Sorry I missed how this (removing all the new law beyond the general constitutional statements) keeps people fed and sheltered when robots are doing their jobs. Can you clarify?
"Sounds like an nvidia problem? (check the drivers?)"...and there you have in one comment the reason why Linux on the desktop is a fail, for ordinary non-techical computer users.
Q: My computer is hosed. It keeps slowing to a crawl. What can I do?
A: Just recompile the kernel with the whatchamacallit option disabled, after upgrading your gcc compiler and setting the flags just so, then try to find the exact right video driver on an obscure backwater page of some tech support website, upgrade your OS packages while holding back that one, oh don't forget to update the package list to include the alternate-universe list first,...and Bob's your uncle!
The really thin keyboard of the current Macbook laptop, which has reduced vertical play, is already one step too far for me in the lack of adequate feedback. The Macbook keys actually feel wobbly to the point you're not sure you got a successful press or just wiggled it a bit.
And this idea is going much further in the "lack of vertical movement" movement.
I find goofy minimalist keyboards and smartphone virtual keyboards are fine for banging out a short text or very short email, but not for writing the next great American novel, or the next adequate research report, or software framework.
Please stop the trend to enabling information consumers only. Some people still want to produce. Are we going to have to go to an aftermarket keyboard store?
I freed my wrist from the sweaty, uncomfortable watch band thing about 20 years ago, and haven't looked back (or been late for that matter).
When I wore a watch I felt handcuffed to time.
These days I can easily afford the 2 seconds it takes to "draw" my smartphone out of my pocket if I need the time, and then I have a decent sized screen to do all kinds of other useful things with. Smart watch just not needed.
And as for status symbol. I've always looked at a fancy watch as a kind of inverse status symbol, indicating a lack of confidence and a need to assert their worth with bling. Be yourself and establish your status by your actions. Then you'll get some status.
Linus has apparently admitted he sucks at UI design.
So why wouldn't he empower a group of acknowledged UX/UI experts to design a "next standard" desktop UI on top of Linux.
It should be based on simplicity of use, lack of need for manual etc. It's not that most people are stupid. It's that they don't have time to become an expert in every little detail of their tools. They are focussed on higher-level tasks and want basic operations to just work smoothly, consistently, and with a minimum of unnecessary choices requiring arcane knowledge.
There could easily be built in to such a UI an "Escape to raw Linux land" mode that replaces the easy, choice-free, just works UI with an ultimately configurable land of terminals and bare X-windows and such. It could have a warning pop-up, that said "Beware: Here be woolly mammoths! Enter at own risk."
Having constructed a profile of you by mining your online activities via tracking networks, it will guess with uncanny accuracy what scam is going to seem plausible to you and seem specifically consistent with your recent activities and interests.
Then it will send you an email or text or tweet seemingly from a close associate of some business or personal connection/contact you have, and the invitation for you to act will be convincingly specific to your life and recent interests.
So are you saying that the population-level resistance to extinction from a single disease (or single bad personality trait / aptitude) that we get from natural genetic diversity is not useful?
Hint: Ask an Irish descendant what it was like to rely for staple food on a single variety of potato.
I would like to have you comment on likely outcomes in the following scenario: 1) Libertarianism rules: personal freedom has increased, taxation decreased or nonexistent, government virtually powerless (in other words, as you hope for). 2) Increasingly cost-effective automation replaces 50 % of current jobs (this number already takes into account that a few new types of jobs are created, like "automated-system alarm-watcher"., So around half the formerly gainfully employable/self-employable adult people are unemployed, and given your preferred government system, are not supported enough to survive.
Please tell me your story of what happens in such a scenario. You are not allowed to negate either of the premises of the scenario. Also, saying: "They will move to somewhere else" is not a valid response, since the scenario assumes this happens in all countries.
Because the performance / cost of automated technology is steadily increasing.
This wage change only has the potential to bring very slightly sooner what seems an inevitable trend toward significant job losses to automation.
Minimum wage rise or no, society is going to have to deal with one of: A) Guaranteed annual income (for existing as a human in the country). B) Building really tall barbed wire walls (with automated machine guns/frickin' lasers?) to divide the still-employed and automation owners/shareholders from the increasing hordes.
There should have been, at NASA, a launch validation team composed entirely of top-notch mid-to-senior level engineers and scientists. They should carefully consider each known risk prior to each launch. They should debate it only in terms of risk level = probability of occurrence x probability distribution of consequence severity.
That team should make the go/no-go call, fully documenting their reasons.
Any divergence from this sort of technical review with final authority is a gross violation of responsible process for something as complex as this.
In the city I live in the median detached house sells for over $1 miilion.
I remember when penny candies were a thing, and cost 1 penny, and when millionaire meant something beyond the ability to imagine. Penny candies now cost 25 cents each minimum, and millionaire just means homeowner with mortgage paid off.
There is no reason for geoblocking other than greed, and probably misguided, self-defeating greed at that.
There is no legitimate administrative logistics or whatever reason for restricting content access over the Internet to certain locations on Earth. It is a totally artificial barrier, exactly akin to a highwayman stopping you on the road and demanding the contents of your pockets and your watch.
Don't you think in this day and age that if all people around the world were treated as having the same rights to content, that much more revenue in subscription fees for decently stocked, well-organized, high-performance content services would come in? Of course it would.
We're seeing the death throes of a dying buggywhip business model.
You realize that the use case that having a locked door to your house helps is along the lines of "an optimistic but generally inept burglar comes around every so often and turns the doorknob of all the houses in your neighbourhood hoping they will come upon one where the door is not locked."
Does that seem that likely to you? Particularly if you live in a city, where the working assumption of everyone (including burglars) is that everyone's house door is locked.
In my experience of the Interwebs, as seen from outside the US, most American's act as if they believe that: 1) Everything on the English-speaking part of the Internet is US-centric site. 2) The Earth is a US-centric site.
This is seriously annoying to the other 95.6 % of us people on the friggin' planet.
Two downsides are that a company that has a clear interest in influencing your visiting patterns and content choices now has both total control of your browsing (potentially since they wrote the browser) and total knowledge of your browsing (potentially, since they wrote the browser and could be sending your browsing history through a sidechannel to their own servers where they can analyse it).
This is a monopoly situation and will probably lead to abuse of monopoly power.
Ok you say, but Google wrote Chrome. What's the difference? There is great similarity of situation there. What would seem to be important is 1 these companies' transparent policy on what info they're acquiring and what they are doing with it, and these companies clear and simple to understand communication of such policy to end users. Is that transparency the case? 2) How easy is it to switch my choice to get out of the walled and monitored garden?
There's a well known phenomenon where every time some AI research produces a successful result, someone comes along and says "That's not true A.I" "It's just a computer program that has to be told what to do." (This is the "no true Scotsman" argument.)
So let's see the list of such "non-AI" technologies:
- Natural-Language translation (getting pretty usable now) - Speech recognition combined with ability to answer fairly arbitrary questions quite well on average. (talking to Google via my Android phone) - Self-driving cars (getting pretty close - will be better drivers than people on average pretty soon) - Chess - Jeopardy - Go - Detection of suspicious speech and patterns of communication (no doubt used by NSA on most Internet and phone traffic) - Recognition of particular writer from all writers on Internet by analysis of their writing style - Person identification by face picture recognition - Object type and locaton type recognition from pictures - Walking, box-stacking robot "Atlas 2"
Just algorithms.
Does it actually matter what you personally choose to call this kind of technology? It is what it is, and it's advancing quickly.
"It's not true AI" sounds like the desperate retreat cry of a person in a very defensive stance, afraid of losing a sense of human uniqueness.
I'm just going to have to resort to whispering in my co-conspirator's ear in a crowded noisy concert hall again, telling them which day to look in the newspaper for the classified ad with the agreed code words in it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry I missed how this (removing all the new law beyond the general constitutional statements) keeps people fed and sheltered when robots are doing their jobs. Can you clarify?
"Sounds like an nvidia problem? (check the drivers?)" ...and there you have in one comment the reason why Linux on the desktop is a fail, for ordinary non-techical computer users.
Q: My computer is hosed. It keeps slowing to a crawl. What can I do?
A: Just recompile the kernel with the whatchamacallit option disabled, after upgrading your gcc compiler and setting the flags just so, then try to find the exact right video driver on an obscure backwater page of some tech support website, upgrade your OS packages while holding back that one, oh don't forget to update the package list to include the alternate-universe list first, ...and Bob's your uncle!
I second your hate.
The really thin keyboard of the current Macbook laptop, which has reduced vertical play, is already one step too far for me in the lack of adequate feedback.
The Macbook keys actually feel wobbly to the point you're not sure you got a successful press or just wiggled it a bit.
And this idea is going much further in the "lack of vertical movement" movement.
I find goofy minimalist keyboards and smartphone virtual keyboards are fine for banging out a short text or very short email, but not for writing the next great American novel, or the next adequate research report, or software framework.
Please stop the trend to enabling information consumers only. Some people still want to produce. Are we going to have to go to an aftermarket keyboard store?
I freed my wrist from the sweaty, uncomfortable watch band thing about 20 years ago, and haven't looked back (or been late for that matter).
When I wore a watch I felt handcuffed to time.
These days I can easily afford the 2 seconds it takes to "draw" my smartphone out of my pocket if I need the time, and then I have a decent sized screen to do all kinds of other useful things with. Smart watch just not needed.
And as for status symbol. I've always looked at a fancy watch as a kind of inverse status symbol, indicating a lack of confidence and a need to assert their worth with bling. Be yourself and establish your status by your actions. Then you'll get some status.
Linus has apparently admitted he sucks at UI design.
So why wouldn't he empower a group of acknowledged UX/UI experts to design a "next standard" desktop UI on top of Linux.
It should be based on simplicity of use, lack of need for manual etc.
It's not that most people are stupid. It's that they don't have time to become an expert in every little detail of their tools. They are focussed on higher-level tasks and want basic operations to just work smoothly, consistently, and with a minimum of unnecessary choices requiring arcane knowledge.
There could easily be built in to such a UI an "Escape to raw Linux land" mode that replaces the easy, choice-free, just works UI with an ultimately configurable land of terminals and bare X-windows and such. It could have a warning pop-up, that said "Beware: Here be woolly mammoths! Enter at own risk."
Having constructed a profile of you by mining your online activities via tracking networks, it will guess with uncanny accuracy what scam is going to seem plausible to you and seem specifically consistent with your recent activities and interests.
Then it will send you an email or text or tweet seemingly from a close associate of some business or personal connection/contact you have, and the invitation for you to act will be convincingly specific to your life and recent interests.
So are you saying that the population-level resistance to extinction from a single disease (or single bad personality trait / aptitude) that we get from natural genetic diversity is not useful?
Hint: Ask an Irish descendant what it was like to rely for staple food on a single variety of potato.
I would like to have you comment on likely outcomes in the following scenario:
1) Libertarianism rules: personal freedom has increased, taxation decreased or nonexistent, government virtually powerless (in other words, as you hope for).
2) Increasingly cost-effective automation replaces 50 % of current jobs (this number already takes into account that a few new types of jobs are created, like "automated-system alarm-watcher"., So around half the formerly gainfully employable/self-employable adult people are unemployed, and given your preferred government system, are not supported enough to survive.
Please tell me your story of what happens in such a scenario. You are not allowed to negate either of the premises of the scenario.
Also, saying: "They will move to somewhere else" is not a valid response, since the scenario assumes this happens in all countries.
Because the performance / cost of automated technology is steadily increasing.
This wage change only has the potential to bring very slightly sooner what seems an inevitable trend toward significant job losses to automation.
Minimum wage rise or no, society is going to have to deal with one of:
A) Guaranteed annual income (for existing as a human in the country).
B) Building really tall barbed wire walls (with automated machine guns/frickin' lasers?) to divide the still-employed and automation owners/shareholders from the increasing hordes.
So if they shut down the dark web,
what if I create a cloud-based business called "Communication Club" and offer the service of private anonymous communication.
I arrange the encryption so the corporation has no way of decrypting your private channels/subweb.
So is this "creative use of a private intranet" now also illegal?
Better title for this article:
"China develops more accurate online method of shooting itself in the foot."
How do you cancel an order?
I wouldn't have that option using the "trading" interfaces that poor sap retail investors get to use, would I ?
Who designs a system where orders, once placed, are not locked in?
Sounds like a design flaw in the trading system as a whole.
If he figured out that the technical operation of the trading system is flawed, he should get a prize, and they should fix the friggin' thing.
So does cognitive decline cause low computer use or does high computer use prevent cognitive decline?
In otherwords, should doctors be saying "go surf some ***n" to prevent dementia. Watch out for visual symptoms though.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/sta...
You know, actually anonymous instead of pseudo-not-really anonymous.
Design suggestions?
Pointers to existing "bitcoin 2.0 the actually anonymous version" projects?
Seriously, how much do you or your consulting company make from this courageous "Anonymous Coward" commenting?
Are you paid by the hour?
By the post?
By the word?
There should have been, at NASA, a launch validation team composed entirely of top-notch mid-to-senior level engineers and scientists.
They should carefully consider each known risk prior to each launch.
They should debate it only in terms of risk level = probability of occurrence x probability distribution of consequence severity.
That team should make the go/no-go call, fully documenting their reasons.
Any divergence from this sort of technical review with final authority is a gross violation of responsible process for something as complex as this.
In the city I live in the median detached house sells for over $1 miilion.
I remember when penny candies were a thing, and cost 1 penny, and when millionaire meant something beyond the ability to imagine.
Penny candies now cost 25 cents each minimum, and millionaire just means homeowner with mortgage paid off.
There is no reason for geoblocking other than greed, and probably misguided, self-defeating greed at that.
There is no legitimate administrative logistics or whatever reason for restricting content access over the Internet to certain locations on Earth.
It is a totally artificial barrier, exactly akin to a highwayman stopping you on the road and demanding the contents of your pockets and your watch.
Don't you think in this day and age that if all people around the world were treated as having the same rights to content, that much more revenue in subscription fees for decently stocked, well-organized, high-performance content services would come in? Of course it would.
We're seeing the death throes of a dying buggywhip business model.
How long would it withstand a quantum computer cracking it?
Hint: Fast-forward 10 years for all of your assumptions.
You realize that the use case that having a locked door to your house helps is along the lines of "an optimistic but generally inept burglar comes around every so often and turns the doorknob of all the houses in your neighbourhood hoping they will come upon one where the door is not locked."
Does that seem that likely to you? Particularly if you live in a city, where the working assumption of everyone (including burglars) is that everyone's house door is locked.
In my experience of the Interwebs, as seen from outside the US, most American's act as if they believe that:
1) Everything on the English-speaking part of the Internet is US-centric site.
2) The Earth is a US-centric site.
This is seriously annoying to the other 95.6 % of us people on the friggin' planet.
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Two downsides are that a company that has a clear interest in influencing your visiting patterns and content choices now has both total control of your browsing (potentially since they wrote the browser) and total knowledge of your browsing (potentially, since they wrote the browser and could be sending your browsing history through a sidechannel to their own servers where they can analyse it).
This is a monopoly situation and will probably lead to abuse of monopoly power.
Ok you say, but Google wrote Chrome. What's the difference? There is great similarity of situation there.
What would seem to be important is
1 these companies' transparent policy on what info they're acquiring and what they are doing with it, and these companies clear and simple to understand communication of such policy to end users. Is that transparency the case?
2) How easy is it to switch my choice to get out of the walled and monitored garden?
There's a well known phenomenon where every time some AI research produces a successful result, someone comes along and says "That's not true A.I" "It's just a computer program that has to be told what to do."
(This is the "no true Scotsman" argument.)
So let's see the list of such "non-AI" technologies:
- Natural-Language translation (getting pretty usable now)
- Speech recognition combined with ability to answer fairly arbitrary questions quite well on average.
(talking to Google via my Android phone)
- Self-driving cars (getting pretty close - will be better drivers than people on average pretty soon)
- Chess
- Jeopardy
- Go
- Detection of suspicious speech and patterns of communication (no doubt used by NSA on most Internet and phone traffic)
- Recognition of particular writer from all writers on Internet by analysis of their writing style
- Person identification by face picture recognition
- Object type and locaton type recognition from pictures
- Walking, box-stacking robot "Atlas 2"
Just algorithms.
Does it actually matter what you personally choose to call this kind of technology? It is what it is, and it's advancing quickly.
"It's not true AI" sounds like the desperate retreat cry of a person in a very defensive stance, afraid of losing a sense of human uniqueness.
I'm just going to have to resort to whispering in my co-conspirator's ear in a crowded noisy concert hall again, telling them which day to look in the newspaper for the classified ad with the agreed code words in it.
Such a pain.