so to celebrate the anniversary of smart phones people are going to buy some "special" $1000 phone that will be worthless in less than 5 years?
the stupidity continues
In my market, the flagship devices (Galaxy/iPhone/Pixel etc) are about $1400 local dollars, and most people I know upgrade within 2 years as part of the their contract with the carrier. So this madness has already been normalised. Although I see some changes as the base tech becomes 'good enough', some people are starting to hold onto phones longer, and some are choosing mid ranges devices as replacements instead which are half the price (since a 2017 mid range is just as good as a 2015 flagship, which is all most people need).
I recall a PC magazine article from 1981 questioning the value of these new 16 bit microprocessors - what did we need them for? WordStar and Visicalc ran perfectly well on a Z-80 with CP/M, so surely additional speed was pointless for most people.
Not all growth is infinite. Desktops currently offer more processing power than most laptops, yet laptops are more popular. At some point the tech reaches 'good enough', and speed is no longer the major priority
The summary reads a lot like the PC magazines I used to read 20 years ago, where any tiny increase in performance was worthwhile.
Thank goodness we're at the stage where any x64 processor from the last few years will be plenty good enough for most people, and benchmarks are largely meaningless
I am looking forward to the day when it's the same with phones.
That day is now. The media/marketing might be hyping latest and greatest, but I'm starting to see more people opt for cheap and cheerful 'good enough' phones over these overpriced flagship devices. I recently bought an Oppo F1S to replace my old Note5. It cost 1/4 the price of the new S8 and is good enough for what I need (it actually is a really good phone). I know at least three other people in my circle that have made similar choices.
All presidents break a sizable portion of their campaign promises. Some of them are promises they couldn't fulfill. Others are promises that they changed their mind on, or never had any will to fulfill.
The difference is that Trump rode on the ticket of being an outsider, drain the swamp etc.
That's funny. Anyone who cared about "day one" promises from the last president was racist. Now it is good to care about promises.
This is odd logic. Assuming you are correct, your position is that because of something that happened with the last president, no-one should ever care about anything this president does?
BK deliberately accessed other people's computers. When there was a fix in place to stop that commercial, they deliberately changed the commercial. That is intentional unauthorized access of computer systems.
Socially, the 20xx years will probably be closer to the 18xx years than the 19xx years, without a Soviet Union that forces us to look like we're the good guys, there is exactly no reason that cutthroat capitalism shouldn't be employed to the full extent that we had in the 1800s. Only far, far more efficiently.
I have this discussion all the time when people moan about house prices. The standard complaint is that prices are too high, "my parents could afford a house on a working class wage, why can't I"?
The error is thinking that the 50's to the 80's is the normal that we measure against, but this period is the anomaly. For most of human history, rich people owned everything and poor people suffered. There's no reason to think that the further we get from the 20th century, the more it will revert back to this model of wealth distribution.
The real question is what will their quality of life be like?
If we use the last 10000 years as an example it is likely to be much better, all the while the great unwashed will believe it's worse.
This has pretty much been the standard pattern for all of human civilisation.
Pretty optimistic to think there will be future generations around in 58 years. Never mind Google or Facebook.
Based on the fact that every single generation in the history of humanity said the exact same thing, I'm going to have a punt and say that in 58 years humans will not only exist, they will be much more developed and advanced than they are now, and they will look back on the early 2000's as primitive and a bit backwards. Just like pretty much every period of human civilisation.
Don't be fooled by alarmist media or nostalgia googles, the trend of overall human development has been consistently rising since we walked out of the trees. There is nothing to suggest this will change anytime soon.
Bad examples. Nobody except maybe the Tsar would've predicted Tsarist Russia would last. It'd been weakening for a long time and there was a revolution in 1905.
Like Erdogan in Turkey? Tell us oh great Oracle how will that one turn out?
The very nature of the future is that it cannot be predicted reliably. Claiming you knew that Tsarist Russi would fall years before it did, in hindsight, does sound a little pretentious...
If you actually understood the economics, you would be able to make an argument for why employing more labor to produce the same amount of economic output is a good thing. But you're just a typical l peddler of broken fascist economic ideas,
Right. Fascism/Hitler. It's always Fascism or Hitler with you isn't it?
Why is that? Do you ever find that when you're typing in the word Hitler or Fascism something doesn't go off in you head that says " I've used these words a little bit too much lately, maybe I should change it up a bit"?
If you are genuinely interested in the economics Google it. I have no time for children whose every response is Hitler!
It doesn't matter much if auto-cars do get in accidents as long as they get in fewer accidents than humans do,
Not true. If the road death rate is 20000, mostly to due preventable causes, but Robot cars offer and death rate of 10000 but completely random, it will still be unacceptable.
One day they will be smart enough to consider that a child might appear when a ball does, but for now they can just stop or slow down when they see the ball (which is an obstruction in the road).
So behave much worse than a human, thus be a worse overall experience? And you are assuming it sees the ball every single time. Because the first time it doesn't and kills a child, the company will be sued out of existence.
They used to think computers would never beat humans at chess. Then it was Jeopardy. Then it was Go. One of the few certainties in life is that the "it can't be done!" crowd are invariably proven wrong, sooner or later.
Ah right, so everything ever thought of is always possible. Great argument...
Your false assumption is that "creating more jobs" or "employing more people" to produce the same amount or less energy is a good thing, when, in fact, it is a bad thing.
Only if you don't understand the economics, which you've made abundantly clear.
Defeats the purpose of a F-35 doesn't it? Let's build a super stealthy aircraft and then have multiple none stealthy aircraft going into battle with it. Basically the F-16s will be saying, "There is an F-35 in the neighborhood, look harder and you will find it.
You know you don't always have to have a F35 present with every F16. The price of the F16 means you can have hundreds of them in the air flying decoy sorties, while the real mission utilises the F35's
That works great until there is a jammer. In other words, it works fine against small, overpowered nations against whom there are already a myriad of options.
The whole idea of AI is that you don't need constant communication. Load mission parameters before takeoff, set and forget. Nothing you can think of mid flight can't be thought about pre-flight.
Flying in the Air Force has been seen as a stepping stone to flying airlines as long as I remember.
Being a military pilot has always been seen by many pilots as a way to accumulate a lot of flight time, which is the #1 requirement to be an airline pilot.
My father was in the Air Force in the 70's, and even when I kid back then I remember thinking I'd grow up to be a fighter pilot then move on to commercial airlines. Alas I was too lazy and got into IT instead. Much better pay and conditions, just not the glamorous title. But I can live with that.
General Claire Chennault, the commander of the American Volunteer Group - the 'Flying Tigers" - in China before WWII, said that aviation is long hours of sheer boredom, punctuated by short moments of stark terror. Or perhaps he was only talking about flying fighters.
My father was in the Air Force for 20 years. Him and every one I knew that he worked with were raging alcoholics (not officially, but it seems like that's all they did), so I reckon it's not just the fighter pilots.
I reason it is easier to take selfie in front of the mirror, so unless your point that taking any selfie is narcissistic, mirrors have nothing to do with it.
It's even worse when someone has a 'selfie in the mirror', but the photo has been taken from an angle that would be impossible for the phone they're holding to take...
I'm always amazed at the number of people on Instagram who have actual pictures of themselves standing in front of a mirror.
You'd have to be a regular of user of Instacrap to know something like this so why do you bother?
If I find something annoying I stop giving it my attention...
For every other luxury car maker there are 20+ years of used cars on the market. So for those models they're not only competing with their own model year, they're competing with the previous generation. Further, I'm not sure if it holds true for Tesla, but higher end sedans are typically leased so there is a continual supply of cars a few years old entering the used market.
What is the definition of 'luxury'? Back in the day it was easy, electric windows, aircon, leather etc we're only found in 'luxury' cars, but even the Toyota Corolla has all that now.
Personally, I think the Tesla S looks ok on the outside, but the inside doesn't have much luxury vibe to it. Very sparse and plain looking. The Tesla X just looks like some cheap Chinese garbage. It's all fat and egg shaped and has warped proportions. Compare the less expensive Porsche Macan or Audi SQ5 which is how a luxury SUV should look.
A productive, active economy often creates corporate turnover and high employment.
Not wrong...
It doesn't follow that creating high corporate turnover and high employment is good for the economy.
No because I wasn't reaching that conclusion from that assumption.
The claim is that any government policy to reduce carbon emission will wreck the economy. But we already have examples of that not being the case
I'm struggling to think of any examples of increased employment and new emerging industries being bad for the economy? Maybe you could help me out?
I know: it's a common mistake made by devotees of left and right wing politics.
Slashdot Mirror
This will be huge for Apple because of the Chinese market
Apple market share in China has been dropping steadily the last 2 years, now down to single digits. They've already caught on, the hype is over.
so to celebrate the anniversary of smart phones people are going to buy some "special" $1000 phone that will be worthless in less than 5 years?
the stupidity continues
In my market, the flagship devices (Galaxy/iPhone/Pixel etc) are about $1400 local dollars, and most people I know upgrade within 2 years as part of the their contract with the carrier. So this madness has already been normalised. Although I see some changes as the base tech becomes 'good enough', some people are starting to hold onto phones longer, and some are choosing mid ranges devices as replacements instead which are half the price (since a 2017 mid range is just as good as a 2015 flagship, which is all most people need).
I recall a PC magazine article from 1981 questioning the value of these new 16 bit microprocessors - what did we need them for? WordStar and Visicalc ran perfectly well on a Z-80 with CP/M, so surely additional speed was pointless for most people.
Not all growth is infinite. Desktops currently offer more processing power than most laptops, yet laptops are more popular. At some point the tech reaches 'good enough', and speed is no longer the major priority
The summary reads a lot like the PC magazines I used to read 20 years ago, where any tiny increase in performance was worthwhile.
Thank goodness we're at the stage where any x64 processor from the last few years will be plenty good enough for most people, and benchmarks are largely meaningless
I am looking forward to the day when it's the same with phones.
That day is now. The media/marketing might be hyping latest and greatest, but I'm starting to see more people opt for cheap and cheerful 'good enough' phones over these overpriced flagship devices. I recently bought an Oppo F1S to replace my old Note5. It cost 1/4 the price of the new S8 and is good enough for what I need (it actually is a really good phone). I know at least three other people in my circle that have made similar choices.
All presidents break a sizable portion of their campaign promises. Some of them are promises they couldn't fulfill. Others are promises that they changed their mind on, or never had any will to fulfill.
The difference is that Trump rode on the ticket of being an outsider, drain the swamp etc.
That's funny. Anyone who cared about "day one" promises from the last president was racist. Now it is good to care about promises.
This is odd logic. Assuming you are correct, your position is that because of something that happened with the last president, no-one should ever care about anything this president does?
BK deliberately accessed other people's computers. When there was a fix in place to stop that commercial, they deliberately changed the commercial. That is intentional unauthorized access of computer systems.
As I said, you must be fun at parties....
Socially, the 20xx years will probably be closer to the 18xx years than the 19xx years, without a Soviet Union that forces us to look like we're the good guys, there is exactly no reason that cutthroat capitalism shouldn't be employed to the full extent that we had in the 1800s. Only far, far more efficiently.
I have this discussion all the time when people moan about house prices. The standard complaint is that prices are too high, "my parents could afford a house on a working class wage, why can't I"?
The error is thinking that the 50's to the 80's is the normal that we measure against, but this period is the anomaly. For most of human history, rich people owned everything and poor people suffered. There's no reason to think that the further we get from the 20th century, the more it will revert back to this model of wealth distribution.
The real question is what will their quality of life be like?
If we use the last 10000 years as an example it is likely to be much better, all the while the great unwashed will believe it's worse.
This has pretty much been the standard pattern for all of human civilisation.
Pretty optimistic to think there will be future generations around in 58 years. Never mind Google or Facebook.
Based on the fact that every single generation in the history of humanity said the exact same thing, I'm going to have a punt and say that in 58 years humans will not only exist, they will be much more developed and advanced than they are now, and they will look back on the early 2000's as primitive and a bit backwards. Just like pretty much every period of human civilisation.
Don't be fooled by alarmist media or nostalgia googles, the trend of overall human development has been consistently rising since we walked out of the trees. There is nothing to suggest this will change anytime soon.
Bad examples. Nobody except maybe the Tsar would've predicted Tsarist Russia would last. It'd been weakening for a long time and there was a revolution in 1905.
Like Erdogan in Turkey? Tell us oh great Oracle how will that one turn out?
The very nature of the future is that it cannot be predicted reliably. Claiming you knew that Tsarist Russi would fall years before it did, in hindsight, does sound a little pretentious...
If you actually understood the economics, you would be able to make an argument for why employing more labor to produce the same amount of economic output is a good thing. But you're just a typical l peddler of broken fascist economic ideas,
Right. Fascism/Hitler. It's always Fascism or Hitler with you isn't it?
Why is that? Do you ever find that when you're typing in the word Hitler or Fascism something doesn't go off in you head that says " I've used these words a little bit too much lately, maybe I should change it up a bit"?
If you are genuinely interested in the economics Google it. I have no time for children whose every response is Hitler!
It doesn't matter much if auto-cars do get in accidents as long as they get in fewer accidents than humans do,
Not true. If the road death rate is 20000, mostly to due preventable causes, but Robot cars offer and death rate of 10000 but completely random, it will still be unacceptable.
One day they will be smart enough to consider that a child might appear when a ball does, but for now they can just stop or slow down when they see the ball (which is an obstruction in the road).
So behave much worse than a human, thus be a worse overall experience? And you are assuming it sees the ball every single time. Because the first time it doesn't and kills a child, the company will be sued out of existence.
They used to think computers would never beat humans at chess. Then it was Jeopardy. Then it was Go. One of the few certainties in life is that the "it can't be done!" crowd are invariably proven wrong, sooner or later.
Ah right, so everything ever thought of is always possible. Great argument...
and now Burger King with "OK, Google", and nobody goes to prison.
So saying "Ok Google" should be an imprisonable offence now? You must be fun at parties....
You're missing the point. If Burger King legitimizes triggering digital assistants, then everybody can do it.
So turn it off. Seriously, who gives a fuck...
Your false assumption is that "creating more jobs" or "employing more people" to produce the same amount or less energy is a good thing, when, in fact, it is a bad thing.
Only if you don't understand the economics, which you've made abundantly clear.
Defeats the purpose of a F-35 doesn't it? Let's build a super stealthy aircraft and then have multiple none stealthy aircraft going into battle with it. Basically the F-16s will be saying, "There is an F-35 in the neighborhood, look harder and you will find it.
You know you don't always have to have a F35 present with every F16. The price of the F16 means you can have hundreds of them in the air flying decoy sorties, while the real mission utilises the F35's
That works great until there is a jammer. In other words, it works fine against small, overpowered nations against whom there are already a myriad of options.
The whole idea of AI is that you don't need constant communication. Load mission parameters before takeoff, set and forget. Nothing you can think of mid flight can't be thought about pre-flight.
That explains why in a galaxy far, far away with much more advanced technology than we have, no-one can hit shit with a weapon.
To be fair that was along time ago. In that same galaxy today, all the humans are all already dead, as the AI was far, far superior in battle.
Flying in the Air Force has been seen as a stepping stone to flying airlines as long as I remember.
Being a military pilot has always been seen by many pilots as a way to accumulate a lot of flight time, which is the #1 requirement to be an airline pilot.
My father was in the Air Force in the 70's, and even when I kid back then I remember thinking I'd grow up to be a fighter pilot then move on to commercial airlines. Alas I was too lazy and got into IT instead. Much better pay and conditions, just not the glamorous title. But I can live with that.
General Claire Chennault, the commander of the American Volunteer Group - the 'Flying Tigers" - in China before WWII, said that aviation is long hours of sheer boredom, punctuated by short moments of stark terror. Or perhaps he was only talking about flying fighters.
My father was in the Air Force for 20 years. Him and every one I knew that he worked with were raging alcoholics (not officially, but it seems like that's all they did), so I reckon it's not just the fighter pilots.
I reason it is easier to take selfie in front of the mirror, so unless your point that taking any selfie is narcissistic, mirrors have nothing to do with it.
It's even worse when someone has a 'selfie in the mirror', but the photo has been taken from an angle that would be impossible for the phone they're holding to take...
I'm always amazed at the number of people on Instagram who have actual pictures of themselves standing in front of a mirror.
You'd have to be a regular of user of Instacrap to know something like this so why do you bother?
If I find something annoying I stop giving it my attention...
For every other luxury car maker there are 20+ years of used cars on the market. So for those models they're not only competing with their own model year, they're competing with the previous generation. Further, I'm not sure if it holds true for Tesla, but higher end sedans are typically leased so there is a continual supply of cars a few years old entering the used market.
What is the definition of 'luxury'? Back in the day it was easy, electric windows, aircon, leather etc we're only found in 'luxury' cars, but even the Toyota Corolla has all that now.
Personally, I think the Tesla S looks ok on the outside, but the inside doesn't have much luxury vibe to it. Very sparse and plain looking. The Tesla X just looks like some cheap Chinese garbage. It's all fat and egg shaped and has warped proportions. Compare the less expensive Porsche Macan or Audi SQ5 which is how a luxury SUV should look.
You're confusing cause and effect.
No I'm not.
A productive, active economy often creates corporate turnover and high employment.
Not wrong...
It doesn't follow that creating high corporate turnover and high employment is good for the economy.
No because I wasn't reaching that conclusion from that assumption.
The claim is that any government policy to reduce carbon emission will wreck the economy. But we already have examples of that not being the case I'm struggling to think of any examples of increased employment and new emerging industries being bad for the economy? Maybe you could help me out?
I know: it's a common mistake made by devotees of left and right wing politics.
Only those that proceed on false assumptions.