Why is everything a robot? Because we've entered the future where they are becoming ubiquitous. This train is far more autonomous than the pre-programmed "robot" arms of the 1960s.
It's a real thing, but you probably won't notice it unless you look for it. The only places you are likely to see burn-in are on persistently white (or blue, really) GUI features. For instance, a white button bar. But you'll only notice it when the button bar goes away, like in a full-screen game - and even then, only when the background uses a lot of blue. Still, it pisses some people off. I'm that guy with the dirty glasses, so I'm not one of those people.
What home server? You can set the MX record to whatever you want. I certainly don't run an email server from my basement, though I do host a small website from there for family members.
Not currently, no - but there cannot ever be a business case for, say, the moon if there isn't first a business case for simply lifting people into space. It's not hard to imagine how you might need people to help service a space infrastructure, but it is hard to imagine a need for any kind of commercial activity on the moon without a commercial space infrastructure.
But that is besides the point. If the government can contract a company to use off-the-shelf hardware to boost people into space, that is a huge step forward versus contracting with companies to produce custom designs from scratch. Launches will be an order of magnitude cheaper - perhaps more.
Space access is being commoditized to the point that civilian commercial corporations can lob people into orbit, and you call that "a shame"? Soyez and China's Soyez 2.0 represent the old way. People getting in to space without the blessing of her majesty is a tremendous advance.
It didn't just start. I remember calling in to the movie theater, getting a person on the phone, and having a conversation about which movies were playing. Poor woman probably wanted to kill herself, and she was replaced by a tape machine - and eventually by "MoviePhone". This was just one part of an overall move to voicemail/menu systems to replace human interaction. I remember the first self-checkout line at the grocery store, and prior to that the first barcode scanner. Prior to that the stock boys had to use a price gun to put a price on every goddamn item (I know because I was a stock boy and I had to do that). Airplanes had a flight engineer. Postal workers manually sorted mail. Companies had "secretary pools" to manually copy documents (OK, that was before my time, along with washing machines, vacuum cleaners, and dishwashers). Service jobs have been replaced by machinery since we invented machinery. Maybe it has accelerated or reached some kind of inflection point, but it certainly didn't "begin" this year.
Yeah, but that's a side-effect of what I'm talking about. Prior to Facebook, I would move or change phone numbers. And while I'd make an effort to contact the people in my address book, mistakes and accidents happen. People lose things, people get busy, people have emergencies, people get new phones and email addresses, people die, people go to jail. The chaos of life meant I was constantly updating my address book and scratching out entries when Christmas cards were returned or emails bounced. Facebook has largely put an end to all of that. 99% of the people I know can be contacted through Facebook. Parents of my kids' friends are on Facebook. Everyone is on Facebook. Would I care if I lost the ability to see what some guy I haven't seen in 15 years ate last night? No, absolutely not. Do I care when my separated-by-distance friend posts about where to send Christmas cards to his elderly mother? Absolutely. Miss my kid's concert? A post on Facebook and I'm showered with videos of it from other parents. I'm not defending Facebook, per se - but it does have some good uses beyond "LOOK AT ME!!!"
My intent wasn't really to post positive comments - it was more to contradict the base assumption of this article. There are at least some of us who use Facebook for reasons other than digital vanity.
Coming up with instances in which it isn't should be a trivial exercise.
Sure, it's trivial. But fortunately for me, I'd be using my imagination. I'm lucky enough not to be an edge case.
I don't know what the FSB is, but I have no interest in keeping paper records of any kind anymore. The only exception is the printed copy of my will that sits in a bank vault. Even that is just to make it blatantly obvious to everyone when I die, and not a reflection of my distrust of electronic storage.
I'm not suggesting that it's novel, but it has a lot more users. I used to dial in to a local BBS, then later I was on usenet. But all my friends weren't on it - in fact, none of my friends were on it - only myself and a few fellow geeks that I would run into from time to time. Facebook is nothing like that - everyone is on it, from the random grandmother down the street with no computer to her grandkids. This makes it much more useful for the purposes I describe than anything that existed prior.
I'm sure Facebook is not the end-all, be-all. In 20 years you'll be scolding me for using the newest thing, saying that's not new... Facebook did that 20 years ago!
The original appeal of Facebook for me is how easy it was to stay connected. Search for a long-lost friend and BOOM you are connected forever. If you are old enough to remember manually keeping an address book up to date, then you are old enough to remember how freeing it felt to be relieved of this responsibility. For frequent contacts? Sure, enter the contact into your phone (if it isn't already synced with Facebook). But for everyone else, it's a great way to stay in touch. Or maybe not a great way, but it's a way and it requires no effort.
Now I like it because I can stay plugged in to local events - local papers are either closed or worthless now, so for good or bad social media == local news.
I don't really post much on there, but I do share a lot of photos - it has replaced Flickr for me in that regard... but that was as simple as changing the plugin that I use in Lightroom.
Why do people find it acceptable that valuable packages are just left on the doorstep ?
Chances are they are making the same risk/reward decision that you are, but they live in a slightly less dodgy neighborhood.
When I lived in NYC, there is no way in hell they would have left a package on a doorstep. Out in suburbia, it is common. This is simply because the risk/reward ratio is different. I was lucky and my building had a doorman - but for people without that luxury, ordering stuff online can be a lot less convenient. Amazon does reimburse you for stolen packages... I had a roll of duct tape stolen from my doorstep. No, I don't normally order duct tape, but sometimes you need a filler item to get free/expedited shipping and Amazon is whacky so they shipped it separately. I once had a very large, heavy package delivered and I caught a guy in a rough pick-up truck cruising by my house verrrrry slooowwwwly. As soon as I pulled up, he accelerated away quickly. Other neighbors have had stuff taken as well, but I guess not to the extent that Amazon won't ship without a signature.
Yes, I get that. But if you are using the numbers presented in the linked story, then CNN is guilty of the same things as Fox - just not quite to the same extent. If you personally are willing to tolerate 22% failure on Politifact checks, and someone else is willing to tolerate 58% failure, then you are both doing the same thing except with a different threshold of tolerance.
While I agree that Fox is the worst of the bunch - though not by much over MSNBC - I should point out that you are defending CNN, which according to your own link lies 22% of the time. A supposed "news" network lying 1 out of every 5 times they open their mouth is disqualifying IMHO. TV cable news channels make you dumber and cater to the worst part of you - all of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is everything a robot? Because we've entered the future where they are becoming ubiquitous. This train is far more autonomous than the pre-programmed "robot" arms of the 1960s.
It's a real thing, but you probably won't notice it unless you look for it. The only places you are likely to see burn-in are on persistently white (or blue, really) GUI features. For instance, a white button bar. But you'll only notice it when the button bar goes away, like in a full-screen game - and even then, only when the background uses a lot of blue. Still, it pisses some people off. I'm that guy with the dirty glasses, so I'm not one of those people.
Most of the population also pays a plumber $125 to install a $9 tube under their sink.
Um, yeah?
What home server? You can set the MX record to whatever you want. I certainly don't run an email server from my basement, though I do host a small website from there for family members.
Even without the web server, it's useful as an email domain. When gmail goes away, I'll still have my own domain.
I have one. It's just a personal domain, not something I'm interested in driving traffic towards. My name was taken in .com land.
Oh, that's too bad. I moved away, but used to like getting them as I got on the subway in NYC.
Not currently, no - but there cannot ever be a business case for, say, the moon if there isn't first a business case for simply lifting people into space. It's not hard to imagine how you might need people to help service a space infrastructure, but it is hard to imagine a need for any kind of commercial activity on the moon without a commercial space infrastructure.
But that is besides the point. If the government can contract a company to use off-the-shelf hardware to boost people into space, that is a huge step forward versus contracting with companies to produce custom designs from scratch. Launches will be an order of magnitude cheaper - perhaps more.
Space access is being commoditized to the point that civilian commercial corporations can lob people into orbit, and you call that "a shame"? Soyez and China's Soyez 2.0 represent the old way. People getting in to space without the blessing of her majesty is a tremendous advance.
I remember liking the smell.
It didn't just start. I remember calling in to the movie theater, getting a person on the phone, and having a conversation about which movies were playing. Poor woman probably wanted to kill herself, and she was replaced by a tape machine - and eventually by "MoviePhone". This was just one part of an overall move to voicemail/menu systems to replace human interaction. I remember the first self-checkout line at the grocery store, and prior to that the first barcode scanner. Prior to that the stock boys had to use a price gun to put a price on every goddamn item (I know because I was a stock boy and I had to do that). Airplanes had a flight engineer. Postal workers manually sorted mail. Companies had "secretary pools" to manually copy documents (OK, that was before my time, along with washing machines, vacuum cleaners, and dishwashers). Service jobs have been replaced by machinery since we invented machinery. Maybe it has accelerated or reached some kind of inflection point, but it certainly didn't "begin" this year.
Yeah, but that's a side-effect of what I'm talking about. Prior to Facebook, I would move or change phone numbers. And while I'd make an effort to contact the people in my address book, mistakes and accidents happen. People lose things, people get busy, people have emergencies, people get new phones and email addresses, people die, people go to jail. The chaos of life meant I was constantly updating my address book and scratching out entries when Christmas cards were returned or emails bounced. Facebook has largely put an end to all of that. 99% of the people I know can be contacted through Facebook. Parents of my kids' friends are on Facebook. Everyone is on Facebook. Would I care if I lost the ability to see what some guy I haven't seen in 15 years ate last night? No, absolutely not. Do I care when my separated-by-distance friend posts about where to send Christmas cards to his elderly mother? Absolutely. Miss my kid's concert? A post on Facebook and I'm showered with videos of it from other parents. I'm not defending Facebook, per se - but it does have some good uses beyond "LOOK AT ME!!!"
My intent wasn't really to post positive comments - it was more to contradict the base assumption of this article. There are at least some of us who use Facebook for reasons other than digital vanity.
Coming up with instances in which it isn't should be a trivial exercise.
Sure, it's trivial. But fortunately for me, I'd be using my imagination. I'm lucky enough not to be an edge case.
I don't know what the FSB is, but I have no interest in keeping paper records of any kind anymore. The only exception is the printed copy of my will that sits in a bank vault. Even that is just to make it blatantly obvious to everyone when I die, and not a reflection of my distrust of electronic storage.
I'm not suggesting that it's novel, but it has a lot more users. I used to dial in to a local BBS, then later I was on usenet. But all my friends weren't on it - in fact, none of my friends were on it - only myself and a few fellow geeks that I would run into from time to time. Facebook is nothing like that - everyone is on it, from the random grandmother down the street with no computer to her grandkids. This makes it much more useful for the purposes I describe than anything that existed prior.
I'm sure Facebook is not the end-all, be-all. In 20 years you'll be scolding me for using the newest thing, saying that's not new... Facebook did that 20 years ago!
The original appeal of Facebook for me is how easy it was to stay connected. Search for a long-lost friend and BOOM you are connected forever. If you are old enough to remember manually keeping an address book up to date, then you are old enough to remember how freeing it felt to be relieved of this responsibility. For frequent contacts? Sure, enter the contact into your phone (if it isn't already synced with Facebook). But for everyone else, it's a great way to stay in touch. Or maybe not a great way, but it's a way and it requires no effort.
Now I like it because I can stay plugged in to local events - local papers are either closed or worthless now, so for good or bad social media == local news.
I don't really post much on there, but I do share a lot of photos - it has replaced Flickr for me in that regard... but that was as simple as changing the plugin that I use in Lightroom.
It's still better than going into a Walmart and dealing with... whatever that is.
Why do people find it acceptable that valuable packages are just left on the doorstep ?
Chances are they are making the same risk/reward decision that you are, but they live in a slightly less dodgy neighborhood.
When I lived in NYC, there is no way in hell they would have left a package on a doorstep. Out in suburbia, it is common. This is simply because the risk/reward ratio is different. I was lucky and my building had a doorman - but for people without that luxury, ordering stuff online can be a lot less convenient. Amazon does reimburse you for stolen packages... I had a roll of duct tape stolen from my doorstep. No, I don't normally order duct tape, but sometimes you need a filler item to get free/expedited shipping and Amazon is whacky so they shipped it separately. I once had a very large, heavy package delivered and I caught a guy in a rough pick-up truck cruising by my house verrrrry slooowwwwly. As soon as I pulled up, he accelerated away quickly. Other neighbors have had stuff taken as well, but I guess not to the extent that Amazon won't ship without a signature.
Aren't they mostly Samsung users? That comes with Samsung Internet (which has ad blocking).
If you read back you'll see I say "... I agree Fox is the worst of the bunch". So, yeah.
But if you "like facts" you'll just stop watching cable news.
Yes, I get that. But if you are using the numbers presented in the linked story, then CNN is guilty of the same things as Fox - just not quite to the same extent. If you personally are willing to tolerate 22% failure on Politifact checks, and someone else is willing to tolerate 58% failure, then you are both doing the same thing except with a different threshold of tolerance.
While I agree that Fox is the worst of the bunch - though not by much over MSNBC - I should point out that you are defending CNN, which according to your own link lies 22% of the time. A supposed "news" network lying 1 out of every 5 times they open their mouth is disqualifying IMHO. TV cable news channels make you dumber and cater to the worst part of you - all of them.
Onion publishes a newspaper, freely available on the street in some cities.
Just a little! LOL