Oh, good! Finally, one of these identical ideologically-based posts is going to offer some proof - statistics, links, stuff like that. Here I will summarize all the proof that you offer:
It is amazing that our parents and grandparents were able to do things like send men to the moon without plush padded seating and nicely carpeted hallways at their universities. Even so, they could still afford to get an education.
Baloney. YOUR parents and grandparents may have been able to go to college, but the loan crisis is primarily among those whose parents and grandparents did not and could not. They were more likely working manufacturing jobs that don't exist any more.
In your great-grandparents' day, very few people got a college education at all. In your grandparents' day, the post-WWII GI bill (i.e. government money) accounted for most of the increase in enrollment. Then the boomers got affordable state-subsidized education, supplemented with plentiful high-paying low-skilled jobs to work their way through, plus loans that could be discharged in bankruptcy if necessary.
But even since 1975 college enrollment rates have increased by another 50% (from a bit under half to a bit under 70% of all highschool graduates). And, as I started with, you can bet that most recent 20% is heavily weighted towards those for whom the option to loans is not "figuring it out," but rather dropping into the ranks of mere highschool graduates, which now equates to the working poor.
Ultimately the number of "votes" you get is proportional to what you spend, not how many hours you play. The most vocal people are not necessarily to most representative, nor the biggest customers.
Apple's success now is not based on the iMac or iPod still being cool. If they are successful in the future, it will not be based on the iPhone or iPad still being cool. It would have to be "something else." Figuring out what that would be is the hard part.
Baloney, a sacrifice is volunary, and a bank robber certainly doesn't go in hoping to get shot. Snowden DID come forth volunarily, and never stood to gain much personally in the first place. Completely different.
I wouldn't minimize blinding weapons at all; I think they could easily be faster, more effective, and more targeted than chemical weapons, for example. (And before you point out nobody has hardly bothered to use those in many decades, recall that finding at least a stash of them was supposed to earn Iraq the "WMD" label, thus justifying the invasion. And that was back when WMD still sort of meant something).
The issue here is that the NSA is being a bunch of assbags to internet companies..
Oh please. The absurdity of Schneier (and your) position is the idea that the companies are on a different side of the issue than the NSA in the first place. Obviously there is quite a bit of value in huge databases of everything. It is companies, not the government, who led the charge in constructing and exploiting the databases. Now that they exist, government is simply horning in on them.
Notice how handset makers come and go, while the networks themselves, like AT&T, are set in stone? Do you really think this is because AT&T is so humble and innovative? Handsets are interchangeable and short-lived. A company is no better than its last product or two. Nobody has managed to be king of the hill as long as Blackberry did. And my guess is the days of windfall profits in the sector are numbered at this point anyways.
Which is unlike where else? Everybody makes the case for their own sphere of responsibility and then somebody higher up weighs their inputs and then sets priorities. I don't see how else it could or should work, especially given the tendency for each person to see whatever they are working as the most important.
Because very quickly somebody would compare SSL certs exchanged through a different path, notice the discrepancy, and the whole thing would blow wide open. Or are you assuming they have nabbed DT's private key? Or cracked their public key?
Much of his talk references the fact that many of the "new" ideas in computing were actually discussed and implemented in the early days of programming. Multiple core processing, visual tools and interactions, and higher level languages are not novel in any way; he's trying to point out that the earliest programmers had these ideas too, but we ignored or forgot them due to circumstances.
So what's the point? They want a cookie? They want people not to use these concepts even now that they are viable because they are not original enough? That industry must have been wrong to take sequential processing to the limit before taking on the extra complexity of parallelism?
The only prescriptive takeaway I see here that people shouldn't be afraid to innovate. Were they?
It doesn't really matter, because markets are always lightyears ahead of what researchers are able to prove. Rhetoric has ALWAYS been about making what you like seem "normal", to be the default. You second-guess yourself when you're an outlier. This is exactly what hype (or buzz) is all about. It's why advertisers say "X million people can't be wrong!" Or, watch any politician and they almost always say "the American people want (whatever it is I espouse)." Studying these things formally just allows those of us without much common sense to be in on it.
My initial question was, if you can do the work with 90 people, why the FUCK were you paying 900?!?
My guess is they will NOT manage to reduce manpower by 90%. But if you take, say, the number of resources (DB, fileserver, PC...) times the number of admins with access to each, that product could probably be reduced by that much. But it would increase, not decrease, the total workload.
Yes, but music is almost insignificant in size. For $22 you get a brand-name 32 GB MicroSD card that can hold about 100 hours of FLAC or 500 hours of mp3 - call it 5000 songs or 500 albums.
Music is not going to drive 100GB+ mobile capacity, let alone terabytes.
"Twentysomethings who haven't talked to the opposite sex in five or six years" is an equally good over-generalization of a few groups we think of as being separate:
There is NO WAY Apple doesn't have something much more innovative than the iPhone 5s in the pipeline. I say this not as a fan of Apple, but simply because Tim Cook has $145,000,000,000 (yes, billions) burning a hole in his pocket, with nothing more to do than prove to the world that he's just as wonderful as Steve was. Worst case, Apple bleeds cash throwing one desparate hail mary after another, but there is no way they will just fall on the ball.
You say that as if momentum were bad! Compare. Microsoft has been raking in at least a billion in profit per year, year, for 15 years. Apple, meanwhile, for about last 5. Do you see any of Apple's current products that wedged so deep into every business process out there that they will almost surely still be profiting $1BN / year a decade from now, as Microsoft has ALREADY done? I don't. Apple is never more than about 2 bum product releases away from losing money. Microsoft has already done that many times over:)
I am about to ask a very naiive question so please bear with me. Interconnects aside, is an ideal transistor permitted by theory? That is, 0 resistance when closed and "infinite" resistance when open? (Surely not the latter, since arcing could occur even in a vacuum). And while we're at it, it should not require any current to hold the transistor open or shut once it is switched. And should be infinitely fast:)
There must be a divide by 0 in there somewhere, it just doesn't seem like the universe would permit computation without creating some entropy.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, good! Finally, one of these identical ideologically-based posts is going to offer some proof - statistics, links, stuff like that. Here I will summarize all the proof that you offer:
Baloney. YOUR parents and grandparents may have been able to go to college, but the loan crisis is primarily among those whose parents and grandparents did not and could not. They were more likely working manufacturing jobs that don't exist any more.
In your great-grandparents' day, very few people got a college education at all. In your grandparents' day, the post-WWII GI bill (i.e. government money) accounted for most of the increase in enrollment. Then the boomers got affordable state-subsidized education, supplemented with plentiful high-paying low-skilled jobs to work their way through, plus loans that could be discharged in bankruptcy if necessary.
But even since 1975 college enrollment rates have increased by another 50% (from a bit under half to a bit under 70% of all highschool graduates). And, as I started with, you can bet that most recent 20% is heavily weighted towards those for whom the option to loans is not "figuring it out," but rather dropping into the ranks of mere highschool graduates, which now equates to the working poor.
Ultimately the number of "votes" you get is proportional to what you spend, not how many hours you play. The most vocal people are not necessarily to most representative, nor the biggest customers.
Wow, even little stuff like cables and toner? Last time I bought a cable at a store the price was shocking.
Going the speed limit is dangerous, because you are going slower than everybody around you.
Apple's success now is not based on the iMac or iPod still being cool. If they are successful in the future, it will not be based on the iPhone or iPad still being cool. It would have to be "something else." Figuring out what that would be is the hard part.
Baloney, a sacrifice is volunary, and a bank robber certainly doesn't go in hoping to get shot. Snowden DID come forth volunarily, and never stood to gain much personally in the first place. Completely different.
I wouldn't minimize blinding weapons at all; I think they could easily be faster, more effective, and more targeted than chemical weapons, for example. (And before you point out nobody has hardly bothered to use those in many decades, recall that finding at least a stash of them was supposed to earn Iraq the "WMD" label, thus justifying the invasion. And that was back when WMD still sort of meant something).
Oh please. The absurdity of Schneier (and your) position is the idea that the companies are on a different side of the issue than the NSA in the first place. Obviously there is quite a bit of value in huge databases of everything. It is companies, not the government, who led the charge in constructing and exploiting the databases. Now that they exist, government is simply horning in on them.
I would think simply re-generating a random MAC address each time you enable WiFi would work well enough.
Ideas are cheap and easy to come by. The question is whether we are getting any closer to actually doing it.
Notice how handset makers come and go, while the networks themselves, like AT&T, are set in stone? Do you really think this is because AT&T is so humble and innovative? Handsets are interchangeable and short-lived. A company is no better than its last product or two. Nobody has managed to be king of the hill as long as Blackberry did. And my guess is the days of windfall profits in the sector are numbered at this point anyways.
Which is unlike where else? Everybody makes the case for their own sphere of responsibility and then somebody higher up weighs their inputs and then sets priorities. I don't see how else it could or should work, especially given the tendency for each person to see whatever they are working as the most important.
Because very quickly somebody would compare SSL certs exchanged through a different path, notice the discrepancy, and the whole thing would blow wide open. Or are you assuming they have nabbed DT's private key? Or cracked their public key?
On the other hand it is fanciful to imagine that endless amounts of funding can be cut from "nothing in particular."
So what's the point? They want a cookie? They want people not to use these concepts even now that they are viable because they are not original enough? That industry must have been wrong to take sequential processing to the limit before taking on the extra complexity of parallelism?
The only prescriptive takeaway I see here that people shouldn't be afraid to innovate. Were they?
It doesn't really matter, because markets are always lightyears ahead of what researchers are able to prove. Rhetoric has ALWAYS been about making what you like seem "normal", to be the default. You second-guess yourself when you're an outlier. This is exactly what hype (or buzz) is all about. It's why advertisers say "X million people can't be wrong!" Or, watch any politician and they almost always say "the American people want (whatever it is I espouse)." Studying these things formally just allows those of us without much common sense to be in on it.
My guess is they will NOT manage to reduce manpower by 90%. But if you take, say, the number of resources (DB, fileserver, PC...) times the number of admins with access to each, that product could probably be reduced by that much. But it would increase, not decrease, the total workload.
Music is not going to drive 100GB+ mobile capacity, let alone terabytes.
If you want to compare across brands, it only makes sense to price-match. Isnt he iPad 3 still more expensive than the Nexus 7?
Certainly the latter group is the most innocuous.
There is NO WAY Apple doesn't have something much more innovative than the iPhone 5s in the pipeline. I say this not as a fan of Apple, but simply because Tim Cook has $145,000,000,000 (yes, billions) burning a hole in his pocket, with nothing more to do than prove to the world that he's just as wonderful as Steve was. Worst case, Apple bleeds cash throwing one desparate hail mary after another, but there is no way they will just fall on the ball.
You say that as if momentum were bad! Compare. Microsoft has been raking in at least a billion in profit per year, year, for 15 years. Apple, meanwhile, for about last 5. Do you see any of Apple's current products that wedged so deep into every business process out there that they will almost surely still be profiting $1BN / year a decade from now, as Microsoft has ALREADY done? I don't. Apple is never more than about 2 bum product releases away from losing money. Microsoft has already done that many times over :)
+1 for my friend the AC
There must be a divide by 0 in there somewhere, it just doesn't seem like the universe would permit computation without creating some entropy.