In the long run, yes. Probably not really soon. There are plenty of significant advances happening that space right now. They might market to the far low end PCs, but they aren't the market AMD and Intel really want anyway.
My uncle was a computer scientist for a National Lab. He retired 15 or so years ago. I remember just after my grandmother first got internet, he didn't have it at his home yet because he didn't believe it was safe -this was probably 1997 or 98, and I remember him talking to me about how disappointed he was with the internet. "It was supposed to be this great thing. It's useless. It'll never amount to anything."
Mostly various websites. Particularly government websites (I use their websites constantly.) I really don't know why. For example, the city of Dallas Procurement website doesn't work at all in Firefox. Neither does the Texas Water Development Boards website. I have to use Chrome or IE.
Facebook, twitter, etc should all (voluntarily) require all users to complete an identity verification process, and then real names should be used as handles.
If you aren't anonymous, then you are far less likely to be a jerk.
Always love Trumpie's logic. Employment is at the same time the best it's ever been because of Trump after Obama wrecked the economy AND the hyper-immigration problem is steeling all the jobs from good (white) Americans -which is also Obama's fault.
Right, it's easy in a lab, but almost impossible to actually hack a voting machine in the field.
It's a whole lot easier to just make laws that basically ban your opponent's base from being able to vote at all. That's what republicans have done. Democrats need to move on from the voting booth non-issues and focus on that.
People can't walk away from education because our society holds traditional "sit-in-a-seat" education to an almost religious standing. You nearly can't do anything today without a college degree. So, there is no upper limit to how high college can cost. No matter how high the price, families will pay it because they believe they have to. If you don't, you are almost guaranteeing your own child will have limited opportunities.
As yet, MOOCs are valueless to students. The value of a college degree is still wrapped into the pedigree of the college it's received from. That may be completely unfair, but it's true. If I'm an employer and I see a student with a degree from the University of Texas and one with a degree from Online Southern Highlands Institute of Technology, all else being equal, I'm going with the Longhorn. Every time. Why? Is there any indication that the UT grad worked harder? Not necessarily. But I know UT and their pedigree. I don't know OSHIT.
There was a time (you know, back in the baby boomer days) when having a college degree was meaningful. It really didn't matter what the major was. Employers saw a degree and found that to be indicative of a good potential employee.
Today, college degrees aren't meaningless, they are a minimum expectation. Few entry level white color jobs don't have a college degree as a minimum requirement to even get your application a set of eyes. But it's not even just the degree anymore. Entry level job postings will require a degree in a related field. That typically nixes humanities. So, parents and high school councilors know this and discourage studying humanities.
Honestly, I would discourage my children from studying humanities too.
You can't rig a national election by hacking physical voting machines. You *might* be able to change the votes on that machine. You *might* even be able to change multiple machines if you happen to have access to them.
But in elections decided by thousands upon thousands of votes, It's just not possible to physically hack that many voting machines to make a difference.
Correct. In my definition "freedom" is quantifiable. I listed 3 degrees of freedom (there are more, but they are small players in comparison). 3 degrees of freedom is much less than 10,000 degrees of freedom. You are correct. The more freedom, the better.
I like the scientific definition of freedom. In science "Freedom" is not a nebulous feeling-good term. It has an actual quantifiable definition. Freedom means options. For example, a water molecule has three degrees of vibrational and rotational freedom. That's a number, that's important.
So, what does "freedom" mean when it comes to free-markets? It means the number of options a person has to purchase a good or service or perform a task. How many options do we have to buy e-books? Actually a lot. Google, Amazon, Apple and a host of others provide options for buying ebooks. Ergo, your "freedom" is not at risk in the ebook market.
On the other hand, if Amazon grows too powerful and is able to start making noncompetitive demands on publishers and writers, then our book-buying freedom *is* at risk. (Which is the whole point of monopoly laws and the need for courts to decide antitrust.)
Americans aren't filling their homes with crappy books they might have read once and will never read again. This is a warning that capitalism and freedom are at risk of disappearing!
There were two main things that enabled the rise in college cost. You are right that the availability of cheap federally backed (and non-bankruptable) loans is part of it. The second is that less and less public money is going to subsidize education. It's a surprisingly little recognized fact that state universities used to be subsidized by the states. Over time that subsidy has been diminished to almost 0. When your boomer parents claim they paid for college working the night-shift, they are delusional. Their education was heavily subsidized. Yours probably wasn't. So, that cost has to come from somewhere -namely, tuition ad fees.
Is this really the best way to spend the generous donations of your alumni? Surely there is a better way to spend this money, like a lazy river in an event center.
I agree. I don't buy Adobe either. I do have a 365 Account because my wife needs it when she takes work home on occasion. Like I said, I only pay for the subscription as a last resort.
Bob's Software Publishing is living a fantasy if they think they can convince me to pony up $5 a month for a camera filter app or whatever.
So did MS Office. Sure, lots of people sign onto BIG name companies like Adobe or Autodesk -programs where there really is a major entrenched player with a lot of power over the market. But then people really only sign on because they are forced to. But the small publishers? I can't imagine that being a workable business model.
Slashdot Mirror
In the long run, yes. Probably not really soon. There are plenty of significant advances happening that space right now. They might market to the far low end PCs, but they aren't the market AMD and Intel really want anyway.
My uncle was a computer scientist for a National Lab. He retired 15 or so years ago. I remember just after my grandmother first got internet, he didn't have it at his home yet because he didn't believe it was safe -this was probably 1997 or 98, and I remember him talking to me about how disappointed he was with the internet. "It was supposed to be this great thing. It's useless. It'll never amount to anything."
Yeah, he was wrong.
But they do have money.
And in the end, that's all that matters, isn't it?
Mostly various websites. Particularly government websites (I use their websites constantly.) I really don't know why. For example, the city of Dallas Procurement website doesn't work at all in Firefox. Neither does the Texas Water Development Boards website. I have to use Chrome or IE.
I really want to like Firefox. I do. I use it as my primary browser right now.
But... I still find myself opening Chrome pretty often for various reasons.
Facebook, twitter, etc should all (voluntarily) require all users to complete an identity verification process, and then real names should be used as handles.
If you aren't anonymous, then you are far less likely to be a jerk.
Always love Trumpie's logic. Employment is at the same time the best it's ever been because of Trump after Obama wrecked the economy AND the hyper-immigration problem is steeling all the jobs from good (white) Americans -which is also Obama's fault.
Right, it's easy in a lab, but almost impossible to actually hack a voting machine in the field.
It's a whole lot easier to just make laws that basically ban your opponent's base from being able to vote at all. That's what republicans have done. Democrats need to move on from the voting booth non-issues and focus on that.
People can't walk away from education because our society holds traditional "sit-in-a-seat" education to an almost religious standing. You nearly can't do anything today without a college degree. So, there is no upper limit to how high college can cost. No matter how high the price, families will pay it because they believe they have to. If you don't, you are almost guaranteeing your own child will have limited opportunities.
Yes. 15 years ago there was a huge rise in Nationalism in the US. That was my point.
Nationalism doesn't mean Hitler.
80 years ago was hardly the last time that happened. Nationalism has more like a 15 year cycle.
"...with no performance review",
said someone online that clearly has no idea what they are talking about at all.
As yet, MOOCs are valueless to students. The value of a college degree is still wrapped into the pedigree of the college it's received from. That may be completely unfair, but it's true. If I'm an employer and I see a student with a degree from the University of Texas and one with a degree from Online Southern Highlands Institute of Technology, all else being equal, I'm going with the Longhorn. Every time. Why? Is there any indication that the UT grad worked harder? Not necessarily. But I know UT and their pedigree. I don't know OSHIT.
Perhaps you should look into an institution known as "Tenure".
There was a time (you know, back in the baby boomer days) when having a college degree was meaningful. It really didn't matter what the major was. Employers saw a degree and found that to be indicative of a good potential employee.
Today, college degrees aren't meaningless, they are a minimum expectation. Few
entry level white color jobs don't have a college degree as a minimum requirement to even get your application a set of eyes. But it's not even just the degree anymore. Entry level job postings will require a degree in a related field. That typically nixes humanities. So, parents and high school councilors know this and discourage studying humanities.
Honestly, I would discourage my children from studying humanities too.
You can't rig a national election by hacking physical voting machines. You *might* be able to change the votes on that machine. You *might* even be able to change multiple machines if you happen to have access to them.
But in elections decided by thousands upon thousands of votes, It's just not possible to physically hack that many voting machines to make a difference.
Correct. In my definition "freedom" is quantifiable. I listed 3 degrees of freedom (there are more, but they are small players in comparison). 3 degrees of freedom is much less than 10,000 degrees of freedom. You are correct. The more freedom, the better.
I like the scientific definition of freedom. In science "Freedom" is not a nebulous feeling-good term. It has an actual quantifiable definition. Freedom means options. For example, a water molecule has three degrees of vibrational and rotational freedom. That's a number, that's important.
So, what does "freedom" mean when it comes to free-markets? It means the number of options a person has to purchase a good or service or perform a task. How many options do we have to buy e-books? Actually a lot. Google, Amazon, Apple and a host of others provide options for buying ebooks. Ergo, your "freedom" is not at risk in the ebook market.
On the other hand, if Amazon grows too powerful and is able to start making noncompetitive demands on publishers and writers, then our book-buying freedom *is* at risk. (Which is the whole point of monopoly laws and the need for courts to decide antitrust.)
NOTICE: ACTION REQUIRED
Americans aren't filling their homes with crappy books they might have read once and will never read again. This is a warning that capitalism and freedom are at risk of disappearing!
There were two main things that enabled the rise in college cost. You are right that the availability of cheap federally backed (and non-bankruptable) loans is part of it. The second is that less and less public money is going to subsidize education. It's a surprisingly little recognized fact that state universities used to be subsidized by the states. Over time that subsidy has been diminished to almost 0. When your boomer parents claim they paid for college working the night-shift, they are delusional. Their education was heavily subsidized. Yours probably wasn't. So, that cost has to come from somewhere -namely, tuition ad fees.
Is this really the best way to spend the generous donations of your alumni? Surely there is a better way to spend this money, like a lazy river in an event center.
I agree. I don't buy Adobe either. I do have a 365 Account because my wife needs it when she takes work home on occasion. Like I said, I only pay for the subscription as a last resort.
Bob's Software Publishing is living a fantasy if they think they can convince me to pony up $5 a month for a camera filter app or whatever.
I get that, but all this is going to do is discourage downloading from small developers.
I'll pay MS Office's subscription fee because I'm forced to. I''m not paying $5 a month to Joe's Software.
So did MS Office. Sure, lots of people sign onto BIG name companies like Adobe or Autodesk -programs where there really is a major entrenched player with a lot of power over the market. But then people really only sign on because they are forced to. But the small publishers? I can't imagine that being a workable business model.
Other than big name companies, like Netflix, who pays for a subscription to an app?
I'm not, can't imagine many people are.