Laying off thousands of people, cutting hundreds of product lines to focus on three main products which are beginning to stagnate is hardly 'innovative'. It's hardly a good idea either.
Under Jobs, Apple went from nearly bankrupt to the biggest, most successful company in the world in just 14 years. Congratulations - by claiming that it was all a bad idea, you've just made what must be the stupidest post of the day. And I'm including all the Frist psots! in that.
Slashdot is ad-driven and Apple brings a lot fo comments, both good and bad. Think about that next time you whine about too many Apple stories floating around.
It's a common explanation. But there's a more straightforward one. AFAIKS getting story on slashdot is a 3 step process. A story is submitted. People vote for it or against it on firehose. An editor picks it,theoretically with some regard to how it was voted on firehose.
The number of Apple stories on Slashdot may simply relate to how many are submitted and how they are voted on in the firehose. It doesn't require that were being trolled for comment quantity by the editors.
Either explanation could be true. As could the even more straightforward explanation that the number of Apple articles isn't excessive at all. They just aren't to some people's taste.
Have you got your knickers in a bundle or something? Are you going to spit your pacifier out? $200 is cheap compared to memory that costs $800. But you're not mad about this truism are you. Your angry because you made a mistake and were corrected. And now all common sense has gone out of the window in your ranting.
Heck in your silly absolute that $200 isn't cheap memory you even miss the point that he didn't mention how much memory. You might as well say $20 isn't cheap for fuel without knowing how much fuel we're talking about.
Apple charge $800 for the same part. Apple's memory is off the shelf Crucial memory. As the GP said, he simply went up the supply chain.
As I pointed out elsewhere, the part Crucial is offering for the Mac Pro on their website right now isn't the same spec as the one offered on the Apple Store. Therefore as I pointed out already you're wrong. There's more to a component than the manufacturer's name on it.
So he's used Apple's own diagnositcs yet still has symptoms.
Using diags isn;t the same thing as my recommendation of consulting a specialist tech.
"He most certainly doesn't "know what his problem is WRONG AGAIN."
I can only conclude that English isn't your first language. Or your angry at being contradicted you'll swear black is white. His words, in the English language are quite clear that he doesn't have any certainty what the fault is Only a guess.
Come back at me with more nonsense if you like. But you're wasting your time. Everyone that cares can see perfectly well by reading up the thread that what I've said is correct, and you're just blustering. You're fooling no one.
Murder? For a 0.0000003% rise in the value of a share? If someone needs as miniscule motivation for murder as that, they're already killing people.
Re:Some day humanity will manage things a better
on
The Real Job Threat
·
· Score: 1
I guess that's what you get with outsourcing the writing! I suppose as a casual viewer, Rodenberry's vision is the impression that stuck with me. An optimistic future of people striving for the best, not playing out present day money grubbing scenarios.
Re:Some day humanity will manage things a better
on
The Real Job Threat
·
· Score: 1
Dilithium was also traded to other races in a few TOS episodes. They treated it as a form of currency.
Yes, I remembered dilithium, But it's an expendable source of energy, something akin to uranium. So it's not a currency. Those trades were therefore barter, not buys or sells with currency.
Thanks for your recollections of the various conflicting occasions the topic of money has come up.
I'm sorry the 3 laws are crap. They are so general, so poorly defined, so open to interpretation and semantic contortion, that they mean exactly zilch. For example; A robot needs to make a choice between saving one person or saving 20, because it can't do both, what does it do? Blow a fuse or break the laws, that's what.
One would expect it to do no worse than human beings. Human beings have a tendency to do nothing in such dilemmas. And others have the tendency to save the first one that's threatened, whether that's the singleton or the fist of 20.Overall humans are a bit random, but are very unlikely to think through
I'd expect robot to be programmed to either not make the choice - i.e. do nothing. Or make a mathematical assesment of the greatest good - all other things being equal saving the 20. Both are justifiable within the laws. What would not happen is "blowing a fuse". That's the stuff of 1950s B-movie plots.
It does not lead on to assessing humans as not worthy, and choosing to exterminate them. That is no extrapolation of the laws, and again i just you watching too many bad movies.
In fact, Personally, I'd be tremendously happier if we simply outlaw the global use of autonomous killing machines of any type.
The laws of robotics already outlaw them. So why are you arguing against them?
Re:Some day humanity will manage things a better
on
The Real Job Threat
·
· Score: 1
Hi! Your opinions are wrong, and you should feel bad. TOS mentioned money and wages in the context of humans a few times
As I said, I'm no expert and I don't feel at all bad. I used to watch TOS on TV reruns in the 1970s, and not a lot since, so I'm only talking about general recollections rather than a Rainman type recall of everything that was said. Please do go ahead and quote some specifics, if you have some.
DS9 was execrable though. Entirely unwatchable as far as I'm concerned. Far worse than Voyager. Heck, it was worth watching Voyager even if only for Seven of Nine. There was no such saving grace in DS9.
The mistake of DS9 was to have a stationary location. Stationary location, regular characters spending much time in a bar bitching about each other = soap opera. Where's the exploring strange new worlds? Roddenberry must have been spinning in his grave. Thankfully they realised the error of their ways and moved on to Voyager.
What did you not understand about "developing autonomous robots"? If you follow slashdot even, you'll know they are in development. And the freaks that are developing that kind of technology would be best behind bars in my opinion. Don't know why that wasn't clear to you the first time.
Re:Some day humanity will manage things a better
on
The Real Job Threat
·
· Score: 1
So what was Harry Mud after?
As I said, I'm no ST expert, so if you know, why don't you just say. If it was money, what is the currency called? As I said the only currency equivalent that I recall in ST is latinum. And that didn't arrive till TNG.
Well I didn't have that in mind, no. But thanks for the reminder of Alaska's concept of everyone having a share in their natural resources.
Re:Some day humanity will manage things a better
on
The Real Job Threat
·
· Score: 2
As far as I recall the concept of money didn't appear at all in the original series of Star Trek. The implication was that they'd moved beyond the need for money.
Latinum and the Ferengi only came along in TNG. Of course this was in order that they could find new topics for shows that featured greed in a recognisable form.
And yet still, as far as I recall (I'm no Star Trek geek), there was no implication that any of the human race used it. Well as anything other than something to trade with Ferengi.
My recollection is that it only came into use as something that humans used with the execrable Deep Space Nine. Which came about after the death of Gene Roddenberry. By that stage we're talking about cashing in on a franchise. It has little to do with the real Star Trek concept. It was soap opera by that stage.
Bribing and "backhanded deals" only belong in an environment of scarcity. The star trek concept of replicators explicitly rules that out as a motivation. Latinum as a non-replicatable material, was always a cheat to rewrite the basic rules.
Currently, yes. But that's by no means inevitable. If you make people feel unworthy, by the protestant work ethic etc. Then they are going to do things that depressed people do.
You need an employer to tell you what do do in order not to be bored?
For sure, there are people like that. A lot of people like that. In the current way society works. That doesn't mean that with education, abundant resources, and widespread organisations dedicated to worthwhile things to do which aren't work, that this needs necessarily be true in the future.
I can think of things I'd much rather do than be directed to tasks by an employer. I'm sure most people could.
At that point "unemployment" becomes "I decided to become an artist because I know I'll never starve to death."
Absolutely. But there are a lot of other changes needed to make that happen. Currently, a lot of people, when they have no work to do, and have resources supplied (welfare) don't choose to do anything as noble as being an artist. They sit at home watching daytime TV, getting bored and fat and letting their kids create trouble in the neighbourhood. That isn't inevitable. But it's a problem that needs to be fixed. And it's bigger than just education.
Open your wallet and take a note out. Look at it closely. It's just a piece of paper with some impressive looking printing on it. Then consider that all of those notes and coins combined only account for about 10% of the money in the economy. Further consider that 90% of all that money is not even created by government but by private banks to make their profits.
Money is nothing more than an implementation detail. And most of it originates in a scam. It's certainly not an essential way of organising a society. All species bar one do without it. And that one species did without it for most of it's existence.
The problem with money is that is that it tends to positive feedback. Money goes to money. The more useful effect of course would be resources going to where there is a lack of resources. Negative feedback.
Money is just a phase we're going through. Some day humanity will manage things a lot better than with that crude method.
Slashdot Mirror
Not in 1985 when Steve was pushed out they weren't.
In fact Apple only joined the 20th Century in having a pre-emptive multi-tasking OS in the 21st Century.
It's interesting that now, with Grand Central Dispatch, they've got the best pre-emptive multi-tasking in the business on OSX.
And on iOS, they've solved the classic smartphone problem of third party background processes killing battery life.
Laying off thousands of people, cutting hundreds of product lines to focus on three main products which are beginning to stagnate is hardly 'innovative'. It's hardly a good idea either.
Under Jobs, Apple went from nearly bankrupt to the biggest, most successful company in the world in just 14 years. Congratulations - by claiming that it was all a bad idea, you've just made what must be the stupidest post of the day. And I'm including all the Frist psots! in that.
Slashdot is ad-driven and Apple brings a lot fo comments, both good and bad.
Think about that next time you whine about too many Apple stories floating around.
It's a common explanation. But there's a more straightforward one. AFAIKS getting story on slashdot is a 3 step process. A story is submitted. People vote for it or against it on firehose. An editor picks it,theoretically with some regard to how it was voted on firehose.
The number of Apple stories on Slashdot may simply relate to how many are submitted and how they are voted on in the firehose. It doesn't require that were being trolled for comment quantity by the editors.
Either explanation could be true. As could the even more straightforward explanation that the number of Apple articles isn't excessive at all. They just aren't to some people's taste.
Have you got your knickers in a bundle or something? Are you going to spit your pacifier out?
$200 is cheap compared to memory that costs $800. But you're not mad about this truism are you. Your angry because you made a mistake and were corrected. And now all common sense has gone out of the window in your ranting.
Heck in your silly absolute that $200 isn't cheap memory you even miss the point that he didn't mention how much memory. You might as well say $20 isn't cheap for fuel without knowing how much fuel we're talking about.
Apple charge $800 for the same part. Apple's memory is off the shelf Crucial memory. As the GP said, he simply went up the supply chain.
As I pointed out elsewhere, the part Crucial is offering for the Mac Pro on their website right now isn't the same spec as the one offered on the Apple Store. Therefore as I pointed out already you're wrong. There's more to a component than the manufacturer's name on it.
So he's used Apple's own diagnositcs yet still has symptoms.
Using diags isn;t the same thing as my recommendation of consulting a specialist tech.
"He most certainly doesn't "know what his problem is
WRONG AGAIN."
I can only conclude that English isn't your first language. Or your angry at being contradicted you'll swear black is white. His words, in the English language are quite clear that he doesn't have any certainty what the fault is Only a guess.
Come back at me with more nonsense if you like. But you're wasting your time. Everyone that cares can see perfectly well by reading up the thread that what I've said is correct, and you're just blustering. You're fooling no one.
Murder? For a 0.0000003% rise in the value of a share? If someone needs as miniscule motivation for murder as that, they're already killing people.
I guess that's what you get with outsourcing the writing! I suppose as a casual viewer, Rodenberry's vision is the impression that stuck with me. An optimistic future of people striving for the best, not playing out present day money grubbing scenarios.
Was that in the movie?
Dilithium was also traded to other races in a few TOS episodes. They treated it as a form of currency.
Yes, I remembered dilithium, But it's an expendable source of energy, something akin to uranium. So it's not a currency. Those trades were therefore barter, not buys or sells with currency.
Thanks for your recollections of the various conflicting occasions the topic of money has come up.
I'm sorry the 3 laws are crap. They are so general, so poorly defined, so open to interpretation and semantic contortion, that they mean exactly zilch. For example; A robot needs to make a choice between saving one person or saving 20, because it can't do both, what does it do? Blow a fuse or break the laws, that's what.
One would expect it to do no worse than human beings. Human beings have a tendency to do nothing in such dilemmas. And others have the tendency to save the first one that's threatened, whether that's the singleton or the fist of 20.Overall humans are a bit random, but are very unlikely to think through
I'd expect robot to be programmed to either not make the choice - i.e. do nothing. Or make a mathematical assesment of the greatest good - all other things being equal saving the 20. Both are justifiable within the laws. What would not happen is "blowing a fuse". That's the stuff of 1950s B-movie plots.
It does not lead on to assessing humans as not worthy, and choosing to exterminate them. That is no extrapolation of the laws, and again i just you watching too many bad movies.
In fact, Personally, I'd be tremendously happier if we simply outlaw the global use of autonomous killing machines of any type.
The laws of robotics already outlaw them. So why are you arguing against them?
Hi! Your opinions are wrong, and you should feel bad. TOS mentioned money and wages in the context of humans a few times
As I said, I'm no expert and I don't feel at all bad. I used to watch TOS on TV reruns in the 1970s, and not a lot since, so I'm only talking about general recollections rather than a Rainman type recall of everything that was said. Please do go ahead and quote some specifics, if you have some.
DS9 was execrable though. Entirely unwatchable as far as I'm concerned. Far worse than Voyager. Heck, it was worth watching Voyager even if only for Seven of Nine. There was no such saving grace in DS9.
The mistake of DS9 was to have a stationary location. Stationary location, regular characters spending much time in a bar bitching about each other = soap opera. Where's the exploring strange new worlds? Roddenberry must have been spinning in his grave. Thankfully they realised the error of their ways and moved on to Voyager.
Citation needed... Research is one thing
What did you not understand about "developing autonomous robots"? If you follow slashdot even, you'll know they are in development. And the freaks that are developing that kind of technology would be best behind bars in my opinion. Don't know why that wasn't clear to you the first time.
So what was Harry Mud after?
As I said, I'm no ST expert, so if you know, why don't you just say. If it was money, what is the currency called? As I said the only currency equivalent that I recall in ST is latinum. And that didn't arrive till TNG.
That has nothing to do with renewable. What you're talking about is infinitely scalable.
Well I didn't have that in mind, no. But thanks for the reminder of Alaska's concept of everyone having a share in their natural resources.
As far as I recall the concept of money didn't appear at all in the original series of Star Trek. The implication was that they'd moved beyond the need for money.
Latinum and the Ferengi only came along in TNG. Of course this was in order that they could find new topics for shows that featured greed in a recognisable form.
And yet still, as far as I recall (I'm no Star Trek geek), there was no implication that any of the human race used it. Well as anything other than something to trade with Ferengi.
My recollection is that it only came into use as something that humans used with the execrable Deep Space Nine. Which came about after the death of Gene Roddenberry. By that stage we're talking about cashing in on a franchise. It has little to do with the real Star Trek concept. It was soap opera by that stage.
Bribing and "backhanded deals" only belong in an environment of scarcity. The star trek concept of replicators explicitly rules that out as a motivation. Latinum as a non-replicatable material, was always a cheat to rewrite the basic rules.
Yeah I know. And rather scarily, we already have arms manufacturers developing autonomous robots who's entire purpose is killing people.
A rational justice system would put the people in charge of projects like that in prison or mental institution.
The whole history of manufacturing demonstrates an increase in demand as cost of manufacture decreases. So it's pretty solid assumption.
And how does that differ from what things are like now?
Currently, yes. But that's by no means inevitable. If you make people feel unworthy, by the protestant work ethic etc. Then they are going to do things that depressed people do.
You need an employer to tell you what do do in order not to be bored?
For sure, there are people like that. A lot of people like that. In the current way society works. That doesn't mean that with education, abundant resources, and widespread organisations dedicated to worthwhile things to do which aren't work, that this needs necessarily be true in the future.
I can think of things I'd much rather do than be directed to tasks by an employer. I'm sure most people could.
If they an keep the same workforce but produce more, more cheaply, that's also an incentive.
At that point "unemployment" becomes "I decided to become an artist because I know I'll never starve to death."
Absolutely. But there are a lot of other changes needed to make that happen. Currently, a lot of people, when they have no work to do, and have resources supplied (welfare) don't choose to do anything as noble as being an artist. They sit at home watching daytime TV, getting bored and fat and letting their kids create trouble in the neighbourhood. That isn't inevitable. But it's a problem that needs to be fixed. And it's bigger than just education.
Open your wallet and take a note out. Look at it closely. It's just a piece of paper with some impressive looking printing on it. Then consider that all of those notes and coins combined only account for about 10% of the money in the economy. Further consider that 90% of all that money is not even created by government but by private banks to make their profits.
Money is nothing more than an implementation detail. And most of it originates in a scam. It's certainly not an essential way of organising a society. All species bar one do without it. And that one species did without it for most of it's existence.
The problem with money is that is that it tends to positive feedback. Money goes to money. The more useful effect of course would be resources going to where there is a lack of resources. Negative feedback.
Money is just a phase we're going through. Some day humanity will manage things a lot better than with that crude method.