So you're saying that they learned from Digital:Convergence and the Cue Cat Scanner debacle?
Once the thing is no longer in one's possession there's a loss of a certain amount of control. Microsoft avoided this becoming epidemic by not handing out Xboxes for free, as most people weren't going to pay several hundred dollars to immediately wipe and install a different OS on it, but absolutely would have if they'd been free. People would have convinced anyone and everyone they knew to get a free one to give to them.
This would have made the Cue Cat fight look like nothing.
Huge technical companies used to run incubator programs in-house to do this kind of development. Most of our now-stable development tools and platforms originated in just such incubators. Palo Alto, Bell Labs, IBM Research, all paved the way for robust tech without forcing it on the public before it had at least been Alpha-tested.
Now Alpha versions are released as something to try to use, and Beta versions are sold. That's just not right.
It seems Microsoft can no longer step into the field and copy what others have done with the assumption that just by being from Microsoft, their copy will become the new standard - even if it's marginally better than the original. And that's a good thing, IMO.
IBM went through this in the eighties and nineties, when they ultimately lost the PC market. Obviously PCs if we include all devices that run PC operating systems are still going strong despite this. If we include things that aren't considered PCs like keyboard-lacking tablets and phones, then it's absolutely roaring.
Computing will survive Microsoft losing its dominance over multiple simultaneous markets.
Viewing documents is just about the only thing that web browsers excel at. That web browsers have been a critical vulnerability in security against malware and viruses is proof that how they're implemented is terrible.
Clothing produced in Vietnam is a good, once it's sold the original producer has no say over what happens to it.
Software produced by a corporation is intellectual property. It is not usually sold, it is licensed. The original producer usually retains some say over what happens to it, far beyond the realm of simply protecting it from unlicensed duplication.
Why do people want to take proprietary languages and libraries and use them on open source projects?
I remember some interest in.net and mono and other Microsoft-derived stuff in Linux a long time ago. Why is there this interest in commingling the Microsoft way with the POSIX way when there are so many POSIX tools already available? I don't understand this choice. It's literally giving ammunition to the party that at one point had a declared interest in trying to replace all UNIX and UNIX-like OSes with its own commercial platforms. Why make it easier for that to happen by developing with their technologies?
Darwinian selection has been observed in one generation in high-order animals like birds where there are limited resources. Selection has also been observed in plants where humans have done nothing more than adjust the available nutrients and other external conditions to dramatically change crop yields without doing anything to the plant itself or its reproductive cycle.
I don't doubt that feeding a human a better diet and removing things from the diet that are outright harmful will contribute to an infant growing up into a more physically powerful, smarter person compared to one fed a malnourishing diet or being fed foodstuffs that are toxic or otherwise tainted, and that this could also apply to brain development.
Mature technologies are proven. They've gone through their growing-pains. They may have limitations, but those limitations and workarounds are usually well known by seasoned professionals. There's a reason why COBOL, Fortran, and RPG are still in use in business applications almost sixty years after their initial development, because they reliably work.
I've tried to work with NodeJS projects for production. It's a nightmare. NodeJS itself is revised too often, the actual project is revised too often, and the dependencies became a nightmare. It's not mature enough and not worth it.
I cannot remember which author said it, but the quote is, "no one born with a hungry mouth is truly innocent." It applies well when people want to go on about the innocent-children in the abortion discussion. After birth these people will need resources. If their parents can't or don't want to provide those resources then that burden falls on society, a society that doesn't want to expend significant resources, unless neglect occurs.
This is a raw deal, and is the primary reason why I support reproductive rights that include the right to not reproduce despite going through the motions. It's a travesty that people both want to take away the tools to prevent pregnancy in the first place and then want to take away the means to end unwanted pregnancy.
There actually is an anthropological theory that posits that ego in the self-awareness meaning is a relatively new phenomenon, and that most of the spiritual leaders of old were more self-aware than their peers.
Given that in the Abrahamic religions, it's established that there other humans besides the progeny of Adam and Eve (there are references to cities) it might follow that compared to the rest of the population, Adam, Eve, and their progeny were significantly more self-aware than the rest of the population. That could help reinforce that Genesis is more of an allegory in the sense that it in-part describes the rise of Man from being simply a primate struggling through existence like all of the other primates to having that sense of ego and awareness. That could even indicate that the act of becoming Man and having ego is the 'fall from grace' in being expelled from the Garden of Eden. That would mean that Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and everyone else mentioned by name in Genesis is there to be in parable, not literally those individuals, but the rough story of those that came to greater self-awareness in that part of the world first.
Obviously this could be completely wrong too, I'm certainly not an expert on this theory nor do I have the resources to cite sources, but it's interesting to to muse on it. The contents of the Torah/Bible obviously had to come from somewhere.
Being somewhat above or below median brain size does not equate to better or worse mental faculties. One has to be far, far worse off in the smaller department before it actually starts to be relevant, and that's usually because whole structures are malformed or missing.
If anything in poverty affects brain development I expect that it's chemical or in the way that structures are formed. It's been demonstrated that some structures are larger in both musicians and mathematicians and that there's a direct correlation, the brain improves that structure as the person develops the skill.
I'm going to venture a guess that some people that are poor, particularly those that do not find themselves in a position to really be able to make important choices due to financial constraints or to exercise their brains in higher thinking, will have brains less suited to that kind of decision making until they're forced to start making those kinds of decisions regularly. I expect conversely that many wealthy people that have never been poor can't empathize with the poor because they simply have no idea how to do so, that their brains do not understand the concepts of making very seemingly small decisions that actually are very important when one has almost no resources.
It'll stop being upgradable when Apple decides to stop making upgrades for it. That'll either be due to too small flash memory and too poor hardware to handle what they want to do, or it will be due to their desire to stop supporting it because they don't want to.
My point was that restricting access to training and materials surrounding sex and reducing the odds of pregnancy won't stop the sex itself, therefore it's not really going to modify behavior and will simply result in more babies.
Neither of those examples is an analog to human behavior though, as both of those examples feature 'birth control' as a function of the male, not of the pregnant female.
At the moment, in the United States, matters related to the female body are hers first and foremost legally. There are attempts at prohibitions on some of her choices, but there really aren't any situations when the male in a conception has any rights over the woman's choices with regard to her body. A human male cannot cause spontaneous abortion/miscarriage through coitus with a pregnant female. He cannot order an abortion against her will and if he engages in an action that causes one the law calls for his prosecution. He cannot kill a newborn baby even if he doesn't want to raise it.
We were several-generations in before Google released the HTC Dream/T-Mobile G1 as their launch phone for Android. That still doesn't mean that a new-old-stock G1 will power-up and be able to use all of its built-in cloud functions, or that one could even update it to a new enough version of Android to do anything useful with it. I expect the same is true for first couple of generations of iPhone.
This is part why it makes sense once you buy it, to use a device until it cannot be used anymore. If everyone does this then service providers, like Apple and Google, will be forced to maintain compatibility with older devices. They won't be able to orphan devices because they'll piss-off their customers. Early-adopters get burned because they pay a lot for a device and have to deal with support being dropped due to such a small customer base relative to the new device that comes out later.
And that's where we start to diverge. I don't think that the iWatch will continue to do the things it was sold to do. I think that Apple will modify the services or protocols down the road and this first-generation iWatch will start losing features as it's now not compatible with the new way the services will be provided.
My Accutron won't need an 'upgrade' unless we switch to metric time.
No, abuse is usually defined by the actual vitcimization of someone. "The Very Idea" of something is not a form of victimization. I'm not victimizing Jews and Muslims by eating bacon. I'm not victimizing Christians during this season of Lent by eating bacon on Fridays. I'm not victimizing Hindus by having a bacon cheeseburger. I'm not victimizing Hindus by eating beef.
This is another power grab by the religious right. It is connected to their efforts to restrict sex (through access to contraception, sex education, abortion, etc)...
But one doesn't need contraception. sex education, or abortion in order to have sex. After all, no other animals on our planet have contraception, sex education, or abortion and they have plenty of sex.
Key words, "in a few years." Right now my old Accutron still performs the function that it was designed for just as well as it did when it was manufactured.
I don't doubt that someday the paradigm shift will happen as it did for cellular phones, but the evolution of the smartwatch is happening even faster than the smartphone, and even that still isn't settled. I expect these first-generation models to quickly not function right as the software on the watch, like on many smartphones, won't be able to be updated to what the back-end servers need before too long, so all of the gadgets and features will stop working as better designs for the watches themselves come up.
This is a market where being an early adopter will mean lots of challenges just to use the devices. I'm happy to let the technology mature a bit before considering it. After all, life was good before smart phones, it'll remain good before smart watches.
Boston Dynamics has been going a long way toward improving how robots handle terrain. I wouldn't be surprised if they do manage to make robots that can handle it in the near future. After all, urban battlefield conditions are probably a good analog for the chaos in a structure fire.
You can also artificially increase that distance if you're willing to have something of a dry moat right at the fence itself, only about four or five feet deep. One could even plant some extremely thin plants that wouldn't help break the fall there, so that it doesn't look like a dry moat.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that they learned from Digital:Convergence and the Cue Cat Scanner debacle?
Once the thing is no longer in one's possession there's a loss of a certain amount of control. Microsoft avoided this becoming epidemic by not handing out Xboxes for free, as most people weren't going to pay several hundred dollars to immediately wipe and install a different OS on it, but absolutely would have if they'd been free. People would have convinced anyone and everyone they knew to get a free one to give to them.
This would have made the Cue Cat fight look like nothing.
Huge technical companies used to run incubator programs in-house to do this kind of development. Most of our now-stable development tools and platforms originated in just such incubators. Palo Alto, Bell Labs, IBM Research, all paved the way for robust tech without forcing it on the public before it had at least been Alpha-tested.
Now Alpha versions are released as something to try to use, and Beta versions are sold. That's just not right.
It seems Microsoft can no longer step into the field and copy what others have done with the assumption that just by being from Microsoft, their copy will become the new standard - even if it's marginally better than the original. And that's a good thing, IMO.
IBM went through this in the eighties and nineties, when they ultimately lost the PC market. Obviously PCs if we include all devices that run PC operating systems are still going strong despite this. If we include things that aren't considered PCs like keyboard-lacking tablets and phones, then it's absolutely roaring.
Computing will survive Microsoft losing its dominance over multiple simultaneous markets.
Viewing documents is just about the only thing that web browsers excel at. That web browsers have been a critical vulnerability in security against malware and viruses is proof that how they're implemented is terrible.
Clothing produced in Vietnam is a good, once it's sold the original producer has no say over what happens to it.
Software produced by a corporation is intellectual property. It is not usually sold, it is licensed. The original producer usually retains some say over what happens to it, far beyond the realm of simply protecting it from unlicensed duplication.
Python came out in 1991. VBScript came out in 1996. If anything, VBScript is the second coming of Python.
Why do people want to take proprietary languages and libraries and use them on open source projects?
.net and mono and other Microsoft-derived stuff in Linux a long time ago. Why is there this interest in commingling the Microsoft way with the POSIX way when there are so many POSIX tools already available? I don't understand this choice. It's literally giving ammunition to the party that at one point had a declared interest in trying to replace all UNIX and UNIX-like OSes with its own commercial platforms. Why make it easier for that to happen by developing with their technologies?
I remember some interest in
Darwinian selection has been observed in one generation in high-order animals like birds where there are limited resources. Selection has also been observed in plants where humans have done nothing more than adjust the available nutrients and other external conditions to dramatically change crop yields without doing anything to the plant itself or its reproductive cycle.
I don't doubt that feeding a human a better diet and removing things from the diet that are outright harmful will contribute to an infant growing up into a more physically powerful, smarter person compared to one fed a malnourishing diet or being fed foodstuffs that are toxic or otherwise tainted, and that this could also apply to brain development.
Mature technologies are proven. They've gone through their growing-pains. They may have limitations, but those limitations and workarounds are usually well known by seasoned professionals. There's a reason why COBOL, Fortran, and RPG are still in use in business applications almost sixty years after their initial development, because they reliably work.
I've tried to work with NodeJS projects for production. It's a nightmare. NodeJS itself is revised too often, the actual project is revised too often, and the dependencies became a nightmare. It's not mature enough and not worth it.
I cannot remember which author said it, but the quote is, "no one born with a hungry mouth is truly innocent." It applies well when people want to go on about the innocent-children in the abortion discussion. After birth these people will need resources. If their parents can't or don't want to provide those resources then that burden falls on society, a society that doesn't want to expend significant resources, unless neglect occurs.
This is a raw deal, and is the primary reason why I support reproductive rights that include the right to not reproduce despite going through the motions. It's a travesty that people both want to take away the tools to prevent pregnancy in the first place and then want to take away the means to end unwanted pregnancy.
There actually is an anthropological theory that posits that ego in the self-awareness meaning is a relatively new phenomenon, and that most of the spiritual leaders of old were more self-aware than their peers.
Given that in the Abrahamic religions, it's established that there other humans besides the progeny of Adam and Eve (there are references to cities) it might follow that compared to the rest of the population, Adam, Eve, and their progeny were significantly more self-aware than the rest of the population. That could help reinforce that Genesis is more of an allegory in the sense that it in-part describes the rise of Man from being simply a primate struggling through existence like all of the other primates to having that sense of ego and awareness. That could even indicate that the act of becoming Man and having ego is the 'fall from grace' in being expelled from the Garden of Eden. That would mean that Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and everyone else mentioned by name in Genesis is there to be in parable, not literally those individuals, but the rough story of those that came to greater self-awareness in that part of the world first.
Obviously this could be completely wrong too, I'm certainly not an expert on this theory nor do I have the resources to cite sources, but it's interesting to to muse on it. The contents of the Torah/Bible obviously had to come from somewhere.
Being somewhat above or below median brain size does not equate to better or worse mental faculties. One has to be far, far worse off in the smaller department before it actually starts to be relevant, and that's usually because whole structures are malformed or missing.
If anything in poverty affects brain development I expect that it's chemical or in the way that structures are formed. It's been demonstrated that some structures are larger in both musicians and mathematicians and that there's a direct correlation, the brain improves that structure as the person develops the skill.
I'm going to venture a guess that some people that are poor, particularly those that do not find themselves in a position to really be able to make important choices due to financial constraints or to exercise their brains in higher thinking, will have brains less suited to that kind of decision making until they're forced to start making those kinds of decisions regularly. I expect conversely that many wealthy people that have never been poor can't empathize with the poor because they simply have no idea how to do so, that their brains do not understand the concepts of making very seemingly small decisions that actually are very important when one has almost no resources.
It'll stop being upgradable when Apple decides to stop making upgrades for it. That'll either be due to too small flash memory and too poor hardware to handle what they want to do, or it will be due to their desire to stop supporting it because they don't want to.
My point was that restricting access to training and materials surrounding sex and reducing the odds of pregnancy won't stop the sex itself, therefore it's not really going to modify behavior and will simply result in more babies.
Neither of those examples is an analog to human behavior though, as both of those examples feature 'birth control' as a function of the male, not of the pregnant female.
At the moment, in the United States, matters related to the female body are hers first and foremost legally. There are attempts at prohibitions on some of her choices, but there really aren't any situations when the male in a conception has any rights over the woman's choices with regard to her body. A human male cannot cause spontaneous abortion/miscarriage through coitus with a pregnant female. He cannot order an abortion against her will and if he engages in an action that causes one the law calls for his prosecution. He cannot kill a newborn baby even if he doesn't want to raise it.
We were several-generations in before Google released the HTC Dream/T-Mobile G1 as their launch phone for Android. That still doesn't mean that a new-old-stock G1 will power-up and be able to use all of its built-in cloud functions, or that one could even update it to a new enough version of Android to do anything useful with it. I expect the same is true for first couple of generations of iPhone.
This is part why it makes sense once you buy it, to use a device until it cannot be used anymore. If everyone does this then service providers, like Apple and Google, will be forced to maintain compatibility with older devices. They won't be able to orphan devices because they'll piss-off their customers. Early-adopters get burned because they pay a lot for a device and have to deal with support being dropped due to such a small customer base relative to the new device that comes out later.
Apparently I need more coffee. The last one should have been Buddhists, not Hindus.
And that's where we start to diverge. I don't think that the iWatch will continue to do the things it was sold to do. I think that Apple will modify the services or protocols down the road and this first-generation iWatch will start losing features as it's now not compatible with the new way the services will be provided.
My Accutron won't need an 'upgrade' unless we switch to metric time.
No, abuse is usually defined by the actual vitcimization of someone. "The Very Idea" of something is not a form of victimization. I'm not victimizing Jews and Muslims by eating bacon. I'm not victimizing Christians during this season of Lent by eating bacon on Fridays. I'm not victimizing Hindus by having a bacon cheeseburger. I'm not victimizing Hindus by eating beef.
I'm unfamiliar with this Religion of State that you're talking about. To where do I go to attend services?
This is another power grab by the religious right. It is connected to their efforts to restrict sex (through access to contraception, sex education, abortion, etc)...
But one doesn't need contraception. sex education, or abortion in order to have sex. After all, no other animals on our planet have contraception, sex education, or abortion and they have plenty of sex.
Key words, "in a few years." Right now my old Accutron still performs the function that it was designed for just as well as it did when it was manufactured.
I don't doubt that someday the paradigm shift will happen as it did for cellular phones, but the evolution of the smartwatch is happening even faster than the smartphone, and even that still isn't settled. I expect these first-generation models to quickly not function right as the software on the watch, like on many smartphones, won't be able to be updated to what the back-end servers need before too long, so all of the gadgets and features will stop working as better designs for the watches themselves come up.
This is a market where being an early adopter will mean lots of challenges just to use the devices. I'm happy to let the technology mature a bit before considering it. After all, life was good before smart phones, it'll remain good before smart watches.
Boston Dynamics has been going a long way toward improving how robots handle terrain. I wouldn't be surprised if they do manage to make robots that can handle it in the near future. After all, urban battlefield conditions are probably a good analog for the chaos in a structure fire.
You can also artificially increase that distance if you're willing to have something of a dry moat right at the fence itself, only about four or five feet deep. One could even plant some extremely thin plants that wouldn't help break the fall there, so that it doesn't look like a dry moat.
Secret Service was a division of Treasury for a very long time before they were split off.