Seeing the manner in which Democrats behave on social media has caused me to flip my party affiliation this election.
You say that as if the other side are any better? I get that people hate the Democrats, but don't pretend that the Republicans are in any way different.
This election is choice between a professional politician, who may actually be satan, but is capable of keeping things ticking along, and Ronald McDonald who has absolutely no idea what he's doing and could burn the house down.
The least worst option would be to pick the politician, and then vigourously campaign your local Republican representative to sort their shit out and produce a viable candidate for 2020.
This is true. I can not vote for someone who supports abortion.
Out of interest what level is your biology education? I find there is a strong correlation between strict anti-abortion views and level of science education.
Also worth pointing out, Trump is pro-choice, like most other things he is just saying what you want to hear to get your vote. If he wins, he won't go near that issue. How will that make you feel?
I consider the abortion of a human life to be murder.
Good thing that abortions are usually done on foetuses, not humans (see above)
Holding that belief how could I possibly vote for someone who supports abortion? Homosexuality and Transgender issues I can compromise on, even gay marriage but murder of the innocent is a line I can not cross.
Yet you'll happily support policies which result in the actual deaths of actual humans every day. This is the logical inconsistency with pretending you don't support killing. Real people are dying all the time and you won't lift a finger, but a women has chooses the exercise her rights over her own body all of a sudden you're all angry about it.
Anecdotally, I've been through two hailstorms that were bad enough for the insurance company to replace the roof on my house. I think my insurance company hates me...the last one cost them over $30k.
No they love you, because for your $30k spend they get millions in premiums from everyone else that probably won't ever use/need hail coverage
I do similar, obviously you haven't done much travel or IT work between organisations or government departments otherwise you would realise it is impossible to rely on internet connectivity even in major cities. I have a lot of my lab stuff setup in Azure, but all my critical ones must run on my laptop, you would have to be insane or just plane stupid to rely on internet/cloud connectivity when sales/presentations or critical work is on the line.
I've had plenty of experience in all of that, and one thing we never do is rely on a single laptop for a critical delivery or presentation. Demos are mostly always screenshots or videos so you don't run the risk of crashes mid-presentation.
Global. I travel and work anywhere in the world. Your first-world luxuries are not available everywhere.
Where exactly? And even assuming you're always on the go with your huge VMs in tow, what percentage of users do you think need this?
I've traveled a fair bit for work myself, and most places, even in developing countries, have the Internet. That's generally the reason why you are going there in the first place. They have networks are looking for new apps to put on them.
That is actually quite irrelevant. Glass is weak and depends on it's structure to make it strong.
Is hail that big a problem for most people? I'm sure for some people it is, just like some people have to deal with tornadoes, and others have to deal with heat waves, and others flooding. But most people don't have to worry about them, and for them, this is great.
BTW we get the odd hail storm here, in the lat 30 years we've had two big ones that were enough to break stuff, and even the it was only in some suburbs, not the entire city. So these rare cases would be covered by insurance. A small additional cost is still probably going to be cheaper than 30 years of paying electricity bills
For me, VMs. I typically run at least two CentOS VMs, or a Window 2012 Server + CentOS. Currently I've got those as bare bones as possible on my 2014 16GB MBP - easy with a CentOS, not so much with the Windows Server (regardless of whether you have the gui on/off). Each of these VMs is running very active network/disk-based processes, along with some Java-based applications, and on top of this my host system has typically at least two different IDEs going for developing against these systems. With 32GB, I could run more, or more importantly dedicate more resources to my VMs without oversubscribing them.
You missed the part where you explain why this can't be run in AWS or similar? I have devs in my team that have similar requirements, they use AWS, can run much higher performing CPU/RAM/Disk than any laptop could dream of, and use a remote shell.
With a powerful laptop I can go visit a potential customer and show them the product/service without depending on any external factors. Such an advantage is huge.
And the disadvantage is that if you laptop fails, or goes missing you are screwed. With a remote cloud you could simply use one of their machines if yours fails and carry on.
With a powerful laptop I can carry around a massive dataset and work on the programming problem while en route to a conference.
Not sure where you live, but LTE Cellular is fairly common in most developed parts of the world. And as above a failed HDD isn't a disaster.
Also you can't carry a truly massive dataset, because no laptop in the world is specd high enough to complete with something like an AWS X1 instance which can do really massive datasets.
With a powerful laptop I can simply sit at home, at my work area, and not care about the local internet going down or the power going out: I can just focus on my work and get it done.
Again, I'm not sure where you live, but I live in a developed country, so this risk is much lower than a failed machine.
And the biggest benefit of this model, is that if I need to I can spin up a 128CPU/1952GB RAM VM at will and run anything I like at any time, and I only pay it when I use it. Let me know when your laptop can do that.
yep all those users that run VM's are just all erection seekers, can't possibly have a justifiable reason for running a local VM like lab work or demos or development all of which many times can't run in the cloud.
Some cases maybe, but most can.
many professionals from video, graphic arts, photo editing too IT and development find that way to small.
I already made an exception for video cases, but IT dev is just code. Whether you type into terminal into your local machine, or a remote one makes no difference.
It has ALWAYS been important to have as much RAM as possible connected to your CPUs. That doesn't change because Apple can't keep up with the latest silicon.
I've been working with computers for over 20 years and this is news to me. Applications use memory, and as long you have enough memory to run the application, you do not need more than that.
And for at least the last 10 years, if you have resource intensive apps, it is easier to run it on much higher performing servers, and simply send the screen, keyboard and mouse to your local machine.
98% of the time people are plugged into wall power. Who cares. Plus, 32 GB isn't always enough. 64 would be awesome.
For what? Outside of the special use case like video rendering or animation, what are you doing that needs so much local RAM? Anything that doesn't need high bandwidth video should be able run on cloud compute.
If people want to improve the constitution, wouldn't it follow that they should follow the prescribed method instead of trying to do an end run around a constitutional convention by making clearly unconstitutional laws?
Depends. Law is a complicated topic, and open to interpretation, which is why people like to discuss things rather close out any alternative point of view.
The more often scientists or experts predict the end of the world and it doesn't come to pass, the more people will stop trusting science in the first place, and that seems like a very bad thing to me.
It's a catch 22 because the reason the end of world scenarios don't happen precisely because someone called it out, research was done, and either debunked it or implemented measures to prevent it.
This is why education is so important in a democracy. An education can teach you to distinguish real science from media headlines, and voters will be able to make choices based on reason rather than fear.
When the human population was at half its current value, the percentage of starving people was probably the same, or higher. And the reasons were the same, too.
Agree.
Population itself is not the problem, no matter how much of a shit you want to make of yourself.
Although I disagree with this. You can only fill a room with so many people, and while population is not the cause of starvation, it is a huge impediment to fixing it, since the things required to fix it, basic health, education, a fair legal system, equal rights etc, would result in a lot more wealthier less hungry people, who all now want hardwood flooring and steak dinners. I'm not sure the world can support 7 billion people who all own cars, eat beef, and enjoy air conditioning.
It's pretty logical why people over history want to believe the world/society/civilization is ending - it makes a superb excuse for extremely localized personal choices and values.
Well it's logical because it always happens on a regular basis. Sumerians, Greeks, Romans, Aztecs etc etc all ended at some point. I'm sure someone with a better history education can fill a page with other examples. As the other poster said, no-one is claiming the end of the world, but a major civilisation altering event is actually going to happen sooner or later. Even in the boy who cried wolf, the wolf eventually made an appearance.
"See that bear over there laying on the grass? It's a dancing bear".
"It doesn't seem to be doing much of what we'd call 'dancing', is it?"
And if you look closely it's not even a bear, it's a huge pile of poo that sort of looks a bit like sleeping bear if you half close your eyes. But since I'm researching dancing bears, and this is part of my research, it qualifies as a dancing bear.
Full Definition of artificial intelligence
1: a branch of computer science dealing with the simulation of intelligent behavior in computers
2: the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior
See? AI is imitation. "TRUE" AI is just imitation. That's all it needs to be to qualify as "AI."
To be fair, what level of accuracy do you have to have to qualify as "imitation"? Is a square an imitation of a circle? If I throw a bunch of buckets on the concrete, am I playing music?
If that is the case then an Abacus is AI too yeah? Since it imitates the human behaviour of adding numbers?
We have true AI. Today. And it gets better every day.
We have something labelled AI, which most regular people find to be quite stupid. And "getting better" doesn't mean much when you're going from completely useless to only mildly useless. Perhaps we should save the use of the word "intelligence" until it achieves some level comparable to average human intelligence?
You post your stupid "this isn't AI" comment with every single story about it, and you are dead wrong every single time.
I agree with GP. Current AI today doesn't qualify for either definition. And the heavy use of the word every single fucking week to try and pretend that AI is great when it really actually sucks is quite annoying.
I'm a techy and I work on payment systems, so have access to all the latest and greatest tech (the US is quite backward in this space by comparison), and even I still use cash sometimes. Because sometimes cash is better, and sometimes electronic payments are better. Thinking that you can kill cash because of you stupid app seems extremely naive.
I've already posted so can't mod you up, but you are spot on.
Banking technology is more advanced than Apple Pay (at least where I live), so their offering is harder to use and more restrictive, and years late.
Not to defend Apple here but in this case it's the banks complaining that Apple Pay doesn't let them abuse their customers.
So why do banks support Paypal, Squareup, Bitcoin and lots other non-bank payment methods?
Sorry but Apple are so used to pushing around impressionable teens that they thought they could pull the same tricks on big banks and get away with it. Stupid Apple...
Slashdot Mirror
Seeing the manner in which Democrats behave on social media has caused me to flip my party affiliation this election.
You say that as if the other side are any better? I get that people hate the Democrats, but don't pretend that the Republicans are in any way different.
This election is choice between a professional politician, who may actually be satan, but is capable of keeping things ticking along, and Ronald McDonald who has absolutely no idea what he's doing and could burn the house down.
The least worst option would be to pick the politician, and then vigourously campaign your local Republican representative to sort their shit out and produce a viable candidate for 2020.
This is true. I can not vote for someone who supports abortion.
Out of interest what level is your biology education? I find there is a strong correlation between strict anti-abortion views and level of science education.
Also worth pointing out, Trump is pro-choice, like most other things he is just saying what you want to hear to get your vote. If he wins, he won't go near that issue. How will that make you feel?
I consider the abortion of a human life to be murder.
Good thing that abortions are usually done on foetuses, not humans (see above)
Holding that belief how could I possibly vote for someone who supports abortion? Homosexuality and Transgender issues I can compromise on, even gay marriage but murder of the innocent is a line I can not cross.
Yet you'll happily support policies which result in the actual deaths of actual humans every day. This is the logical inconsistency with pretending you don't support killing. Real people are dying all the time and you won't lift a finger, but a women has chooses the exercise her rights over her own body all of a sudden you're all angry about it.
Is hail that big a problem for most people?
For most people in a given area frequented by hailstorms maybe :-)
But I'm guessing hail would also be a problem for cars and ceramic tiles, but I'll bet money people in your area still have those?
You should move.
Anecdotally, I've been through two hailstorms that were bad enough for the insurance company to replace the roof on my house. I think my insurance company hates me...the last one cost them over $30k.
No they love you, because for your $30k spend they get millions in premiums from everyone else that probably won't ever use/need hail coverage
I do similar, obviously you haven't done much travel or IT work between organisations or government departments otherwise you would realise it is impossible to rely on internet connectivity even in major cities. I have a lot of my lab stuff setup in Azure, but all my critical ones must run on my laptop, you would have to be insane or just plane stupid to rely on internet/cloud connectivity when sales/presentations or critical work is on the line.
I've had plenty of experience in all of that, and one thing we never do is rely on a single laptop for a critical delivery or presentation. Demos are mostly always screenshots or videos so you don't run the risk of crashes mid-presentation.
Global. I travel and work anywhere in the world. Your first-world luxuries are not available everywhere.
Where exactly? And even assuming you're always on the go with your huge VMs in tow, what percentage of users do you think need this?
I've traveled a fair bit for work myself, and most places, even in developing countries, have the Internet. That's generally the reason why you are going there in the first place. They have networks are looking for new apps to put on them.
That is actually quite irrelevant. Glass is weak and depends on it's structure to make it strong.
Is hail that big a problem for most people? I'm sure for some people it is, just like some people have to deal with tornadoes, and others have to deal with heat waves, and others flooding. But most people don't have to worry about them, and for them, this is great.
BTW we get the odd hail storm here, in the lat 30 years we've had two big ones that were enough to break stuff, and even the it was only in some suburbs, not the entire city. So these rare cases would be covered by insurance. A small additional cost is still probably going to be cheaper than 30 years of paying electricity bills
For me, VMs. I typically run at least two CentOS VMs, or a Window 2012 Server + CentOS. Currently I've got those as bare bones as possible on my 2014 16GB MBP - easy with a CentOS, not so much with the Windows Server (regardless of whether you have the gui on/off). Each of these VMs is running very active network/disk-based processes, along with some Java-based applications, and on top of this my host system has typically at least two different IDEs going for developing against these systems. With 32GB, I could run more, or more importantly dedicate more resources to my VMs without oversubscribing them.
You missed the part where you explain why this can't be run in AWS or similar? I have devs in my team that have similar requirements, they use AWS, can run much higher performing CPU/RAM/Disk than any laptop could dream of, and use a remote shell.
no, those other people did not do what Hillary did. We're talking about Hillary being a criminal, her crime needs to be punished.
Only a court can make that decision. The fact that you don't seem to know this says a lot.
Your lack of logic is amazing.
Ironic...
With a powerful laptop I can go visit a potential customer and show them the product/service without depending on any external factors. Such an advantage is huge.
And the disadvantage is that if you laptop fails, or goes missing you are screwed. With a remote cloud you could simply use one of their machines if yours fails and carry on.
With a powerful laptop I can carry around a massive dataset and work on the programming problem while en route to a conference.
Not sure where you live, but LTE Cellular is fairly common in most developed parts of the world. And as above a failed HDD isn't a disaster.
Also you can't carry a truly massive dataset, because no laptop in the world is specd high enough to complete with something like an AWS X1 instance which can do really massive datasets.
With a powerful laptop I can simply sit at home, at my work area, and not care about the local internet going down or the power going out: I can just focus on my work and get it done.
Again, I'm not sure where you live, but I live in a developed country, so this risk is much lower than a failed machine.
And the biggest benefit of this model, is that if I need to I can spin up a 128CPU/1952GB RAM VM at will and run anything I like at any time, and I only pay it when I use it. Let me know when your laptop can do that.
How about 3 VMs? Or financial modeling and big databases.
Spin them up in your favourite cloud service and SSH or RDP in. Much, much higher performance than any laptop will ever have.
yep all those users that run VM's are just all erection seekers, can't possibly have a justifiable reason for running a local VM like lab work or demos or development all of which many times can't run in the cloud.
Some cases maybe, but most can.
many professionals from video, graphic arts, photo editing too IT and development find that way to small.
I already made an exception for video cases, but IT dev is just code. Whether you type into terminal into your local machine, or a remote one makes no difference.
It has ALWAYS been important to have as much RAM as possible connected to your CPUs. That doesn't change because Apple can't keep up with the latest silicon.
I've been working with computers for over 20 years and this is news to me. Applications use memory, and as long you have enough memory to run the application, you do not need more than that.
And for at least the last 10 years, if you have resource intensive apps, it is easier to run it on much higher performing servers, and simply send the screen, keyboard and mouse to your local machine.
98% of the time people are plugged into wall power. Who cares. Plus, 32 GB isn't always enough. 64 would be awesome.
For what? Outside of the special use case like video rendering or animation, what are you doing that needs so much local RAM? Anything that doesn't need high bandwidth video should be able run on cloud compute.
If people want to improve the constitution, wouldn't it follow that they should follow the prescribed method instead of trying to do an end run around a constitutional convention by making clearly unconstitutional laws?
Depends. Law is a complicated topic, and open to interpretation, which is why people like to discuss things rather close out any alternative point of view.
The more often scientists or experts predict the end of the world and it doesn't come to pass, the more people will stop trusting science in the first place, and that seems like a very bad thing to me.
It's a catch 22 because the reason the end of world scenarios don't happen precisely because someone called it out, research was done, and either debunked it or implemented measures to prevent it.
This is why education is so important in a democracy. An education can teach you to distinguish real science from media headlines, and voters will be able to make choices based on reason rather than fear.
When the human population was at half its current value, the percentage of starving people was probably the same, or higher. And the reasons were the same, too.
Agree.
Population itself is not the problem, no matter how much of a shit you want to make of yourself.
Although I disagree with this. You can only fill a room with so many people, and while population is not the cause of starvation, it is a huge impediment to fixing it, since the things required to fix it, basic health, education, a fair legal system, equal rights etc, would result in a lot more wealthier less hungry people, who all now want hardwood flooring and steak dinners. I'm not sure the world can support 7 billion people who all own cars, eat beef, and enjoy air conditioning.
It's pretty logical why people over history want to believe the world/society/civilization is ending - it makes a superb excuse for extremely localized personal choices and values.
Well it's logical because it always happens on a regular basis. Sumerians, Greeks, Romans, Aztecs etc etc all ended at some point. I'm sure someone with a better history education can fill a page with other examples. As the other poster said, no-one is claiming the end of the world, but a major civilisation altering event is actually going to happen sooner or later. Even in the boy who cried wolf, the wolf eventually made an appearance.
"See that bear over there laying on the grass? It's a dancing bear". "It doesn't seem to be doing much of what we'd call 'dancing', is it?"
And if you look closely it's not even a bear, it's a huge pile of poo that sort of looks a bit like sleeping bear if you half close your eyes. But since I'm researching dancing bears, and this is part of my research, it qualifies as a dancing bear.
+1
Full Definition of artificial intelligence 1: a branch of computer science dealing with the simulation of intelligent behavior in computers 2: the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior
See? AI is imitation. "TRUE" AI is just imitation. That's all it needs to be to qualify as "AI."
To be fair, what level of accuracy do you have to have to qualify as "imitation"? Is a square an imitation of a circle? If I throw a bunch of buckets on the concrete, am I playing music?
If that is the case then an Abacus is AI too yeah? Since it imitates the human behaviour of adding numbers?
We have true AI. Today. And it gets better every day.
We have something labelled AI, which most regular people find to be quite stupid. And "getting better" doesn't mean much when you're going from completely useless to only mildly useless. Perhaps we should save the use of the word "intelligence" until it achieves some level comparable to average human intelligence?
You post your stupid "this isn't AI" comment with every single story about it, and you are dead wrong every single time.
I agree with GP. Current AI today doesn't qualify for either definition. And the heavy use of the word every single fucking week to try and pretend that AI is great when it really actually sucks is quite annoying.
I'm a techy and I work on payment systems, so have access to all the latest and greatest tech (the US is quite backward in this space by comparison), and even I still use cash sometimes. Because sometimes cash is better, and sometimes electronic payments are better. Thinking that you can kill cash because of you stupid app seems extremely naive.
I've already posted so can't mod you up, but you are spot on.
Banking technology is more advanced than Apple Pay (at least where I live), so their offering is harder to use and more restrictive, and years late.
Not to defend Apple here but in this case it's the banks complaining that Apple Pay doesn't let them abuse their customers.
So why do banks support Paypal, Squareup, Bitcoin and lots other non-bank payment methods?
Sorry but Apple are so used to pushing around impressionable teens that they thought they could pull the same tricks on big banks and get away with it. Stupid Apple...