It is nice to hear from someone who is well to do and who has obviously never done a dodgy transaction in his lifetime. That is not the norm, I tell you.
When you have had repairs done on your house, you have never asked to settle in cash without receipt but always paid the full amount including VAT (merverdiavgift, mva), which is good for your country. You have never had an affair and never had to pay for objects (dildos, butt plugs,..., you name it) you would rather not like your partner (or anyone else) to know about. You don't frequent bars, night clubs and similar establishments of questionable reputation and live a fruitful and righteous life.
Good.
Unfortunately, your situation does not extend to everyone else. You could, in principle, say that it is not your concern that other people have dirty secrets they do not want other people to know about; and you would (and should) obviously not condone that people are trying to avoid paying their taxes, but... There are many people around the world, including Norway, that are in so dire a situation that they cannot afford having a payment card or who cannot control their spending when they cannot see the actual amount of money in their hand. What about those people. Please do not start arguments like "it is their own fault", "they should pull themselves together and just not spend more money than they have",..., some of these people have severe mental health problems and cannot change their behaviour.
I know the welfare system in Norway is very good and that the state takes hand of most health and poverty problems, but it still has a number of charities, who benefit from people being able to donate in cash. How do you think the charity runs would fare if the canvassers accosting people in the streets to ask for money, if people had to actually get their cards out instead of cool cash? Not so well, I think. Many people would rather not give any money than show the charity collectors that they meant to give only the equivalent of a few coins. I can just imagine that: Thank you sir for the gift of 50 øre. Would you like a receipt?
A cashless society may make the world more convenient for a lot of people, but it is at a cost to each and every person as the payments go through payments processors and banks, who, with the government that now can check every single transaction, are the biggest beneficiaries of such system. In effect, cashless payments are "taxed" by the amount these companies charges, and the only people to pay are... us!
I will give this guy the benefit of doubt and just label him naive.
There are so many reasons for having cash, from simple convenience to privacy. I like the fact that I can literally throw money on the counter/table if I am in a hurry (has happened a few times in my life).
Also, it will be the end of most beggars, I believe, as I cannot see them accepting card payments soon (Thank you kind Ma'am, would you like a receipt?). Similarly for sellers of The Big Issue (a UK magazine sold by homeless people). A lot of other charity will be stopped dead in its tracks when people cannot just grab some money and give it in a quick transaction. What about the big tanks in the airports where people can leave money for charities, can anybody imagine those replaced with card readers? Me neither.
As other have said, we are walking into the ultimate surveillance society where no transaction goes unregistered, which obviously is the card companies', the tax man's, the police's, the intelligence communities' and the government's wet dream.
The world is not shifting to ambient computing but rather ambient computing is spreading into the world.
Ambient computing is very prominent already and from where I sit right now in my living room, I can see two actual computers (the laptop I'm working on and a Raspberry Pi that is my home server) but the number of embedded CPUs is much higher: TV, sound bar, smart light, settop box, BluRay player, calculator, smartphone, landline phone, VoIP box, printer, camera, MiFi box,...) that's at least twelve CPUs, so ambient computing is here and has been here for a long time already.
Voice control is never going to be relevant for a lot of computer work -- especially if you are working next to other people. I was recently working next to a small room with 20+ programmers, coding like mad. Imagine they were doing that coding by talking to their computers and the twin brothers had to be separated as the computers could not distinguish them from each other. Or how the noise level would slowly rise as each programmer is trying to get through to their computer instead of it picking up the neighbour's voice. Or how difficult it would be to concentrate in such an environment. No, that ain't gonna happen. (Probably going to be a famous embarrassment like 640kB is enough memory for any job -- Hi Bill!)
Voice control is fine for some things when working alone (retouching photos, for example, with commands like "Brush size 200" or "Hide smoothing layer", only much retouching will be automated too so less human retouching will be needed) and many things that are intermittent like "Turn on the lights in the living room" or "What is the temperature in Anchorage right now".
I was watching someone on his phone going through Instagram postings, which was an exercise in flick; flick; press; tap, tap, tap; press; flick; flick;... It is hard to imagine that could be better (or quicker) done with voice commands but easy to imagine how irritating the voice commands would be to others.
Being a sour, misanthropic curmudgeon, who values his privacy, my biggest concern is the amount of information ambient "computers" will "leak" (by design or by accident) to third parties.I have no big secrets and definitely nothing that would cause me major embarrassment (maybe a few raised eyebrows), but I still close the bathroom door when I'm out and about, just like I try to stop the information leaks online to the extent I can.
Hm, I don't think it is particularly difficult to understand. I know, at a very detailed level, what I like and dislike, whereas I can only know even my best mate's likes and dislikes on a far more superficial level.
This means that, let me choose dating as an example, I would scrutinise a potential partner's details carefully and lock on to specific problematic areas, which may be few but, in my opinion, deal-breaking (even if they should not be, objectively) -- whereas I would look at the overall suitability if I were looking on behalf of my mate, ignoring minor flaws that should be unimportant.
"[...] The camera isn't disconnected, however, because its "field of view is completely obstructed with the lid closed."
That's a perfect idea... until someone comes up with a way to record audio through fluctuations in the camera's output due to the shifting patterns of air pressure.
Let me get this straight, you think that the guy is rather silly because he posted game footage that also included a public place? What's the real difference between that and a movie about a killing spree in down-town Washington filmed in said location? The actual playing of the game is rather harmless as no guns are wielded, just a (deadly?) phone!
I find it difficult that it is no longer possible for many people and powers that be to distinguish between a make-believe and reality. I am sure that the sheriff's department would be informed had a real incident happened. At least check the facts before arresting people. I think the silliness, if not outright stupidity, is to be found among people overreacting to literally harmless publishings like this.
My conclusion: The terrorists have won!
People are now so terrified of even little things that it is difficult to have fun if it is not entirely PC. Put the terrorist threat into context and look at how many people have died in the traffic in the last few years or from pneumonia or tuberculosis compared to how many people have died in terror attacks in the last 100 years.
Just to get it off my chest first: I have skimmed the study but not read it in detail.
As usual the use of statistics is the crux of the matter. In the article they talk about the increased risk of alcohol-related harm without talking about the absolute risk of alcohol-related harm in general. (They say there are 2.8 billion deaths attributable to alcohol in 2016, 2.2% of female deaths and 6.8% of male deaths, but this does not convert into absolute risk.) A 37% increase in alcohol-related harm (i.e. for people having five drinks a day) may not cause a substantial bigger risk if the value that is increased is very small. And how do you establish a base?
So what then?
I also find it very interesting that 1.4% of tuberculosis deaths were linked to alcohol. I wonder what the causation is? Increased susceptibility to infection? If that was the case, I would expect pneumonia to be in there too, but I cannot easily find data covering just pneumonia. The nearest information I could get was a total of 4.1 million deaths of respiratory diseases in 2009, according to WHO (warning Excel spreadsheet).
This is another study that seems to pose more questions than it provides answers.
If you or I lived there, we would probably find a modem somehow and also an internet provider that had dial-in lines. Living in the UK, the latter is not the easiest (OK, there are a few "free" services that offer dial-up but on 0844 or 0845 numbers where you pay a small premium on the call) but none of the big suppliers offer that service now, to the best of my knowledge. Luckily, modems are still to be had and at a fairly low price. (About GBP6/$10 for a USB 2.0 56K + fax modem.) Fax machines are sold by almost every office supply merchant whereas modems are not. (Again speaking of the UK.)
The E-mail-enabled printers I have worked with were not configured for network setup of scanning to mail* and while many E-mail addresses were stored in memory, subject lines and attachment naming still required the use of the unpleasant touch-screen keyboard.
* Not entirely true as my current Epson multi-function printer can do everything over its wireless connection, which gives me the opportunity of scanning remotely and send off. Neat for bigger batches of papers to scan otherwise I just use my Canon flatbed scanner.
Well, if you're out in the woods with no internet connection, no mobile coverage but have two copper wires connected to a telephone exchange, fax can be your saviour.
The real reason for the fax predominance, I believe, is that it is 1) "known" technology, which means that technophobes like my previous solicitor could understand it and use it, and 2) it is easier to use than most scan-to-E-mail solutions (even for tech-savvy people).
Have you tried to enter the E-mail address on the small, resistive touch-screen of a scan-2-mail device? Many people resort to using ballpoint pens (without the pen extended) as the sensitivity of the touch-screen is abysmal and the interface is often rather counter intuitive, making the whole ordeal a nightmare. I have tried quite a few and find the drop-the-paper-in-the-feeder-and-dial of fax much easier.
In my home office I rarely use fax but I do use a small scanner next to my computer to handle most of my scanning needs (receipts and such) and only go to the multi-function printer when I need high-volume scanning.
At first glance I thought I agreed with you as you are right, empathy is not confined to humanities people, but inferring that humanities do not study "useful subjects" is a much too narrow definition of useful.
I have worked as a consultant on IT development projects in many organisations and have seen the horrible conflicts within these organisations. The number of clueless managers is stupefying, as the managers often are "techies" lacking people skills or "humanities" lacking technical insight. In a few places I have seen the right combination of the two working wonders as a catalyst for extraordinary achievements.
And don't get me started on the attitudes of the "star" developers with no empathy and much disdain towards non-developers. This pains me to see as I come from a developer background. (And yes, I can see a "sour grapes" repartee to this statement... bring it on;-)
The fact is that engineering often provides solutions to problems that did not need a solution and humanities often asks questions that cannot be answered -- especially not by tech people!
I find this story rather interesting and to a degree confirming similar observations I have had, but the good question is: How do we change the attitudes of "Tech" on one side with little interest in/understanding of humanities and "Humanities" on the other side looking upon tech with disdain?
And the US response should be that they will impose some unspecified sanctions on all airlines that do not refer to Taiwan for flights to that country and see what response they get.
So the proper response to an edict from a totalitarian government overreaching its span of control is to become totalitarian and overreach our span of control, too?
It is interesting to see how we accept behaviour from China
I think it is AA that has the prayer about changing what you can, accepting what you can't change, and the ability to know the difference.
Interesting how the same words can be understood differently depending on the eyes that see them. I thought my first sentence (US doing a similar thing and see the reaction) was put into context by the second sentence (the Western outrage it would cause) to indicate that it probably would not go down well and thus not really would be a possibility. That can teach me (again) to be more precise -- no irony meant here.
And the US response should be that they will impose some unspecified sanctions on all airlines that do not refer to Taiwan for flights to that country and see what response they get. It is interesting to see how we accept behaviour from China that would cause an outrage if we tried to behave in a similar way.
A thing I learnt many years ago in the school playground was never to give in to the bullies, which cost me quite a few bruises and indignities then but made me so much stronger today.
This may seem obvious, but all the same, I fell it needs to be said again: Anonymity is a double-edged sword in so far it protects the innocent from persecution, ridicule and harassment on the other hand it also allow the guilty to avoid identification, retaliation and prosecution.
Personally, I am willing to allow a certain amount of "crime" (especially if the crime is of wielding words) for the benefit of having at least a modicum of anonymity in society, offline as well as online.
Many years ago I bought a house from BuCoLIc (Building Contractors & Landscaping Incorporated). It is a nice house and I really like it. The masonry by Nicholas Hartens is exquisitely unique, the electrical cabling by Ezekiel Sparks is of singular quality, Quentin Baumgarten's carpentry represents artistic perfection and the flow of Leonard Vandmand's plumbing is out of this world.
I am so lucky that BuCoLIc chose to only employ the very best craftsmen within their field.
I had 20 people around for a party the other day and it went really well. My neighbour, who had not been invited as the party was for friends and family, had apparently informed BBB (British Buildingrights Bureau) about the party as I received the following letter:
Dear Sir/Madam,
We are the proprietors of all buildingright in the building at 9673 Longroad Close (The "House"). We have reserved all rights in the House, which was first expressed in material form on 12 October 1922.
A neighbour has brought to our attention that people, apart from yourself, (The "Guests") have entered the House and used the facilities within on 20 November 2017 (The "Day"). Permission was neither asked nor granted to share the House and therefore constitutes infringement of our rights. In terms of the Buildingright Statutes, we are entitled to an injunction against your continued infringement, as well as to recover damages from you for the loss we have suffered as a result of your infringing conduct.
In the circumstances, we demand that you immediately:
1. stop all infringing conduct and notify us in writing that you have done so;
2. pay a licensing fee in the amount of £2,000 for the general use of the House;
3. pay a licensing fee in the amount 12 x £500 = £6,000 as we have been informed that the toilet was used by Guests on 12 occasions on the Day;
4. pay a licensing fee in the amount 4 x £500 = £2,000 as we have been informed that the kitchen counter was used by Guests on 4 occasions on the Day;
5. pay a licensing fee in the amount 20 x £250 = £5,000 as we have been informed that 20 Guests were present on the Day and used electricity directly or indirectly for a number of purposes including but not limited to lighting and phone charging;
6. undertake in writing that you in the future, without prior written authority from us, desist from sharing any part of the House to which we own the buildingright.
We would like to inform you that building work is an important industry and sustains many people through production and licensing, and a fraction of the proceeds extracted from you will be passed on to the relevant craftsmen or their estate.
This is written without prejudice to our rights, all of which are hereby expressly reserved and we look forward to receiving the sum of £15,000 within 28 days of this letter.
Thank you for the my favourite player.
Are there any plans for seamless playing in VLC. I have some playlists with continuous tracks and it would be nice to not have the break.
I do believe in Universal Basic Income (UBI) as an inevitable concept.The robots/AIs are a-coming, which is one part and the other is the huge wealth disparity in the world.
I know many people disagree with the Luddite "robot/AI phobia" but nonetheless, robots take over more and more manual labour (receptionist-free hotels in Japan, Foxconn replacing workers on the assembly lines with robots and fast food eating places (I find it hard to call McD a restaurant, it sort of cannot come out) threatening, if not actually implementing, food preparer robotic replacements) and we may end up with the employee-free Automat-type restaurants where everything is automated. Literally.
Ah, but the anti-Luddite counter-argument is that workers will just move to other, non-automated jobs. Er, what jobs? It seems the AI development currently is going so fast that even creative jobs are threatened, maybe not short term, but it is on the horizon.
Currently we are just waiting for a catastrophe to unfold: Tech takes jobs, people spend less, buy less, profits fall, companies fire and automatise, more people spending less, buying less, profits fall further, companies fire more and automatise more, even more people spendings less,...
Ah well, as long as there is enough for my pension.
Oh, and just a thought, UBI in countries with many illegal immigrants or fairly open borders may cause unrest if actual employment starts to fall drastically, assuming the immigrants have no right to UBI.
My multimedia setup was meant to use the UNIX philosophy, i.e. with components that do one thing each but do it well.
Unfortunately it is getting harder by the day to get equipment that does one thing only -- at least at a reasonable price.
The BluRay player can install apps! The TV can show FreeView, FreeSat and some types of USB-attached multimedia (but neither cable nor DNLA content), the Sky Box can show BBC iPlayer and other catchup programs and the TalkTalk box can show Netflix.
The sound system is, in fact, the only thing that is unable to perform a song and dance show.
Some years ago (remember 2008 any one?) I was job hunting for the first time in many years as my contract with IBM (a bit of name-dropping to show I'm not in the Little League;-) was not renewed. I could not understand I did not get any responses to my applications despite an impressive CV. A friend suggested that I removed all dates from the CV (like year of graduations and such)... Guess what?... Suddenly I got responses/interviews, so ageism? Ya betcha!
In my experience and what I have gleaned from talking to other people, it seems that large companies and public organizations are less prone to ageism than smaller companies. That could be due to the fact that larger and public organizations normally have anti-discrimination policies that support dinosaurs like me.
What I want in an operating system is (not necessarily in order of importance):
* Reliability
* Security
* Continuity
* Consistency
* Maintainability
* Transparency
* Adaptability
* Flexibility
I want a reliable system that I can depend on at any time. It must be secure so I do not have to be too concerned about exploitable flaws; it must maintain continuity, be consistent and not change in ways that take long to adapt to; it must be maintainable by me, which means transparent in the setup, configuration and execution; and it must be adaptable (again by me) to my changing needs and platforms. Lastly, the system must be flexible, which, in my opinion, is what defines *NIX systems, i.e. small tools that can be combined in numerous ways to solve complex problems.
What I do not want is:
* Ever-changing paradigms (think MS Office)
* Obscure configurations that cannot easily be hand-tweeked (think Windows Registry)
* Upgrade and pray (think early versions of some Linux distributions)
* Multifunctional tools (especially with a bloat of facilities)
*...
If I had more time, I could probably expand more on these.
To return to systemd: It seems to break quite a few of my wants and wantnots and (at least for me) does not solve any problems I have encountered but forces me into choices I would rather have avoided.
Slashdot Mirror
It is nice to hear from someone who is well to do and who has obviously never done a dodgy transaction in his lifetime. That is not the norm, I tell you.
When you have had repairs done on your house, you have never asked to settle in cash without receipt but always paid the full amount including VAT (merverdiavgift, mva), which is good for your country. You have never had an affair and never had to pay for objects (dildos, butt plugs, ..., you name it) you would rather not like your partner (or anyone else) to know about. You don't frequent bars, night clubs and similar establishments of questionable reputation and live a fruitful and righteous life.
Good.
Unfortunately, your situation does not extend to everyone else. You could, in principle, say that it is not your concern that other people have dirty secrets they do not want other people to know about; and you would (and should) obviously not condone that people are trying to avoid paying their taxes, but ... There are many people around the world, including Norway, that are in so dire a situation that they cannot afford having a payment card or who cannot control their spending when they cannot see the actual amount of money in their hand. What about those people. Please do not start arguments like "it is their own fault", "they should pull themselves together and just not spend more money than they have", ..., some of these people have severe mental health problems and cannot change their behaviour.
I know the welfare system in Norway is very good and that the state takes hand of most health and poverty problems, but it still has a number of charities, who benefit from people being able to donate in cash. How do you think the charity runs would fare if the canvassers accosting people in the streets to ask for money, if people had to actually get their cards out instead of cool cash? Not so well, I think. Many people would rather not give any money than show the charity collectors that they meant to give only the equivalent of a few coins. I can just imagine that: Thank you sir for the gift of 50 øre. Would you like a receipt?
A cashless society may make the world more convenient for a lot of people, but it is at a cost to each and every person as the payments go through payments processors and banks, who, with the government that now can check every single transaction, are the biggest beneficiaries of such system. In effect, cashless payments are "taxed" by the amount these companies charges, and the only people to pay are ... us!
I will give this guy the benefit of doubt and just label him naive.
There are so many reasons for having cash, from simple convenience to privacy. I like the fact that I can literally throw money on the counter/table if I am in a hurry (has happened a few times in my life).
Also, it will be the end of most beggars, I believe, as I cannot see them accepting card payments soon (Thank you kind Ma'am, would you like a receipt?). Similarly for sellers of The Big Issue (a UK magazine sold by homeless people). A lot of other charity will be stopped dead in its tracks when people cannot just grab some money and give it in a quick transaction. What about the big tanks in the airports where people can leave money for charities, can anybody imagine those replaced with card readers? Me neither.
As other have said, we are walking into the ultimate surveillance society where no transaction goes unregistered, which obviously is the card companies', the tax man's, the police's, the intelligence communities' and the government's wet dream.
Just say NO!
The world is not shifting to ambient computing but rather ambient computing is spreading into the world.
Ambient computing is very prominent already and from where I sit right now in my living room, I can see two actual computers (the laptop I'm working on and a Raspberry Pi that is my home server) but the number of embedded CPUs is much higher: TV, sound bar, smart light, settop box, BluRay player, calculator, smartphone, landline phone, VoIP box, printer, camera, MiFi box, ...) that's at least twelve CPUs, so ambient computing is here and has been here for a long time already.
Voice control is never going to be relevant for a lot of computer work -- especially if you are working next to other people. I was recently working next to a small room with 20+ programmers, coding like mad. Imagine they were doing that coding by talking to their computers and the twin brothers had to be separated as the computers could not distinguish them from each other. Or how the noise level would slowly rise as each programmer is trying to get through to their computer instead of it picking up the neighbour's voice. Or how difficult it would be to concentrate in such an environment. No, that ain't gonna happen. (Probably going to be a famous embarrassment like 640kB is enough memory for any job -- Hi Bill!)
Voice control is fine for some things when working alone (retouching photos, for example, with commands like "Brush size 200" or "Hide smoothing layer", only much retouching will be automated too so less human retouching will be needed) and many things that are intermittent like "Turn on the lights in the living room" or "What is the temperature in Anchorage right now".
I was watching someone on his phone going through Instagram postings, which was an exercise in flick; flick; press; tap, tap, tap; press; flick; flick; ... It is hard to imagine that could be better (or quicker) done with voice commands but easy to imagine how irritating the voice commands would be to others.
Being a sour, misanthropic curmudgeon, who values his privacy, my biggest concern is the amount of information ambient "computers" will "leak" (by design or by accident) to third parties.I have no big secrets and definitely nothing that would cause me major embarrassment (maybe a few raised eyebrows), but I still close the bathroom door when I'm out and about, just like I try to stop the information leaks online to the extent I can.
Hm, I don't think it is particularly difficult to understand. I know, at a very detailed level, what I like and dislike, whereas I can only know even my best mate's likes and dislikes on a far more superficial level.
This means that, let me choose dating as an example, I would scrutinise a potential partner's details carefully and lock on to specific problematic areas, which may be few but, in my opinion, deal-breaking (even if they should not be, objectively) -- whereas I would look at the overall suitability if I were looking on behalf of my mate, ignoring minor flaws that should be unimportant.
"[...] The camera isn't disconnected, however, because its "field of view is completely obstructed with the lid closed."
That's a perfect idea ... until someone comes up with a way to record audio through fluctuations in the camera's output due to the shifting patterns of air pressure.
Let me get this straight, you think that the guy is rather silly because he posted game footage that also included a public place? What's the real difference between that and a movie about a killing spree in down-town Washington filmed in said location? The actual playing of the game is rather harmless as no guns are wielded, just a (deadly?) phone!
I find it difficult that it is no longer possible for many people and powers that be to distinguish between a make-believe and reality. I am sure that the sheriff's department would be informed had a real incident happened. At least check the facts before arresting people. I think the silliness, if not outright stupidity, is to be found among people overreacting to literally harmless publishings like this.
My conclusion: The terrorists have won!
People are now so terrified of even little things that it is difficult to have fun if it is not entirely PC. Put the terrorist threat into context and look at how many people have died in the traffic in the last few years or from pneumonia or tuberculosis compared to how many people have died in terror attacks in the last 100 years.
... when you are not allowed to use asbestos for your glowing phone at 150C?
Just to get it off my chest first: I have skimmed the study but not read it in detail.
As usual the use of statistics is the crux of the matter. In the article they talk about the increased risk of alcohol-related harm without talking about the absolute risk of alcohol-related harm in general. (They say there are 2.8 billion deaths attributable to alcohol in 2016, 2.2% of female deaths and 6.8% of male deaths, but this does not convert into absolute risk.) A 37% increase in alcohol-related harm (i.e. for people having five drinks a day) may not cause a substantial bigger risk if the value that is increased is very small. And how do you establish a base?
So what then?
I also find it very interesting that 1.4% of tuberculosis deaths were linked to alcohol. I wonder what the causation is? Increased susceptibility to infection? If that was the case, I would expect pneumonia to be in there too, but I cannot easily find data covering just pneumonia. The nearest information I could get was a total of 4.1 million deaths of respiratory diseases in 2009, according to WHO (warning Excel spreadsheet).
This is another study that seems to pose more questions than it provides answers.
If you or I lived there, we would probably find a modem somehow and also an internet provider that had dial-in lines. Living in the UK, the latter is not the easiest (OK, there are a few "free" services that offer dial-up but on 0844 or 0845 numbers where you pay a small premium on the call) but none of the big suppliers offer that service now, to the best of my knowledge. Luckily, modems are still to be had and at a fairly low price. (About GBP6/$10 for a USB 2.0 56K + fax modem.) Fax machines are sold by almost every office supply merchant whereas modems are not. (Again speaking of the UK.)
The E-mail-enabled printers I have worked with were not configured for network setup of scanning to mail* and while many E-mail addresses were stored in memory, subject lines and attachment naming still required the use of the unpleasant touch-screen keyboard.
* Not entirely true as my current Epson multi-function printer can do everything over its wireless connection, which gives me the opportunity of scanning remotely and send off. Neat for bigger batches of papers to scan otherwise I just use my Canon flatbed scanner.
Well, if you're out in the woods with no internet connection, no mobile coverage but have two copper wires connected to a telephone exchange, fax can be your saviour.
The real reason for the fax predominance, I believe, is that it is 1) "known" technology, which means that technophobes like my previous solicitor could understand it and use it, and 2) it is easier to use than most scan-to-E-mail solutions (even for tech-savvy people).
Have you tried to enter the E-mail address on the small, resistive touch-screen of a scan-2-mail device? Many people resort to using ballpoint pens (without the pen extended) as the sensitivity of the touch-screen is abysmal and the interface is often rather counter intuitive, making the whole ordeal a nightmare. I have tried quite a few and find the drop-the-paper-in-the-feeder-and-dial of fax much easier.
In my home office I rarely use fax but I do use a small scanner next to my computer to handle most of my scanning needs (receipts and such) and only go to the multi-function printer when I need high-volume scanning.
At first glance I thought I agreed with you as you are right, empathy is not confined to humanities people, but inferring that humanities do not study "useful subjects" is a much too narrow definition of useful.
I have worked as a consultant on IT development projects in many organisations and have seen the horrible conflicts within these organisations. The number of clueless managers is stupefying, as the managers often are "techies" lacking people skills or "humanities" lacking technical insight. In a few places I have seen the right combination of the two working wonders as a catalyst for extraordinary achievements.
And don't get me started on the attitudes of the "star" developers with no empathy and much disdain towards non-developers. This pains me to see as I come from a developer background. (And yes, I can see a "sour grapes" repartee to this statement ... bring it on ;-)
I wish it were so.
The fact is that engineering often provides solutions to problems that did not need a solution and humanities often asks questions that cannot be answered -- especially not by tech people!
I find this story rather interesting and to a degree confirming similar observations I have had, but the good question is: How do we change the attitudes of "Tech" on one side with little interest in/understanding of humanities and "Humanities" on the other side looking upon tech with disdain?
Interesting how the same words can be understood differently depending on the eyes that see them. I thought my first sentence (US doing a similar thing and see the reaction) was put into context by the second sentence (the Western outrage it would cause) to indicate that it probably would not go down well and thus not really would be a possibility. That can teach me (again) to be more precise -- no irony meant here.
And the US response should be that they will impose some unspecified sanctions on all airlines that do not refer to Taiwan for flights to that country and see what response they get. It is interesting to see how we accept behaviour from China that would cause an outrage if we tried to behave in a similar way.
A thing I learnt many years ago in the school playground was never to give in to the bullies, which cost me quite a few bruises and indignities then but made me so much stronger today.
This may seem obvious, but all the same, I fell it needs to be said again: Anonymity is a double-edged sword in so far it protects the innocent from persecution, ridicule and harassment on the other hand it also allow the guilty to avoid identification, retaliation and prosecution.
Personally, I am willing to allow a certain amount of "crime" (especially if the crime is of wielding words) for the benefit of having at least a modicum of anonymity in society, offline as well as online.
Many years ago I bought a house from BuCoLIc (Building Contractors & Landscaping Incorporated). It is a nice house and I really like it. The masonry by Nicholas Hartens is exquisitely unique, the electrical cabling by Ezekiel Sparks is of singular quality, Quentin Baumgarten's carpentry represents artistic perfection and the flow of Leonard Vandmand's plumbing is out of this world.
I am so lucky that BuCoLIc chose to only employ the very best craftsmen within their field.
I had 20 people around for a party the other day and it went really well. My neighbour, who had not been invited as the party was for friends and family, had apparently informed BBB (British Buildingrights Bureau) about the party as I received the following letter:
Dear Sir/Madam,
We are the proprietors of all buildingright in the building at 9673 Longroad Close (The "House"). We have reserved all rights in the House, which was first expressed in material form on 12 October 1922.
A neighbour has brought to our attention that people, apart from yourself, (The "Guests") have entered the House and used the facilities within on 20 November 2017 (The "Day"). Permission was neither asked nor granted to share the House and therefore constitutes infringement of our rights. In terms of the Buildingright Statutes, we are entitled to an injunction against your continued infringement, as well as to recover damages from you for the loss we have suffered as a result of your infringing conduct.
In the circumstances, we demand that you immediately:
1. stop all infringing conduct and notify us in writing that you have done so;
2. pay a licensing fee in the amount of £2,000 for the general use of the House;
3. pay a licensing fee in the amount 12 x £500 = £6,000 as we have been informed that the toilet was used by Guests on 12 occasions on the Day;
4. pay a licensing fee in the amount 4 x £500 = £2,000 as we have been informed that the kitchen counter was used by Guests on 4 occasions on the Day;
5. pay a licensing fee in the amount 20 x £250 = £5,000 as we have been informed that 20 Guests were present on the Day and used electricity directly or indirectly for a number of purposes including but not limited to lighting and phone charging;
6. undertake in writing that you in the future, without prior written authority from us, desist from sharing any part of the House to which we own the buildingright.
We would like to inform you that building work is an important industry and sustains many people through production and licensing, and a fraction of the proceeds extracted from you will be passed on to the relevant craftsmen or their estate.
This is written without prejudice to our rights, all of which are hereby expressly reserved and we look forward to receiving the sum of £15,000 within 28 days of this letter.
Yours faithfully,
Esther Westman
Extortion LLC, Buildingright Experts
Electronic ballot boxes are safe and tamper proof, and in other news: vaccines cause autism, the Earth is flat and I have found a cure for cancer.
... and get those RFID implants once and for all so they can track each of us too.
Thank you for the my favourite player. Are there any plans for seamless playing in VLC. I have some playlists with continuous tracks and it would be nice to not have the break.
I do believe in Universal Basic Income (UBI) as an inevitable concept.The robots/AIs are a-coming, which is one part and the other is the huge wealth disparity in the world.
...
I know many people disagree with the Luddite "robot/AI phobia" but nonetheless, robots take over more and more manual labour (receptionist-free hotels in Japan, Foxconn replacing workers on the assembly lines with robots and fast food eating places (I find it hard to call McD a restaurant, it sort of cannot come out) threatening, if not actually implementing, food preparer robotic replacements) and we may end up with the employee-free Automat-type restaurants where everything is automated. Literally.
Ah, but the anti-Luddite counter-argument is that workers will just move to other, non-automated jobs. Er, what jobs? It seems the AI development currently is going so fast that even creative jobs are threatened, maybe not short term, but it is on the horizon.
Currently we are just waiting for a catastrophe to unfold: Tech takes jobs, people spend less, buy less, profits fall, companies fire and automatise, more people spending less, buying less, profits fall further, companies fire more and automatise more, even more people spendings less,
Ah well, as long as there is enough for my pension.
Oh, and just a thought, UBI in countries with many illegal immigrants or fairly open borders may cause unrest if actual employment starts to fall drastically, assuming the immigrants have no right to UBI.
Time to start watching Star Trek again, folks!
My multimedia setup was meant to use the UNIX philosophy, i.e. with components that do one thing each but do it well.
Unfortunately it is getting harder by the day to get equipment that does one thing only -- at least at a reasonable price.
The BluRay player can install apps! The TV can show FreeView, FreeSat and some types of USB-attached multimedia (but neither cable nor DNLA content), the Sky Box can show BBC iPlayer and other catchup programs and the TalkTalk box can show Netflix.
The sound system is, in fact, the only thing that is unable to perform a song and dance show.
What has the world come to?
Some years ago (remember 2008 any one?) I was job hunting for the first time in many years as my contract with IBM (a bit of name-dropping to show I'm not in the Little League ;-) was not renewed. I could not understand I did not get any responses to my applications despite an impressive CV. A friend suggested that I removed all dates from the CV (like year of graduations and such) ... Guess what? ... Suddenly I got responses/interviews, so ageism? Ya betcha!
In my experience and what I have gleaned from talking to other people, it seems that large companies and public organizations are less prone to ageism than smaller companies. That could be due to the fact that larger and public organizations normally have anti-discrimination policies that support dinosaurs like me.
What I want in an operating system is (not necessarily in order of importance):
I want a reliable system that I can depend on at any time. It must be secure so I do not have to be too concerned about exploitable flaws; it must maintain continuity, be consistent and not change in ways that take long to adapt to; it must be maintainable by me, which means transparent in the setup, configuration and execution; and it must be adaptable (again by me) to my changing needs and platforms. Lastly, the system must be flexible, which, in my opinion, is what defines *NIX systems, i.e. small tools that can be combined in numerous ways to solve complex problems.
What I do not want is:
If I had more time, I could probably expand more on these.
To return to systemd: It seems to break quite a few of my wants and wantnots and (at least for me) does not solve any problems I have encountered but forces me into choices I would rather have avoided.
... very bad taste, indeed, but it was a sad day when Britain voted for a "Taste Police".