That's true. The biggest thing lacking in Linux is a stable way to deliver binaries IMO. That's been a blocker since 2003 at least, and hasn't been fixed.
More so or less so than forcing someone to sit behind the wheel on ludicrously long journeys stopping only to eat
It's much, much more difficult to pay attention when you aren't actually driving. Are you kidding?
So far Google's self driving cars which are largely autonomous and still have people to take control are starting to rank in a really high percentile when it comes to accident free driving.
The data Google gives us is highly selective, and chosen in a way that makes them look good. Don't believe me, try looking for solid complete data on their self-driving cars. You won't find it.
Also, consistently IS a virtue. Changing somebody's default DE in the upgraded/newer version, or massively changing the current default DE is not such a good thing.
If only there were a DE, for any OS, that were stable.
Linux will eventually win on the Desktop because the profits derived (by Microsoft) for maintaining your own OS will be so small, that Microsoft will stop trying. Think of what happened with IE: Microsoft neglected it and lost when they should have won.
Nah, the point you missed was that even though tech geeks can be condescending (which is a complaint about Apple's genius bar), it probably isn't the thing keeping Linux off the desktop. That is what I was trying to say.
The biggest problem for full adoption is the ability to deploy apps that don't exist in the package manager. When I can send you an app and it installs on your distro and works, then that will be a huge bonus for adoption.
Note that even if the installer has to compile from source, but can do it automatically, that's still a step ahead of where we are now.
But if you wanted to be accepted as an "artist" by the elite judges who control the artworld, those classical techniques are often less relevant.
I have nothing against classical techniques, and I think they are worthwhile anyway
But I do have something against the elite judges who control the artworld....they are garbage and their judgement sucks. Better to be a no-name at the county fair with real skill than to have to bow to those losers.
Realism gives you more options, more possibilities. Monet couldn't have done his incredible garden paintings if he hadn't mastered realism first, and Picasso knew exactly what to leave out because he could paint exactly to begin with. Realism is easier than abstraction if you want to do it right.
Some time well before 2000 the techniques of photo-realism and trompe l'oeil were perfected,
That's the excuse often given, but there were few artists who could match photo-realism......abstraction and 'style' were a way for artists to be successful without reaching quality technique.
In the 1800s (and before) there were thousands and thousands and thousands of artists all around, and people hired them to do portraits, fill their houses with custom paintings, paint churches, paint signs, paint murals for the inside of conference halls, etc. There was a lot of work for them. Out of those thousands and thousands of artists, we only remember a few today.
Now if you want to become an artist, there is not a lot of work for you. Portraits are rarely done, signs are created by computers, painting saints inside churches isn't really done anymore. The number of artists who can really work in oils has dropped dramatically. The chances of someone developing skill to reach Rembrandt or Picasso is unlikely. Also, with the decline of painting came a decline in painting schools (Bob Ross notwithstanding).
That said, if you want to see great art in the future, I would look to the east. Taiwan, for example, has a thriving art scene....
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe even with a flag at declaration time, something like:
Object o = new [cycle_detect] Object();
Or maybe make cycle_detect the default, so if you want cycle-free objects and know what you are doing, you can declare:
Object o = new [dangerous] Object();
Here's a debate between Bill Nye and a scientist.
Yeah, that's a good idea. Make the base libraries in C, then any language can use it.
WebAssembly is on the way. Soon you'll be able to program in any language for the browser.
That's true. The biggest thing lacking in Linux is a stable way to deliver binaries IMO. That's been a blocker since 2003 at least, and hasn't been fixed.
More so or less so than forcing someone to sit behind the wheel on ludicrously long journeys stopping only to eat
It's much, much more difficult to pay attention when you aren't actually driving. Are you kidding?
So far Google's self driving cars which are largely autonomous and still have people to take control are starting to rank in a really high percentile when it comes to accident free driving.
The data Google gives us is highly selective, and chosen in a way that makes them look good. Don't believe me, try looking for solid complete data on their self-driving cars. You won't find it.
Yeah, that's true, if Linux on the desktop had been solid and ready, it would have gained marketshare at both of those opportunities.
Going from nothing to largely autonomous also has by far the largest safety and efficiency improvements.
I'm not sure that's true. Forcing someone to sit behind a wheel and wait until the car beeps at them to take control is asking for accidents.
Also, consistently IS a virtue. Changing somebody's default DE in the upgraded/newer version, or massively changing the current default DE is not such a good thing.
If only there were a DE, for any OS, that were stable.
Linux will eventually win on the Desktop because the profits derived (by Microsoft) for maintaining your own OS will be so small, that Microsoft will stop trying. Think of what happened with IE: Microsoft neglected it and lost when they should have won.
The same thing will happen with Windows, as Windows becomes less and less of a profit zone for Microsoft.
Nah, the point you missed was that even though tech geeks can be condescending (which is a complaint about Apple's genius bar), it probably isn't the thing keeping Linux off the desktop. That is what I was trying to say.
Going from "largely autonomous" to "fully autonomous" is probably tougher than going from nothing to "largely autonomous."
The biggest problem for full adoption is the ability to deploy apps that don't exist in the package manager. When I can send you an app and it installs on your distro and works, then that will be a huge bonus for adoption.
Note that even if the installer has to compile from source, but can do it automatically, that's still a step ahead of where we are now.
"Make the common case easy, make the uncommon case possible."
If only the Linux community had geniuses to condescend them instead. We could build a genius bar.
But if you wanted to be accepted as an "artist" by the elite judges who control the artworld, those classical techniques are often less relevant. I have nothing against classical techniques, and I think they are worthwhile anyway
But I do have something against the elite judges who control the artworld....they are garbage and their judgement sucks. Better to be a no-name at the county fair with real skill than to have to bow to those losers.
Realism gives you more options, more possibilities. Monet couldn't have done his incredible garden paintings if he hadn't mastered realism first, and Picasso knew exactly what to leave out because he could paint exactly to begin with. Realism is easier than abstraction if you want to do it right.
Oh, that's a good solution.
In case anyone was wondering how much they got for this project, it's part of a $100million NIH project.
This cargo-cult approach to AI is ridiculous. Decades of effort have produced absolutely no result.
Says someone who clearly hasn't kept up with recent advances in cognitive science.
applying Mores law would mean we will have machines with the same number of neurons and connections as the human brain in about 30 years
I'd love to see how you came up with this estimate.
Some time well before 2000 the techniques of photo-realism and trompe l'oeil were perfected,
That's the excuse often given, but there were few artists who could match photo-realism......abstraction and 'style' were a way for artists to be successful without reaching quality technique.
Your "top list" has Yoko Ono on it.
I like Yoko, but if she's a top artist, then we've fallen far from the days of Rembrandt.
In the 1800s (and before) there were thousands and thousands and thousands of artists all around, and people hired them to do portraits, fill their houses with custom paintings, paint churches, paint signs, paint murals for the inside of conference halls, etc. There was a lot of work for them. Out of those thousands and thousands of artists, we only remember a few today.
Now if you want to become an artist, there is not a lot of work for you. Portraits are rarely done, signs are created by computers, painting saints inside churches isn't really done anymore. The number of artists who can really work in oils has dropped dramatically. The chances of someone developing skill to reach Rembrandt or Picasso is unlikely. Also, with the decline of painting came a decline in painting schools (Bob Ross notwithstanding).
That said, if you want to see great art in the future, I would look to the east. Taiwan, for example, has a thriving art scene....
I would be interested to see if it could trick an art expert.
Another solution: if a keyboard is already plugged in, prompt for a warning. If a keyboard is not plugged in, accept it.