder how much of a motivation data collection is when it comes to keeping them open.
...such as why some people aren't allowed to post clothed, wholesome pictures of THEMSELVES without having it removed for being "unauthorized" or for "violating privacy".
Yeah, I don't think you're baiting anybody into that. Sorry. It's not worth wasting time on, but hey, you enjoy that flat earth and the rest of us will be over here in realityland.
If any variables are set at all in the program's initial load (and some almost certainly are), then yes, the flash memory is worn down. It has a finite number of writes.
There's actually a solution to this. If the OS tracks how often you kill an app within x minutes switching out, it can do it for you when it happens more than 50% of the time. But there are two problems with that.
The first problem is that application usage statistics is screwed from both ends by software patents to the point that nobody wants to touch it. So, yay innovation-killing shitpolicy once again! The other problem is that carriers and manufacturers like to customize Android with their custom bloatware that can't be turned off and then use it for God-knows-what. My first Android phone was on a Sprint contract, and just because I'm in the South they had some stupid Nascar baloney on it that couldn't be removed.
So, there ya go. It's either that the OS assumes everything or assumes nothing. No elegant solutions allowed, and no common sense solutions because math that has existed for more than a century is suddenly owned by the first jerk to loosely describe it in a code-like fashion and buy off the US patent office. If only that stupid binary could be toggled, right?
People tend to think that whatever industry puts food on their personal plate is the end all, be all snakeskin oil cure for everything and those who oppose them are wackos falling under the banner of some bastardized term. Usually when it threatens Joe Blow's money, the term is "leftists" or "liberals" or something, as if the very definition of liberalism is to oppose eating. Then while these people can't come up with any better an argument than that, they get angry because people don't just agree with them. The whole world revolves around Joe Blow.
But the truth of the matter is, industry will follow spending. So long as people buy fossil fuels, it won't matter who divests, what policies are passed, nor even whether climate change causes a population implosion. Some will just point to religion and say it was prophesied. But that has nothing to do with it either. When it comes down to it, the only thing decided by who holds the stock is who gets the dividends and the only thing keeping these industries around or tying our noose is us.
Of course, people don't want to believe that either. I think people just don't want to be personally responsible for anything larger than personal scale. No matter what side of the debate people are on (as if it's even a debate anymore), people in general get angry when facing the prospect that they might have to make a change rather than someone else. Those politicians, those wealthy people, those liberals, those conservatives, those scientists, those theists, whatever. It's all the same argument with the word soup stirred differently.
The only way to divert climate change without causing an economic catastrophe is to give people different options and then very gradually, carefully make those the only options, just like what's already happening. Those whose next umpteen generations are set for life due to fossil fuel empires will just become slightly more interested in banking, slightly more diverse in their portfolios, and will still run the show. Everything beyond that, from the petty ignoramus bait that is the climate change debate to complaints that NASA looks at the Earth too much (hey, at least conservatives support NASA now! woo-hoo!), to even this theater from the UN is just meant to keep us feeling like stuff is under control.
And it is. As much as it can be. Which is almost not at all. I mean... Gee, we sure should hope that next advancement we're betting on is one that actually happens or we'll be pretty embarrassed as the bottom falls out of everything eventually. Our faces would sure be red. Mostly from the sunburn, but you get it.
The big difference with those products is that they were designed that way *before* ISPs started being con artists over user bandwidth limits; something it's worth mentioning is potentially now illegal under the new FCC rules but probably one way or another won't change anyway. Because, you know, laws are for little people. Setting that aside...
Windows 8 takes its attitude regarding bandwidth *after* ISPs started their fraudulent price rigging. Where the other software is concerned, there's at least an excuse that since it was designed that way from the start, it's kind of locked in. They can patch in features to better control for that, but most probably won't bother. Meanwhile, new products will continue doing the same as always because, you know, everybody else is. I've actually had conversations with developers where they did everything to blow off concerns about this short of guessing my income and then making fun of me for it.
Meanwhile, these ISPs laugh all the way to the bank because that notion of property and boundaries is deteriorating. What? YOUR money? lmao, YOU don't have money! You just kind of hold it until somebody decides to take it, bitch. And that's the attitude we have levied against us now.
For the ISPs, it kind of makes sense. They make believe that there's a resource shortage, and then they get to charge us multiple times for the same service. They're not delivering any more than they ever did, and usage patterns aren't changing. They just kind of invented a way to stick their hands in our bank accounts and declare, "Gimme that," while getting away with it.
But for companies like Microsoft, and in general any developers making any kind of new product at all that doesn't explicitly depend upon the Internet (browsers and MMOs are, obviously, immune), this doesn't make sense. The fractions of a penny they gain in targeted ad revenue or selling our data won't compensate for the customers they lose when ISPs push just a little bit further and start breaking the camel's back.
And that's the smart bet. There's a good reason why increasingly many developers want to make sure that their software runs on Linux. It's kind of hard for free (as in beer or freedom) software to make their customers feel like branded cattle because they don't have customers. That goes even if the resulting feeling derives not from developers' direct actions but their actions in tandem with ISPs, as if they don't know what they're doing. We know they do.
The impending backlash will start with the poorest people, of course. When people start having to choose between having heat/air conditioning or having Internet, all those hard-earned gains in technological adaptation will be right out the window. Decades of work pissed away so that a few ISPs can get a little boost and big data can continue to try and fail to guess everything about us through surreptitious eavesdropping when they could, I don't know, ASK US. I'd love to just volunteer the categories of ads that would be useful to me instead. Gee. Guess they didn't think of that. And with all this data collection, they still suck at targeted advertising.
Metering our own connections would be slitting our own throats, by the way, because the next step would be metered billing because, "See? They run their own meters!" Except we'd be billed according to unverifiable meters at the ISP that could be any kind of inaccurate, with no recourse available to us. We're halfway there already.
The great change of the next generation will be that smartphones go in the trash if this keeps up. But that's the boomer way. Stand upon what others built, and destroy it for profit. We should just start calling them Vandals.
Slashdot Mirror
Had they said nothing up until the moment of an actual announcement, we'd all have laughed out loud (spelled out because many of us literally would) at ourselves for not seeing it coming.
It became too late to become an ethical hacker when the FBI started bullying people into working for them. "Here, come disrupt your life no matter the consequences to you or your family, or we'll destroy your life." Screw that. Some fields can't pay enough to be worth their risk. When story after story about the people who can hack involve their being bullied by their government, it's just not worth it to learn those skills.
Or at least this is my impression. If I'm wrong, then it might help if electronic security were further legitimized at the academic level. We haven't had an overhaul of related academic majors in too long. You can study "Information Technology," which boils down to how to connect routers and work spreadsheets, or you can study Computer Science, which these days boils down to a practical approach to calculus and a primer to teach yourself how to actually produce software. But the shortcomings of this academic template aren't going to matter until the PhDs making money on it speak up.
I start with your attitude about evidence, at least so far as what you say here; not with evidence itself. Skeptics and lukewarmers aren't formally studying the field. There's a big difference between having an interest in a topic and busting your ass to really learn it.
Doctors don't advise people to know the facts before they commit. They advise people to get a second opinion. There's nothing wrong with reading up about what your doctor tells you, but a medical doctor will never advise people to sit at home and try to diagnose themselves. The things you mention come after the visit to the doctor.
Medical doctors, in fact, give great advice about how to study science at the layperson level. Read the findings of an expert, and then augment that by reading up on the tangents. Do the same for the next expert, and so on.
Medical doctors will never advise people to go to an online forum to discuss their symptoms. What can come of that? Joe Blow somewhere thinks they know what's wrong with you?
You don't have to agree with the experts. Nature will not be changed by that, but you're free to think whatever you want. You don't even have to respect the experts. You don't know those people! But it's an honorable thing to respect hard work, and actual climate scientists have worked hard to earn a voice on this topic. They've worked damn hard, giving up years to decades of their lives for it, and have one way or another spent a ton of money doing so. Give them a chance to make their case themselves.
If they start doing Office and professional services (Azure, etc) by tiered subscription, then that would actually work! But we're still talking niche markets; developers and students, professionals. I get the feeling there's going to be a new product that we don't know about yet. Something with very wide appeal.
Okay, here's my evidence that I don't want to teach climate science, which isn't my field, to somebody who thinks the majority of the work in the field is wrong. Are you ready for it? I don't want to teach climate science, which isn't my field, to somebody who thinks the majority of the work in the field is wrong. There you go.
You're basically trying to turing test me. Stop it.
Which assertion? You're arguing with me whether I want to discuss the topic with you. Clearly, you'll argue anything. Let me know when you figure out a way to prove to me what I want better than I can decide for myself.
You're right. They don't work for free. But you post for free. So, which conclusions are worth more, even in the literal sense? Your free posts, or their expensive research?
I don't have to provide evidence to you that I'm knowledgeable. I need only defer you to the experts. You should take their findings over my words anyway. It's not my field. And I'm starting to think you don't really have a firm grasp of what that means. Would you press me so hard for medical or legal advice?
I applaud your empirical ethic! But what you're not accepting is that you're looking for evidence in the wrong place. I'll read the evidence myself, and make up my own mind, and you should do the same. Similarly, if I go to the doctor, I'll trust the person who busted their ass for a decade plus some odd years, did some years in residency, and then practiced for some years to decades.
In both cases, I won't trust some random person on a forum over the people who have invested their lives in the topic. In both cases, if somebody on a forum tries to debate the facts with me, I should defer them to the experts. Climate change, like medicine, is serious enough a topic that it's above this level of discourse. That would be true even if you were correct.
Attempt 3 to make this brief.
The Linux community is amazing, but Windows is tried by fire. Black hats have more motivation to target Windows because it's the predominant consumer operating system, and vulnerabilities can only be patched at a rate less than or equal to the rate at which they are found. Windows has held that status for a long time now, giving it a head start.
The NSA does not set their priorities like black hats do; they're after intel rather than grandma's pension or little Billy's passwords. If we assume that the NSA studies Linux with veracity equal to Windows, then they know about exploits that black hats wouldn't find for years to come if Linux and Windows swapped places in the market.
On the other hand, it's impossible to know the extent to which Microsoft cooperates with the NSA. Paranoia where that's concerned is not constructive, but that doesn't mean we have to blindly trust either. It's okay to say that we don't know (though people hate to do that). However, this remains true for teams developing Linux distros.
I can't find where the Linux developers and Windows developers aren't one-to-one in traits relevant to this topic aside from the security head start that Windows has, which in turn means that Linux is a softer target. The only argument I can come up with to tell myself that I'm wrong, stupid, and my opinion is yucky is that we could just blindly trust Linux developers to know what they don't know. That's just silly, even if they're damn fine examples of technically proficient people.
I mean this to be a neutral comment; neither pro nor anti Microsoft. Basically, they're going to give away the latest version of Windows for free. But they're also an enormous business, and let's face it, they have bills. Employees to pay, lights to keep on, penguin cages to clean. So, people get on Windows 10, and then maybe send data that helps with advertising, and maybe buy stuff from the Windows store.
There are two other possibilities. The less popular thing to suggest will be that Windows 10 isn't exactly the most private thing. Don't beat me up! I'm not saying it's that way; only that it's within the great wide world of possibility that it's that way. It's also within the great wide world of possibility that we'll all have flying cars next year, so there are degrees of likeliness and truth. Our flying cars next year could be RC and have a max altitude of three inches. It doesn't say much for something to simply be possible, but this isn't a possibility we'll analyze much unless we end up with reason to.
The other possibility is that Windows 10 users will be an enormous testing pool that will help perfect the operating system to get businesses, governments, and other important people using it. Then, money comes from organizational licensing and support. We know that MS has lost some ground in that market with W8, so this could be the plan. It would make sense, wouldn't it? It's a strategy that can make people like them and in the long run keep them on top.
I don't have the answer to this question, but I really want to know it. It's not only a matter of wanting to see Microsoft do well enough to stick around, though that's part of it. They've also played a huge, awesome intrigue card.
I need evidence to support the assertion that I don't want to teach climate science, which isn't my field, to somebody who thinks the majority of work in the field is wrong? I couldn't teach algebra to you if you thought it's wrong. You'd just argue with me from the moment when I tell you what a variable is.
I need evidence to support that you're not a god? Really?
So, what you're saying is that it would take hundreds of thousands of dollars over several years for the opinion you want me to believe to be empirical. In other words, you just decided what you want to be true, and you expect nature to conform to that.
I didn't say that I'm not knowledgeable about it. I said that it's not my field. Your mechanic might actually know something about the law, but a mechanic still isn't an attorney. You could follow your own advice and not have an opinion on something you're not knowledgeable about.
I don't link to anything because I don't want to debate this with you. How could I possibly be more clear about that? And if you're not denying climate change then what are you getting at?
My argument is missing scientific thought and rhetoric because I do not want to be the one to explain scientific thought and rhetoric to you. If that's what you want then why are you pushing this "debate" on me when you could use the Internet that you're already on?
If all you want to say is that combating climate change should not be the top priority yet, then why don't you use that Internet you're on to check into whether we even CAN right now? Then, if you go back to the post you originally replied to, I think you might notice this time that I addressed what has to happen first. And the market will take care of that for us in these early stages.
We have a systematic bias in climate change research because nature is biased. Nature can not have two realities at once, above the Planck scale. Seriously, this is why I don't want to discuss the science with you. You present nonsense as if it means something, attack my words as if I've even debated with you at all, and try to discredit my saying that there's nothing to gain from this? Again, just what the hell do you think you have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing me about?
If you think the body of scientific work regarding climate change is wrong, then write down your findings, get it peer-reviewed, and get it published. Trying to convince me to listen to some random person on a forum over actual experts in the field isn't going to accomplish anything at all. Were I a particularly influential person, then I might even understand your trying, but I'm not; not even among my peers. I intentionally avoid being influential for now, and if ever I strive for that then it won't even be any field of climate science.
Now, if you want to debate neurophilosophy as it pertains to approaches in artificial intelligence, then there are a few topics I'm equipped for. Otherwise, maybe you should approach climate scientists to discuss climate science. That is, unless you're in the habit of going to your mechanic for legal advice, attorney for medical advice, and doctor to get your car fixed.
This isn't an ideological nor a religious belief. It's a matter of natural fact that is inconvenient for some people, so they've spent time trying to make it all not true. Every single influential paper to ever be published that concluded that there is no anthropocene it turned out was written by somebody paid to lie.
I don't have to justify anything to you, and I'm not talking about beliefs. This doesn't have anything to do with beliefs. You can't just believe hard enough and make reality as you want it to be. This isn't fairy land.
I'm trying really hard to be more polite to you than you deserve on this topic out of respect for this website and the other people on it. I'm also avoiding looking at your user name because the moment you deny climate change, you've basically made an announcement that you're either uninformed and gullible, a religious fanatic so zealous that you've decided not to participate in reality, simply stupid (which probably isn't the case), or you're a genuine psychopath.
Please. Every time the topic of climate change comes up, it's not an automatic invitation for you to recruit for your ignorant cause. It's not worth debating you about this because every time one of you comes out of the woodwork, it's the same old stupid arguments, the same debunked studies, and the same political baloney as if nature is beholden to what you think is convenient. You're not a god.
Furthermore, if you want to learn about climate change then there are better sources than me. There is nothing but a migraine for me to gain by discussing this further with you. There is nothing for you to gain because I don't have the patience to do this. Some people out there do, and they can do more for you than I can. So, there's no point in discussing this.
Nature is not beholden to what you want to be true. It's not beholden to what you think is economically necessary. It's not beholden to what you "believe". It is not beholden to what you think is politically convenient. It is not beholden to what some amoral sociopath was paid to repeat at you through your television. You're not a god, and you're not going to convince anybody.
That's actually a pretty damn good idea.
Oh, so the National Weather Service will field and maintain its own weather satellites then, right? And the US Geological Survey will launch its own experiments to gather data too. Intelligence services enabled by space ventures will just need their own launch complexes. Pharmaceutical companies benefiting from research aboard the ISS can build their own space station. I could go on...
All those things pertain to matters on Earth, and you don't want NASA doing any of them. It COULDN'T be that, I don't know, you can see a lot of the Earth from orbit, can it? Maybe the Earth is part of space, almost like some kind of planet or something? Nah, couldn't be.
You're allowed to have your own interests, aesthetic preferences, lifestyle, and opinion. You are not allowed to have your own reality and were you a rational person then it might occur to you that when practically everybody on the planet treats people with your "different thinking" as if you're either insane or stupid, maybe you're wrong.
Or maybe you're just the kind of person who can't handle being told that they're wrong. Is that it? Do you think you're a god?
Or maybe you benefit from the status quo, in which case you could be a decent human being by being honest about it instead of spreading baloney to serve yourself. It's not as if this is easy stuff to solve.
Most of humanity does not agree with you, and most of humanity doesn't constantly have it on their mind because it's not constantly brought up or they can't constantly do something about it personally.
Please don't speak to me about this again in the future. I'm sure there's a kindergarten playground somewhere that you can use to soapbox on. While you're at it, preach about horoscopes and whatever other superstitions and nonsense fits with your "denier" mindset these days.
Learning mathematics actually restructures your brain. Programming involves math, but it's more natural because as much as we use math, we define our own in code. It's actually a great vehicle for studying mathematics. But more importantly, it teaches problem solving skills and solution modelling, and it trains the brain to think in terms of systems and separations of concerns.
That makes teaching criminals to program actually a great idea! We don't have to teach them how to do anything bad. There's no need to teach network code, nor how to mess with anything at the system level. Now think about the motivations and mentalities involved in criminality, especially among repeat offenders.
In programming, if they teach low enough level, there's a need to either do book keeping to maintain memory or a need to trust (and properly use) systems that do book keeping for you. Hey, just like managing money! There are rules that must be followed for code to work, consequently systems build upon code, and then that produces new rules that also must be followed. Just like society! What is the most overlooked cause of recidivism? Unemployable convicts. Programming can enable them to be self-starters who hire themselves, and they can start building their future products while they're locked up.
This couldn't possibly make more sense. The only argument I can see against it is that sociopaths infatuated with money might think people will go to prison just to learn to program or to develop software. I'd say that if somebody will do that, they'd go anyway.
Your argument about the resilience of flash only holds so long as we're opening and closing one app that writes one variable. Obviously, that's not what's going on here, and trying to quantify this for the average user requires data we don't have. But you could use my own argument to knock down the idea that keeping apps running helps save flash memory.
Just how many smartphone apps aren't loading data from the Internet anyway? Even apps that have nothing to do with online content are usually ad-enabled. So, how fast does flash die when your phone keeps several apps open and each is reading from some server so many times a minute? The point of saving the flash memory negates itself when we think about what these apps do, and we don't even need to grasp at a concrete quantification to see that.
Note that I'm not trying to defend nor condemn the design in question here. Aesthetically (at the very least), I'd prefer that apps actually exit when I close them. Also, we have to wonder how much of a motivation data collection is when it comes to keeping them open.
What? Then rental cars? We don't plan on using them either now.
...such as why some people aren't allowed to post clothed, wholesome pictures of THEMSELVES without having it removed for being "unauthorized" or for "violating privacy".
200 mb? Seriously? How do you do anything?
But yeah, let's wait until you're personally losing hundreds of dollars a month before we think about changing this.
Okay, I gotcha. Usually when we say "per capita," we mean "per x capita". In the case of Sweden's researchers, it's per million capita.
Yeah, I don't think you're baiting anybody into that. Sorry. It's not worth wasting time on, but hey, you enjoy that flat earth and the rest of us will be over here in realityland.
If any variables are set at all in the program's initial load (and some almost certainly are), then yes, the flash memory is worn down. It has a finite number of writes.
There's actually a solution to this. If the OS tracks how often you kill an app within x minutes switching out, it can do it for you when it happens more than 50% of the time. But there are two problems with that.
The first problem is that application usage statistics is screwed from both ends by software patents to the point that nobody wants to touch it. So, yay innovation-killing shitpolicy once again! The other problem is that carriers and manufacturers like to customize Android with their custom bloatware that can't be turned off and then use it for God-knows-what. My first Android phone was on a Sprint contract, and just because I'm in the South they had some stupid Nascar baloney on it that couldn't be removed.
So, there ya go. It's either that the OS assumes everything or assumes nothing. No elegant solutions allowed, and no common sense solutions because math that has existed for more than a century is suddenly owned by the first jerk to loosely describe it in a code-like fashion and buy off the US patent office. If only that stupid binary could be toggled, right?
People tend to think that whatever industry puts food on their personal plate is the end all, be all snakeskin oil cure for everything and those who oppose them are wackos falling under the banner of some bastardized term. Usually when it threatens Joe Blow's money, the term is "leftists" or "liberals" or something, as if the very definition of liberalism is to oppose eating. Then while these people can't come up with any better an argument than that, they get angry because people don't just agree with them. The whole world revolves around Joe Blow.
But the truth of the matter is, industry will follow spending. So long as people buy fossil fuels, it won't matter who divests, what policies are passed, nor even whether climate change causes a population implosion. Some will just point to religion and say it was prophesied. But that has nothing to do with it either. When it comes down to it, the only thing decided by who holds the stock is who gets the dividends and the only thing keeping these industries around or tying our noose is us.
Of course, people don't want to believe that either. I think people just don't want to be personally responsible for anything larger than personal scale. No matter what side of the debate people are on (as if it's even a debate anymore), people in general get angry when facing the prospect that they might have to make a change rather than someone else. Those politicians, those wealthy people, those liberals, those conservatives, those scientists, those theists, whatever. It's all the same argument with the word soup stirred differently.
The only way to divert climate change without causing an economic catastrophe is to give people different options and then very gradually, carefully make those the only options, just like what's already happening. Those whose next umpteen generations are set for life due to fossil fuel empires will just become slightly more interested in banking, slightly more diverse in their portfolios, and will still run the show. Everything beyond that, from the petty ignoramus bait that is the climate change debate to complaints that NASA looks at the Earth too much (hey, at least conservatives support NASA now! woo-hoo!), to even this theater from the UN is just meant to keep us feeling like stuff is under control.
And it is. As much as it can be. Which is almost not at all. I mean... Gee, we sure should hope that next advancement we're betting on is one that actually happens or we'll be pretty embarrassed as the bottom falls out of everything eventually. Our faces would sure be red. Mostly from the sunburn, but you get it.
The big difference with those products is that they were designed that way *before* ISPs started being con artists over user bandwidth limits; something it's worth mentioning is potentially now illegal under the new FCC rules but probably one way or another won't change anyway. Because, you know, laws are for little people. Setting that aside...
Windows 8 takes its attitude regarding bandwidth *after* ISPs started their fraudulent price rigging. Where the other software is concerned, there's at least an excuse that since it was designed that way from the start, it's kind of locked in. They can patch in features to better control for that, but most probably won't bother. Meanwhile, new products will continue doing the same as always because, you know, everybody else is. I've actually had conversations with developers where they did everything to blow off concerns about this short of guessing my income and then making fun of me for it.
Meanwhile, these ISPs laugh all the way to the bank because that notion of property and boundaries is deteriorating. What? YOUR money? lmao, YOU don't have money! You just kind of hold it until somebody decides to take it, bitch. And that's the attitude we have levied against us now.
For the ISPs, it kind of makes sense. They make believe that there's a resource shortage, and then they get to charge us multiple times for the same service. They're not delivering any more than they ever did, and usage patterns aren't changing. They just kind of invented a way to stick their hands in our bank accounts and declare, "Gimme that," while getting away with it.
But for companies like Microsoft, and in general any developers making any kind of new product at all that doesn't explicitly depend upon the Internet (browsers and MMOs are, obviously, immune), this doesn't make sense. The fractions of a penny they gain in targeted ad revenue or selling our data won't compensate for the customers they lose when ISPs push just a little bit further and start breaking the camel's back.
And that's the smart bet. There's a good reason why increasingly many developers want to make sure that their software runs on Linux. It's kind of hard for free (as in beer or freedom) software to make their customers feel like branded cattle because they don't have customers. That goes even if the resulting feeling derives not from developers' direct actions but their actions in tandem with ISPs, as if they don't know what they're doing. We know they do.
The impending backlash will start with the poorest people, of course. When people start having to choose between having heat/air conditioning or having Internet, all those hard-earned gains in technological adaptation will be right out the window. Decades of work pissed away so that a few ISPs can get a little boost and big data can continue to try and fail to guess everything about us through surreptitious eavesdropping when they could, I don't know, ASK US. I'd love to just volunteer the categories of ads that would be useful to me instead. Gee. Guess they didn't think of that. And with all this data collection, they still suck at targeted advertising.
Metering our own connections would be slitting our own throats, by the way, because the next step would be metered billing because, "See? They run their own meters!" Except we'd be billed according to unverifiable meters at the ISP that could be any kind of inaccurate, with no recourse available to us. We're halfway there already.
The great change of the next generation will be that smartphones go in the trash if this keeps up. But that's the boomer way. Stand upon what others built, and destroy it for profit. We should just start calling them Vandals.