Participation rates were far lower before women started to work, but then again the economy was much smaller then as well. We are currently looking at participation rates as low as the mid 1980's.
No, the reason the labor participation rate is low is because baby boomers are retiring. This was predicted 40 years ago. Enough with the doom and bloom and rhetoric.
The labor participation rate I see most often used is restricted to only looking at age 25 to 54. This is specifically to remove students and retirees from the count. And this participation rate is dropping since its two local peaks in 2000 and 2008. At its high it was about 84%, while it is at 80% now. More importantly, it has been steadily dropping since 2008 with no sign of leveling off.
I think your comments are right in line with the post you responded to. You are claiming that dealing with requirements will keep humans employed, and he was saying how better technology has reduced his job to mostly dealing with requirements.
I learned to program in 4th grade, and yes the INPUT, PRINT and IF THEN ELSE statements made up the first tutorial I went through. But as soon as I got to the section of the tutorial on PSET, LINE, etc. is when I really got interested.
I may have eventually had fun writing MUD-like text based games, I first got hooked writing games like Tic-Tac-Toe and space invaders.
So, how does that work out for you during in climate weather? I'm led to believe that in the Chicago area, winters can be pretty long and harsh. You go around walking in that type of frigid, windy weather? What about heavy rainy days or high humidity days (more of what I get here in New Orleans)?
Honestly, I stay home when the weather is horrible. The only place I can think of that I would always want adequate parking for is my supermarket, which is also one of the only places I would travel to in really bad weather. Supermarkets are rarely in a downtown area, at least in the suburbs I know of, often because they require so much parking.
As for days that are simply cold and windy, just wear clothes meant for that weather.
If you're a fast runner 20 minutes will get you almost anywhere within the Evanston, IL city limits. But it just isn't possible in 99.9% of the rest of the country that doesn't have major rail lines and multiple bus lines. I live in a Metropolitan area of 300k people and it's a 3 mile walk just to the nearest bus stop.
I think you missed the part where they said Evanston has been "pouring resources into increasing the density of its downtown." This is the result of those efforts.
It seems reasonable that any city could be made more walking friendly by increasing the density of business and residential areas and decreasing the number of roads and especially parking available. When I travel to Evanston, I always end up parking on the outskirts and walking everywhere I go. When I travel to most other suburbs around Chicago, I drive separately to each destination.
The other thing I like about Evanston is there downtown area actually has more name brand stores to go along with their mom and pop stores. The lack of stores I would actually shop at is a big reason I stay away from most downtown areas.
Nothing can replace the wisdom or common sense of a discerning and skeptical human being.
Skeptical and discerning humans did not solve this problem. They were simply following orders, and their orders were not to fire missiles unless they were at DEFCON 1. Based on this story, they most certainly would have launched if they were at DEFCON 1.
The only real tragedy that almost happened was one lieutenant who was going to fire his missiles even though they were not at DEFCON 1. If this tragedy had happened, it would have been because the process was not automated enough.
it makes me glad (as General Baringer would say) that our boys were in those silos, instead of a computer.
If this story is true, it is an example of a tragedy that would have only happened because humans were in control instead of computers. There was no order to move to DEFCON 1, so the computer would never have launched the missiles. The human operators in this case did just what a computer would have done (not launch), except for one lieutenant. It is this single human officer who allegedly almost launched his nukes.
I'm not saying we should remove humans from launch command, but if this story is true it is an argument against having humans in the loop, not the other way around.
yep. Life is hard. It's even harder when you're stupid. However, I do not want to clean up code of diversity hires just because because some idiot SJW thinks the percentage of people in any given field needs to match the population.
And I no longer want to clean up code written by those in more privileged demographics who were only hired because many people with more ability were not given similar opportunity to become skilled in software development. The more skilled developers I can choose from while hiring my coworkers the better my life will be.
So, don't get a job like that, and the problem is solved, right? Nope. Next time I go to apply for a job, the shithead HR drone will look at my work history and say "Wow, he's been a senior dev for twelve years. Why hasn't he gotten a lead or manager job? Must be something wrong with him."
Almost no one is going to think that from looking at a resume. Many companies don't have a distinction between Senior Developer and Lead Developer, so no one will hold that against you. They will look at your list of accomplishments under the job title to determine capabilities, not your job title.
Once they talk to you in person, then your lack of managerial accomplishments may count against you. But this is only if your employer wants someone who can help manage / mentor other developers or who can grow into that role. This may be the vast majorities of employers, but they should not be expected to craft their job openings based on the type of work you like to do. It would be no different than hating an employer who requires Javascript knowledge for their senior web developer because you prefer to write code in the back end.
Most employers are rightfully learning that writing code is not a skill that requires an in-house developer. If that is all you need then just outsource it. Most employers want people who can both write code and interface with stakeholders and coworkers. Soft skills are almost the only skills that separate a $100/hr developer in the US from a $5/hr developer in the developing world. There are some skill-sets which are so rare that soft skills are easily overlooked, like compiler development, but for the vast majority of developers it is their soft skills that make them valuable.
What strawman argument did he make? Do you know what a strawman is? No it doesn't scare scarecrows.
He created an argument that does not exist so he can refute it. This defines a straw man argument.
His straw man claim was there are people promoting diversity for diversity's sake. This explicitly claims the advocates of these programs have no reason to increase diversity other than simply to improve the statistics. No one actually makes this claim. Everyone advocating these programs give reasons why improving diversity in STEM improves the STEM fields in some way.
You can try to refute arguments made by these groups as to why diversity is beneficial without resorting to straw man tactics.
Name one good reason we need to "target" anybody. If people don't want to work in a field then that's their decision.
Is your contention that grade school and high school students make perfectly rational decisions regarding their educational goals and career choices? Perhaps that is a strawman argument, but at least you are suggesting that adults are unable to assist these students in making educational and career choices that will improve their quality of life. I hope most people do not hold your opinion though, because I think students need considerable guidance when making decisions which may not impact their life significantly for at least a decade.
Diversity for its own sake doesn't help anybody, so stop pretending that it's a goal worth chasing.
How about we stop pretending anyone is arguing for diversity for diversity's sake? There are people arguing that certain demographics have a harder time realizing their full potential than others. And they believe these difficulties are significantly worsened by social and economic factors, not simply genetics. This is the argument you should either oppose or accept, not the straw man you have built up.
This is as dumb as saying that we need more white rappers so let's target white people somehow.
You are at least correct in your implication that there are many career choices where no one is fighting for more equality (or at least almost no one). But this is primarily because not all careers have the same beneficial impact on society and the economy. STEM jobs have been the fuel for the modern economy for arguably two centuries. It is therefore reasonable that these careers would be the focus of programs to increase the workforce pipeline by improving opportunities for more marginalized groups.
It's a normal policy here in Canada but I don't know anyone that abuses it like this individual. At a lot of stores (other than the biggest) there's a 10-15% restocking fee to discourage this type of behaviour.
Abusing what? The Microsoft store rep is the one who suggested it when I couldn't bring myself to purchase the Surface Book. Its a win win for everyone. Restocking fees are for companies who actively discourage returns, but want to still provide the option to lessen the blow-back from irate customers. Microsoft is not taking that approach.
Abusing the system would be trying to buy a Surface Pro 4 every month, returning it at the end of the month, and buying a new one the same day.
A 30 day return policy is not required, but it is the norm for companies in the US to have a lax return policy. The existence of these policies help entice consumers to consume more, because they don't have to be 100% sure of their purchase before making it. It is similar to having a bankruptcy system, where people are more willing to take on debt as long as it won't result in a lifetime of debt if they fall on tough times.
I for one would never buy the first version of the Surface Book if I couldn't try it out. I have more confidence in the Surface Pro 4 since the last version was well received by users. In my opinion this is the reason why a lax return policy is a good idea for companies and consumers, since they now have the strong possibility to make an extra $400 from me. At worst they risk losing $100-$200 from selling a slightly damaged returned product, but most likely that wouldn't be the case.
It is common for products you buy to have been returned by another customer, although the vast majority (well over 90% I assume) of new products have never been returned. If there are any visible defects, such as scratches, it will likely be labelled as refurbished and sold for $100 less. Clothing generally cannot be returned if it has been worn (other than trying it on of course), but the retail workers can sometimes be fooled.
Even if many people buy things with the intention of returning it, most people end of forgetting to return the product. For the same reason people keep gym memberships for years just because they won't make the call to cancel.
I have also never gotten a digital product with data on it. It is so easy to wipe these devices. Maybe a digital forensic expert could find some data, but I sure couldn't.
Very few developers need more than 16 GB RAM or a 1 TB SSD. Also very few need a processor faster than an i5-6300U.
If, by 'developers' you mean 'people writing Javascript web crap for some social media startup', yes.
I only have 16GB of RAM and 12 cores on my development machine, and it's trivially easy to exceed both when writing real code that does real work in the real world.
You need to grow up. There is plenty of real code doing real work in the real world that is not resource intensive. In fact almost all of it. Not everyone is writing the next great 3d game engine or supercomputer modeling software. Even most resource intensive software today is written to be scaled out on commodity hardware, so most development and testing can still be done on modest machines.
If you have trouble developing with 16 GB of RAM and 12 cores, you are either very bad at your job or you have an incredibly rare workload for a professional developer. Although I do agree it is trivially easy to exceed 16 GB of RAM and 12 cores on many development tasks. Writing efficient and scalable code is hard.
We bought two Surface 3's for our sales guys. The hardware is good but not great. [...] What surprises me, is whenever a surface is discussed, it is like an Angel of God descended. Is the hardware really that good, or is MS upping their shill budget?
Well I for one am a user who skipped the Surface Pro 3 because I didn't think the hardware such as keyboard as dock was quite up to snuff, but am finally convinced with the Surface Pro 4 and Surface Book. I pre-ordered both and will return one (or both) within the 30 day window. I think the Surface Pro 3 was really close, but really close isn't nearly good enough for continued professional use. After using the Surface Pro 4 and Book briefly in the Microsoft store, I am very impressed with the new keyboards and the new docking mechanism.
I could very well return both devices within a month if they aren't good enough though.
1. Developers would rather have lots of RAM and disk space, they can have those systems with better CPU for far less than what this thing costs
Very few developers need more than 16 GB RAM or a 1 TB SSD. Also very few need a processor faster than an i5-6300U. I currently develop on an i5-4300U with 8 GB RAM and a 256 GB SSD, and never feel it is insufficient.
The extra cost is trivial for any professional use. If there is even a slight need for a touch screen for things like notes taking or drawing diagrams / UI mock-ups, then a few hundred dollars amortized over 2-3 years of use is virtually nothing. $500 of extra up-front cost comes to $20 per month even if you replace your machine every two years, or approximately 0.2% of the labor cost of a decent developer.
2. Obviously not for gamers, the system does not have powerful GPU
This is mostly true, as you aren't going to play Witcher 3 on either of these machines. But you could play plenty of casual games or even many non-cutting edge games. I assume playing Civ 5, for instance, would be fine on the Surface Book with a discrete video card.
3. Regular users now are moving away from laptop
... to devices like this. I am finally making the move from a laptop & tablet to a 2-1 when my Surface arrives next week. I will still have a desktop at home for gaming purposes, but everything but the video card is from 2011 since there is rarely a need to upgrade anything else now a days.
So, you're saying spending two hours a day doing some solo activity is better than spending 1 hour per day driving and 1 hour with my family? No wonder the world is so fucked. You're actually numb to the idea that maximising ones time with ones family is a good thing, and you'd rather maximise your "productive" time which really isn't.
Maximizing your productive time during your time away from family allows for more time with family. The decision to use this saved time to work longer is a completely separate decision from trying to save the time in the first place.
I still not get Microsoft's idea on a tablet. Most programs you need are Desktop version only. So you end up using your 'tablet' as a laptop. So why go through all the extra costs in development to make a laptop that can remove the keyboard, instead of just build a cheaper and nice to use tablet? Why do they build such an expensive netbook with a bad keyboard?
1) Some users don't want to carry around two devices. A Macbook Pro + iPad Air 2 weigh 6.6 pounds. A Surface Book weighs 3.34 pounds, essentially half the weight. With only one device you also don't always have to carry a case that can hold both. You can just carry the device alone.
2) Some users (like me) have gotten so used to touch screens that exclusively using a track pad on their laptop is a horrible experience. Although I concede I may be a minority with this gripe, I simply hate a laptop experience without a touch screen now.
3) It is far cheaper to have one device than two. A laptop of the same quality as the Surface Pro would only cost a few hundred less, if that, and a high quality tablet costs twice that difference. Buying one device likely saves around $500.
4) As far as tablets go, the Surface Book may be the best one yet. It has a large screen but is very light without the keyboard (about the same as the original iPad). It has a great stylus. It isn't as good for casual gaming as an iPad, but it can potentially play PC / XBox quality games. There are clearly pros and cons for every electronic device, but the Surface Book (and Surface Pro 4) have a lot in the pros category.
There clearly are budget laptops and tablets that make the Surface products seem expensive. But they don't hold a candle to the Surface, or the Apple products that are its true competitors.
Or you could buy an HP EliteOne 800 G1 (Core i7, 1TB, 3.2 GHz, 8 GB RAM) for about $1,400 per unit...
You do realize that is a desktop machine, not a laptop or tablet, right? The processor in that machine uses four times the power of the processor in the Surface Book. You might as well compare an iPod to the Surface Book.
Microsoft's 1TB Surface Book will cost you $3199 (plus tax)... who is going to fork over ~$3,500 for a tablet?
The same people whose desktop has 2 30"+ 4k monitors, who drive a Tesla, and who live in a $600k+ house. No one who is budget conscious would buy it, but no one like that would buy the $10,000 Apple watch either. Yet these products still exist because some people out there don't care what they cost.
And if you really had a need for a 1TB hard drive on a mobile device, and a spinning disk would be too slow, its not like you are spending that much more when ammortized over the life of the device. Even if you only use it for two years, that is $60 per month more than a more reasonable $2k device. Its hard to even buy a dinner for two at Outback Steakhouse for that amount of money. Its also less than many peoples' monthly Starbucks habit.
The notion of ceding control of something as fundamental to life as growing and hunting the food to feed my family to a big, opaque corporation - people are not comfortable with that.
And look how well that has worked out. High levels of obesity and diabetes. Cancer causing additives. Melamine in baby formula. Etc. Etc.
Which just goes towards proving my point. If we are willing to live with these downsides when it comes to the food we put in our body, we will put up with a lot worse when it comes to what drives us around.
I don't know many people who ARE comfortable with that, actually.
If the ratio of people who only buy food from local farm stands is similar to the ratio of people who will not use autonomous cars, then I think almost all cars will become autonomous. Once the technology is worked out, that is.
“The notion of ceding control of something as fundamental to life as driving to a big, opaque corporation - people are not comfortable with that,” -- David Mindell
I'm not sure I agree with that. Sounds similar to someone 150 years ago saying "The notion of ceding control of something as fundamental to life as growing and hunting the food to feed my family to a big, opaque corporation - people are not comfortable with that".
People get comfortable with a great number of things if you make their life significantly better even while asking them to give up a little control.
Here is another way of putting it. There was a moment when computers could beat the best humans at checkers, and a moment when computers could beat the best humans at chess. The difference from a practical sense is small; computers can beat humans at one more game. But from a scientific standpoint, it took exponentially more computing power and algorithmic advances.
The iPhone, for example, is very nifty but doesn't represent much progress over the personal computer
I think this statement doesn't give mobile technology enough credit. My father never had a use for computers at all until his mobile phone. Sure he owned a personal computer, and tried to find reasons to use it for two decades, but he never really did. Now he finds uses for it every day, and that doesn't count social media. My dad is not alone.
Personal assistants on our mobile devices will make computers far more useful to regular people than computers have been for the past 30 years (other than work-related uses). Speech recognition will give way to direct communication with our brains. Computers themselves will not be much different than those developed in the last century, but in practice it will open up a whole new world of applications.
Physical limitations usually give way to entire new ways of thinking about problems. Limits of vacuum tubes did not impede development of computers. Limitations of silicon will be solved by the next discovery just like transistors solved the limitations of vacuum tubes. While its true sometimes we will not solve these problems, it is not very likely any time people can make money from solving the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
The labor participation rate for 25-54 is 80% and is at historical highs. Stop lying. If you dont believe me, go look it up.
You know what it was in 1950? 65%
You doom and gloomers are all alike. Liars
Source
Participation rates were far lower before women started to work, but then again the economy was much smaller then as well. We are currently looking at participation rates as low as the mid 1980's.
No, the reason the labor participation rate is low is because baby boomers are retiring. This was predicted 40 years ago. Enough with the doom and bloom and rhetoric.
The labor participation rate I see most often used is restricted to only looking at age 25 to 54. This is specifically to remove students and retirees from the count. And this participation rate is dropping since its two local peaks in 2000 and 2008. At its high it was about 84%, while it is at 80% now. More importantly, it has been steadily dropping since 2008 with no sign of leveling off.
I think your comments are right in line with the post you responded to. You are claiming that dealing with requirements will keep humans employed, and he was saying how better technology has reduced his job to mostly dealing with requirements.
I learned to program in 4th grade, and yes the INPUT, PRINT and IF THEN ELSE statements made up the first tutorial I went through. But as soon as I got to the section of the tutorial on PSET, LINE, etc. is when I really got interested.
I may have eventually had fun writing MUD-like text based games, I first got hooked writing games like Tic-Tac-Toe and space invaders.
So, how does that work out for you during in climate weather? I'm led to believe that in the Chicago area, winters can be pretty long and harsh. You go around walking in that type of frigid, windy weather? What about heavy rainy days or high humidity days (more of what I get here in New Orleans)?
Honestly, I stay home when the weather is horrible. The only place I can think of that I would always want adequate parking for is my supermarket, which is also one of the only places I would travel to in really bad weather. Supermarkets are rarely in a downtown area, at least in the suburbs I know of, often because they require so much parking.
As for days that are simply cold and windy, just wear clothes meant for that weather.
If you're a fast runner 20 minutes will get you almost anywhere within the Evanston, IL city limits. But it just isn't possible in 99.9% of the rest of the country that doesn't have major rail lines and multiple bus lines. I live in a Metropolitan area of 300k people and it's a 3 mile walk just to the nearest bus stop.
I think you missed the part where they said Evanston has been "pouring resources into increasing the density of its downtown." This is the result of those efforts.
It seems reasonable that any city could be made more walking friendly by increasing the density of business and residential areas and decreasing the number of roads and especially parking available. When I travel to Evanston, I always end up parking on the outskirts and walking everywhere I go. When I travel to most other suburbs around Chicago, I drive separately to each destination.
The other thing I like about Evanston is there downtown area actually has more name brand stores to go along with their mom and pop stores. The lack of stores I would actually shop at is a big reason I stay away from most downtown areas.
Nothing can replace the wisdom or common sense of a discerning and skeptical human being.
Skeptical and discerning humans did not solve this problem. They were simply following orders, and their orders were not to fire missiles unless they were at DEFCON 1. Based on this story, they most certainly would have launched if they were at DEFCON 1.
The only real tragedy that almost happened was one lieutenant who was going to fire his missiles even though they were not at DEFCON 1. If this tragedy had happened, it would have been because the process was not automated enough.
it makes me glad (as General Baringer would say) that our boys were in those silos, instead of a computer.
If this story is true, it is an example of a tragedy that would have only happened because humans were in control instead of computers. There was no order to move to DEFCON 1, so the computer would never have launched the missiles. The human operators in this case did just what a computer would have done (not launch), except for one lieutenant. It is this single human officer who allegedly almost launched his nukes.
I'm not saying we should remove humans from launch command, but if this story is true it is an argument against having humans in the loop, not the other way around.
yep. Life is hard. It's even harder when you're stupid. However, I do not want to clean up code of diversity hires just because because some idiot SJW thinks the percentage of people in any given field needs to match the population.
And I no longer want to clean up code written by those in more privileged demographics who were only hired because many people with more ability were not given similar opportunity to become skilled in software development. The more skilled developers I can choose from while hiring my coworkers the better my life will be.
So, don't get a job like that, and the problem is solved, right? Nope. Next time I go to apply for a job, the shithead HR drone will look at my work history and say "Wow, he's been a senior dev for twelve years. Why hasn't he gotten a lead or manager job? Must be something wrong with him."
Almost no one is going to think that from looking at a resume. Many companies don't have a distinction between Senior Developer and Lead Developer, so no one will hold that against you. They will look at your list of accomplishments under the job title to determine capabilities, not your job title.
Once they talk to you in person, then your lack of managerial accomplishments may count against you. But this is only if your employer wants someone who can help manage / mentor other developers or who can grow into that role. This may be the vast majorities of employers, but they should not be expected to craft their job openings based on the type of work you like to do. It would be no different than hating an employer who requires Javascript knowledge for their senior web developer because you prefer to write code in the back end.
Most employers are rightfully learning that writing code is not a skill that requires an in-house developer. If that is all you need then just outsource it. Most employers want people who can both write code and interface with stakeholders and coworkers. Soft skills are almost the only skills that separate a $100/hr developer in the US from a $5/hr developer in the developing world. There are some skill-sets which are so rare that soft skills are easily overlooked, like compiler development, but for the vast majority of developers it is their soft skills that make them valuable.
What strawman argument did he make? Do you know what a strawman is? No it doesn't scare scarecrows.
He created an argument that does not exist so he can refute it. This defines a straw man argument.
His straw man claim was there are people promoting diversity for diversity's sake. This explicitly claims the advocates of these programs have no reason to increase diversity other than simply to improve the statistics. No one actually makes this claim. Everyone advocating these programs give reasons why improving diversity in STEM improves the STEM fields in some way.
You can try to refute arguments made by these groups as to why diversity is beneficial without resorting to straw man tactics.
Name one good reason we need to "target" anybody. If people don't want to work in a field then that's their decision.
Is your contention that grade school and high school students make perfectly rational decisions regarding their educational goals and career choices? Perhaps that is a strawman argument, but at least you are suggesting that adults are unable to assist these students in making educational and career choices that will improve their quality of life. I hope most people do not hold your opinion though, because I think students need considerable guidance when making decisions which may not impact their life significantly for at least a decade.
Diversity for its own sake doesn't help anybody, so stop pretending that it's a goal worth chasing.
How about we stop pretending anyone is arguing for diversity for diversity's sake? There are people arguing that certain demographics have a harder time realizing their full potential than others. And they believe these difficulties are significantly worsened by social and economic factors, not simply genetics. This is the argument you should either oppose or accept, not the straw man you have built up.
This is as dumb as saying that we need more white rappers so let's target white people somehow.
You are at least correct in your implication that there are many career choices where no one is fighting for more equality (or at least almost no one). But this is primarily because not all careers have the same beneficial impact on society and the economy. STEM jobs have been the fuel for the modern economy for arguably two centuries. It is therefore reasonable that these careers would be the focus of programs to increase the workforce pipeline by improving opportunities for more marginalized groups.
It's a normal policy here in Canada but I don't know anyone that abuses it like this individual. At a lot of stores (other than the biggest) there's a 10-15% restocking fee to discourage this type of behaviour.
Abusing what? The Microsoft store rep is the one who suggested it when I couldn't bring myself to purchase the Surface Book. Its a win win for everyone. Restocking fees are for companies who actively discourage returns, but want to still provide the option to lessen the blow-back from irate customers. Microsoft is not taking that approach.
Abusing the system would be trying to buy a Surface Pro 4 every month, returning it at the end of the month, and buying a new one the same day.
A 30 day return policy is not required, but it is the norm for companies in the US to have a lax return policy. The existence of these policies help entice consumers to consume more, because they don't have to be 100% sure of their purchase before making it. It is similar to having a bankruptcy system, where people are more willing to take on debt as long as it won't result in a lifetime of debt if they fall on tough times.
I for one would never buy the first version of the Surface Book if I couldn't try it out. I have more confidence in the Surface Pro 4 since the last version was well received by users. In my opinion this is the reason why a lax return policy is a good idea for companies and consumers, since they now have the strong possibility to make an extra $400 from me. At worst they risk losing $100-$200 from selling a slightly damaged returned product, but most likely that wouldn't be the case.
It is common for products you buy to have been returned by another customer, although the vast majority (well over 90% I assume) of new products have never been returned. If there are any visible defects, such as scratches, it will likely be labelled as refurbished and sold for $100 less. Clothing generally cannot be returned if it has been worn (other than trying it on of course), but the retail workers can sometimes be fooled.
Even if many people buy things with the intention of returning it, most people end of forgetting to return the product. For the same reason people keep gym memberships for years just because they won't make the call to cancel.
I have also never gotten a digital product with data on it. It is so easy to wipe these devices. Maybe a digital forensic expert could find some data, but I sure couldn't.
Very few developers need more than 16 GB RAM or a 1 TB SSD. Also very few need a processor faster than an i5-6300U.
If, by 'developers' you mean 'people writing Javascript web crap for some social media startup', yes.
I only have 16GB of RAM and 12 cores on my development machine, and it's trivially easy to exceed both when writing real code that does real work in the real world.
You need to grow up. There is plenty of real code doing real work in the real world that is not resource intensive. In fact almost all of it. Not everyone is writing the next great 3d game engine or supercomputer modeling software. Even most resource intensive software today is written to be scaled out on commodity hardware, so most development and testing can still be done on modest machines.
If you have trouble developing with 16 GB of RAM and 12 cores, you are either very bad at your job or you have an incredibly rare workload for a professional developer. Although I do agree it is trivially easy to exceed 16 GB of RAM and 12 cores on many development tasks. Writing efficient and scalable code is hard.
We bought two Surface 3's for our sales guys. The hardware is good but not great. [...] What surprises me, is whenever a surface is discussed, it is like an Angel of God descended. Is the hardware really that good, or is MS upping their shill budget?
Well I for one am a user who skipped the Surface Pro 3 because I didn't think the hardware such as keyboard as dock was quite up to snuff, but am finally convinced with the Surface Pro 4 and Surface Book. I pre-ordered both and will return one (or both) within the 30 day window. I think the Surface Pro 3 was really close, but really close isn't nearly good enough for continued professional use. After using the Surface Pro 4 and Book briefly in the Microsoft store, I am very impressed with the new keyboards and the new docking mechanism.
I could very well return both devices within a month if they aren't good enough though.
1. Developers would rather have lots of RAM and disk space, they can have those systems with better CPU for far less than what this thing costs
Very few developers need more than 16 GB RAM or a 1 TB SSD. Also very few need a processor faster than an i5-6300U. I currently develop on an i5-4300U with 8 GB RAM and a 256 GB SSD, and never feel it is insufficient.
The extra cost is trivial for any professional use. If there is even a slight need for a touch screen for things like notes taking or drawing diagrams / UI mock-ups, then a few hundred dollars amortized over 2-3 years of use is virtually nothing. $500 of extra up-front cost comes to $20 per month even if you replace your machine every two years, or approximately 0.2% of the labor cost of a decent developer.
2. Obviously not for gamers, the system does not have powerful GPU
This is mostly true, as you aren't going to play Witcher 3 on either of these machines. But you could play plenty of casual games or even many non-cutting edge games. I assume playing Civ 5, for instance, would be fine on the Surface Book with a discrete video card.
3. Regular users now are moving away from laptop
... to devices like this. I am finally making the move from a laptop & tablet to a 2-1 when my Surface arrives next week. I will still have a desktop at home for gaming purposes, but everything but the video card is from 2011 since there is rarely a need to upgrade anything else now a days.
So, you're saying spending two hours a day doing some solo activity is better than spending 1 hour per day driving and 1 hour with my family? No wonder the world is so fucked. You're actually numb to the idea that maximising ones time with ones family is a good thing, and you'd rather maximise your "productive" time which really isn't.
Maximizing your productive time during your time away from family allows for more time with family. The decision to use this saved time to work longer is a completely separate decision from trying to save the time in the first place.
I still not get Microsoft's idea on a tablet. Most programs you need are Desktop version only. So you end up using your 'tablet' as a laptop. So why go through all the extra costs in development to make a laptop that can remove the keyboard, instead of just build a cheaper and nice to use tablet? Why do they build such an expensive netbook with a bad keyboard?
1) Some users don't want to carry around two devices. A Macbook Pro + iPad Air 2 weigh 6.6 pounds. A Surface Book weighs 3.34 pounds, essentially half the weight. With only one device you also don't always have to carry a case that can hold both. You can just carry the device alone.
2) Some users (like me) have gotten so used to touch screens that exclusively using a track pad on their laptop is a horrible experience. Although I concede I may be a minority with this gripe, I simply hate a laptop experience without a touch screen now.
3) It is far cheaper to have one device than two. A laptop of the same quality as the Surface Pro would only cost a few hundred less, if that, and a high quality tablet costs twice that difference. Buying one device likely saves around $500.
4) As far as tablets go, the Surface Book may be the best one yet. It has a large screen but is very light without the keyboard (about the same as the original iPad). It has a great stylus. It isn't as good for casual gaming as an iPad, but it can potentially play PC / XBox quality games. There are clearly pros and cons for every electronic device, but the Surface Book (and Surface Pro 4) have a lot in the pros category.
There clearly are budget laptops and tablets that make the Surface products seem expensive. But they don't hold a candle to the Surface, or the Apple products that are its true competitors.
Or you could buy an HP EliteOne 800 G1 (Core i7, 1TB, 3.2 GHz, 8 GB RAM) for about $1,400 per unit...
You do realize that is a desktop machine, not a laptop or tablet, right? The processor in that machine uses four times the power of the processor in the Surface Book. You might as well compare an iPod to the Surface Book.
Microsoft's 1TB Surface Book will cost you $3199 (plus tax) ... who is going to fork over ~$3,500 for a tablet?
The same people whose desktop has 2 30"+ 4k monitors, who drive a Tesla, and who live in a $600k+ house. No one who is budget conscious would buy it, but no one like that would buy the $10,000 Apple watch either. Yet these products still exist because some people out there don't care what they cost.
And if you really had a need for a 1TB hard drive on a mobile device, and a spinning disk would be too slow, its not like you are spending that much more when ammortized over the life of the device. Even if you only use it for two years, that is $60 per month more than a more reasonable $2k device. Its hard to even buy a dinner for two at Outback Steakhouse for that amount of money. Its also less than many peoples' monthly Starbucks habit.
The notion of ceding control of something as fundamental to life as growing and hunting the food to feed my family to a big, opaque corporation - people are not comfortable with that.
And look how well that has worked out. High levels of obesity and diabetes. Cancer causing additives. Melamine in baby formula. Etc. Etc.
Which just goes towards proving my point. If we are willing to live with these downsides when it comes to the food we put in our body, we will put up with a lot worse when it comes to what drives us around.
I don't know many people who ARE comfortable with that, actually.
If the ratio of people who only buy food from local farm stands is similar to the ratio of people who will not use autonomous cars, then I think almost all cars will become autonomous. Once the technology is worked out, that is.
“The notion of ceding control of something as fundamental to life as driving to a big, opaque corporation - people are not comfortable with that,” -- David Mindell
I'm not sure I agree with that. Sounds similar to someone 150 years ago saying "The notion of ceding control of something as fundamental to life as growing and hunting the food to feed my family to a big, opaque corporation - people are not comfortable with that".
People get comfortable with a great number of things if you make their life significantly better even while asking them to give up a little control.
This is a distinction without a difference.
Here is another way of putting it. There was a moment when computers could beat the best humans at checkers, and a moment when computers could beat the best humans at chess. The difference from a practical sense is small; computers can beat humans at one more game. But from a scientific standpoint, it took exponentially more computing power and algorithmic advances.
The iPhone, for example, is very nifty but doesn't represent much progress over the personal computer
I think this statement doesn't give mobile technology enough credit. My father never had a use for computers at all until his mobile phone. Sure he owned a personal computer, and tried to find reasons to use it for two decades, but he never really did. Now he finds uses for it every day, and that doesn't count social media. My dad is not alone.
Personal assistants on our mobile devices will make computers far more useful to regular people than computers have been for the past 30 years (other than work-related uses). Speech recognition will give way to direct communication with our brains. Computers themselves will not be much different than those developed in the last century, but in practice it will open up a whole new world of applications.
Physical limitations usually give way to entire new ways of thinking about problems. Limits of vacuum tubes did not impede development of computers. Limitations of silicon will be solved by the next discovery just like transistors solved the limitations of vacuum tubes. While its true sometimes we will not solve these problems, it is not very likely any time people can make money from solving the problem.