That's true, but doesn't the application have to support casting? And definitely the TV does, or you need another device to do it. That would probably cover almost everything most people want to do though.
How about a dock that sends the display to the TV, and a wireless mouse and keyboard? It would probably have to be significantly cheaper than a laptop to appeal to a lot of people though. I doubt $200-300 is going to cut it. But if I had a tablet that I used a lot, I would probably want a keyboard anyway. Some come with one. Adding a $30 bluetooth mouse and a $50 dock could be interesting (just making up numbers).
I was hoping to find some numbers but didn't find anything about how people actually use computers at home. I'm thinking the most common uses are:
- social networking - general web surfing - email (among those who use email) - video streaming - gaming
A phone is obviously not suited for technically demanding games, so PC gamers will continue to have dedicated PCs. The rest of it could be (and is) powered by a phone just fine.
It's been a year since at least by some measures mobile web use exceeded PC: http://bgr.com/2016/11/02/inte... That's a trend that will only continue, and more and more people won't have a PC at all.
Finally, the $600 phone. That isn't even a particularly expensive phone, and there are phones that cost almost twice that now.
None of this specifically addresses the overlap between the three groups, but I would be surprised if it were not very very large.
Now imagine you're someone who 1) wants a $600 (or more) phone anyway 2) doesn't do anything with a computer that a phone couldn't do and 3) uses your phone much more heavily than your computer. Now a phone dock starts to look more attractive.
Sure, there must be meaningful penalties. I'm just saying that the proposal to drastically ratchet up the punishment for cheating is not likely to be effective.
If it's new, you will be getting updates anyway. If not, you could try stock Android. That should be pretty safe for running whatever app you want, and it will have the Google stuff. And if you don't want to put the latest OS on an older device I believe Google is good about issuing security patches, so you could go back to Lollipop or Marshmallow without giving up security. I don't know that for 100% though so don't take my word for it.
Draconian penalties are not particularly effective in preventing bad behavior, whether it's crime or cheating. What works is increasing the likelihood of getting caught.
In this case it is Slashdot that 'speaks' on your behalf
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act specifies that a platform such as Slashdot cannot be considered as the author of any material posted by its users.
It seems to me the problem is single factor authentication. If I have to provide my iris (or whatever) scan and a password, then it becomes much more difficult to impersonate me. Assuming of course the data is stored properly and I don't do anything stupid.
There can be no generalized answer to this question. Any particular case would have to be decided on its merits. As mentioned, the FDA could punish them for making unsupported claims about a cure. The FTC could come after them for false advertising. But in any case, "on the internet" has absolutely nothing to do with it. There are no special rules for any of this stuff that apply only to the internet.
- Productivity growth is stagnating not accelerating. - There will always be jobs where humans are relatively better than machines.
By the second one, I assume you mean there will be enough of those jobs to be significant to employment on a national or global scale, not just that at least two people will be better at something than machines. And I am taking you literally when you say always - meaning for the remainder of the existence of humanity.
We would need to change our society though. Why would the robot owners give away the products of the robots for free? If there are very few workers, how will anyone have money to buy those products? Having robots make all our stuff for free sounds great, but I don't think we can get there from here if we just let it happen. Something fundamental has to change.
If people work less because machines do all the work, that means more spare time for the people.
That's absolutely right. The problem is that being able to eat and having somewhere to live generally depends on getting paid to do work. When most people have nothing but free time, how do they get food and shelter? We need to figure that out.
Either computers and robots will continue to get better and better until they're better at more or less everything than us, or they will at some point stop getting any better. Just at a permanent plateau with no improvement ever. You're telling me you think it's going to be option B? And then you're telling me I'm the one having fantasies?
Slashdot Mirror
Then what happened? Did you give up, or point out the error?
That's true, but doesn't the application have to support casting? And definitely the TV does, or you need another device to do it. That would probably cover almost everything most people want to do though.
How about a dock that sends the display to the TV, and a wireless mouse and keyboard? It would probably have to be significantly cheaper than a laptop to appeal to a lot of people though. I doubt $200-300 is going to cut it. But if I had a tablet that I used a lot, I would probably want a keyboard anyway. Some come with one. Adding a $30 bluetooth mouse and a $50 dock could be interesting (just making up numbers).
I was hoping to find some numbers but didn't find anything about how people actually use computers at home. I'm thinking the most common uses are:
- social networking
- general web surfing
- email (among those who use email)
- video streaming
- gaming
A phone is obviously not suited for technically demanding games, so PC gamers will continue to have dedicated PCs. The rest of it could be (and is) powered by a phone just fine.
It's been a year since at least by some measures mobile web use exceeded PC: http://bgr.com/2016/11/02/inte...
That's a trend that will only continue, and more and more people won't have a PC at all.
Finally, the $600 phone. That isn't even a particularly expensive phone, and there are phones that cost almost twice that now.
None of this specifically addresses the overlap between the three groups, but I would be surprised if it were not very very large.
Now imagine you're someone who 1) wants a $600 (or more) phone anyway 2) doesn't do anything with a computer that a phone couldn't do and 3) uses your phone much more heavily than your computer. Now a phone dock starts to look more attractive.
Sure, there must be meaningful penalties. I'm just saying that the proposal to drastically ratchet up the punishment for cheating is not likely to be effective.
If it's new, you will be getting updates anyway. If not, you could try stock Android. That should be pretty safe for running whatever app you want, and it will have the Google stuff. And if you don't want to put the latest OS on an older device I believe Google is good about issuing security patches, so you could go back to Lollipop or Marshmallow without giving up security. I don't know that for 100% though so don't take my word for it.
Pleasant dreams. :-)
Draconian penalties are not particularly effective in preventing bad behavior, whether it's crime or cheating. What works is increasing the likelihood of getting caught.
You're agreeing with him. He said the issue is manufacturer support, not OS version, and that's exactly the problem you described.
If you're nerdy enough, you could get one that satisfies everything but no crapware, and put the Android build of your choice on it.
You're talking about short term radiation poisoning right? What about long term effects?
In other words, Microsoft is relying on corporate inertia for its profits.
In this case it is Slashdot that 'speaks' on your behalf
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act specifies that a platform such as Slashdot cannot be considered as the author of any material posted by its users.
It seems to me the problem is single factor authentication. If I have to provide my iris (or whatever) scan and a password, then it becomes much more difficult to impersonate me. Assuming of course the data is stored properly and I don't do anything stupid.
Great idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
There can be no generalized answer to this question. Any particular case would have to be decided on its merits. As mentioned, the FDA could punish them for making unsupported claims about a cure. The FTC could come after them for false advertising. But in any case, "on the internet" has absolutely nothing to do with it. There are no special rules for any of this stuff that apply only to the internet.
I think it's a stretch to assume we can reach human-style fuzziness without losing computer-style exactness
I expect we'll always have some of each. Computer exactness where it's applicable, and fuzzy thinking where that doesn't work.
I would be interested in any evidence for these:
- Productivity growth is stagnating not accelerating.
- There will always be jobs where humans are relatively better than machines.
By the second one, I assume you mean there will be enough of those jobs to be significant to employment on a national or global scale, not just that at least two people will be better at something than machines. And I am taking you literally when you say always - meaning for the remainder of the existence of humanity.
We would need to change our society though. Why would the robot owners give away the products of the robots for free? If there are very few workers, how will anyone have money to buy those products? Having robots make all our stuff for free sounds great, but I don't think we can get there from here if we just let it happen. Something fundamental has to change.
I still use SO, but I gave up on editing after one edit got rejected for being too small, and another one was rejected for being too big.
PowerPoint is Turing complete, we should just use that.
If people work less because machines do all the work, that means more spare time for the people.
That's absolutely right. The problem is that being able to eat and having somewhere to live generally depends on getting paid to do work. When most people have nothing but free time, how do they get food and shelter? We need to figure that out.
Either computers and robots will continue to get better and better until they're better at more or less everything than us, or they will at some point stop getting any better. Just at a permanent plateau with no improvement ever. You're telling me you think it's going to be option B? And then you're telling me I'm the one having fantasies?
Some thoughts on why this time will be different:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...