I never understood how an intelligent person could simply use past experience and thinking as a guidepost for the future.
It's called learning.
With no information about future events, we could either revert to crystal balls, tarot decks or plain guessing, or we could check our past for similar events and assume that similar causes will have similar effects. While not guaranteed to be right, it will be much better than guessing.
NOT doing that is cartoon material*: Yes, placing the valuable ming vase on a shaky ladder right behind that door was a bad idea three times, but hey - why should "past events be a guidepost for the future"? But I know, this time it will be completly different!
*or the rationalization of a gambling addict: I've lost so much money in the past, this HAS to be different this time.
For a lead futurist, that's astonishingly undetailed. I read a much deeper piece a few months ago, and it agreed with Kurzweil in two major points:
* Each technological progress eliminates human jobs * Each technological progress creates new jobs * While it's easy to predict the eliminated jobs, it is next to impossible to foresee the newly created ones * But they will likely be more skilled and less manual labor than the old ones
But that's the starting point. It's here where the problems will start:
* for the skilled jobs, you need skilled workers. What to do with Joe Sixpack or anyone just not capable to learn those skills? (or for the US: to afford certified studies of those skills) Let them starve? Take their dignity by putting them on a welfare budget just low enough to not starve, but we still can mock them as lazy bums wo don't want to work?
* most countries are already complaining about a shortage of STEM (in Europe: MINT) degrees needed for the current "skilled" jobs
* In numbers alone, the ration between eliminated and created jobs got worse with each "industrial revolution". During the first one, the combined labor force of farmhands set free by the beginning automation in farming was not enough to fulfill the labor needs of the new factories. For the following technologies, the ratio declined until the latest (digitalisation of office) did not create more new jobs than it ate. So for the next one, it may be the first time, where actually less new jobs will be created than eliminated. And that they require an already lacking skillset, is not helping either.
Ignoring research is either stupid or genius. Apple got most of its mojo from ignoring conventional (or rather: historical) UX guidelines and not from new technology. Like the Henry Ford quote, that if he listened to market research, people would only have asked for a better horse.
The ribbon in MS Word is MS way to enforce how to use the tool. The tool is so complex, it needs various modes of operation. The default mode is all about writing text and applying styles (note: I used other tools like Lyx and Adobe Framemaker that favour the use of styles, and I hate the notion of letting the users cherry pick fonts without using styles). The review mode is all about adding Notes and tracking changes.
I guess that's the problems most users have with ribbons: Typing and cherrypicking fonts is all they do! Like when was the last time you saw Joe Sixpack use the notes and change tracking?
It will provide a clear workflow: top - bottom, left-right, corner to corner -- whatever, it will be CLEAR what to do first, next and to finish.
How does it know what the user WANTS to do next? It should be the user telling the machine what to do next, not the other way round, or you're switching who is the "tool" here.
A computer should automate a workflow, to free users from repetitive tasks and NOT guide a user through a fixed workflow over and over again.
Even better: In some Isaac Asimov Novel (forgot which) starships became way to complicated to be operated by humans. They had to be steered and navigated by "AI" (or cybernetic or positronic or electronic brains.)
But was something like a computer connected to the controls? No. Not electronic or even mechanically using servo motors: Each ship had to have a robot, as only a robot could operate all the required buttons, rudders and levers.
How can someone capable of imagining an artificial brain operating the most complex machinery not even have the faintest idea that mechanical controls could be obsolete by a time we have starships and AI
Well, the truth of the matter is, what makes Science Fiction frequently valuable is not that they accurately portray the future. One of the great things about science fiction is that it alters our own reality slightly so we can look at it better.
Science Fiction will tell us much less about the future then it tells us about the time it was written - their hopes and fears about the future.
Are you positive? Isn't he rather the best example of positive character development? Yes, he is introduced as the clumsy fat kid, and the first "heroic" things he does are more by accident. But the circumstances transform him to have actual courage.
That's usually the whole point of side characters - contrast or complement the main characters. And they are by definition neither incompetent nor evil.
And a) i don't want to see obese people at all and b) please stop calling everything above "skinny" obese. That's the very far end of the scale and doesn't help anyone. Obese is the state where weight IS your main health problem and turned into a medical condition itself and not just a risk or contributing factor to potential, future health problems.
El Cubano: (walks into a restaurant and gets a table) Waiter/waitress: What can I get you to drink? El Cubano: Coke, please. Waiter/waitress: OK, I'll be right back with that. El Cubano: (thinks to self, but he/she didn't ask what kind of coke I wanted)
Bickerdyke: Wondering why El Cubano didn't tell the waitress right away what he wanted to drink.
So if, even if, anywhere in the world "Coke" would be generic for any soft drink - NO ONE would just order a "Soft Drink" in the same way you can't just order "juice" or "ice cream" or "something to eat" "A beer" is the only exception, as that would usually give you the (one) beer they have on tap.
It's spelled, "Frisbee", and yes, it's a registered trademark of the Wham-O Toy Company. If a competitor advertised their own flying disc as a "frisbee", Wham-O would undoubtedly take legal action. Wham-O also owns the trademark for Hula Hoop.
Interesting, as both could be depicted in a simplified way by a plain circle.
But these companies have an army of lawyers who would send cease and desist letters to newspapers and other organizations when they use brandnames generically. Xerox used to be very aggressive about it.
They have to. At least over here it's not general, widespread generic use that can make you loose your brand, but you have to proof that you took appropriate action to defend your brand.
I wonder if there is a way for Google to find people using the word "google" in a generic sense.
Slashdot Mirror
I never understood how an intelligent person could simply use past experience and thinking as a guidepost for the future.
It's called learning.
With no information about future events, we could either revert to crystal balls, tarot decks or plain guessing, or we could check our past for similar events and assume that similar causes will have similar effects. While not guaranteed to be right, it will be much better than guessing.
NOT doing that is cartoon material*: Yes, placing the valuable ming vase on a shaky ladder right behind that door was a bad idea three times, but hey - why should "past events be a guidepost for the future"? But I know, this time it will be completly different!
*or the rationalization of a gambling addict: I've lost so much money in the past, this HAS to be different this time.
For a lead futurist, that's astonishingly undetailed. I read a much deeper piece a few months ago, and it agreed with Kurzweil in two major points:
* Each technological progress eliminates human jobs
* Each technological progress creates new jobs
* While it's easy to predict the eliminated jobs, it is next to impossible to foresee the newly created ones
* But they will likely be more skilled and less manual labor than the old ones
But that's the starting point. It's here where the problems will start:
* for the skilled jobs, you need skilled workers. What to do with Joe Sixpack or anyone just not capable to learn those skills? (or for the US: to afford certified studies of those skills) Let them starve? Take their dignity by putting them on a welfare budget just low enough to not starve, but we still can mock them as lazy bums wo don't want to work?
* most countries are already complaining about a shortage of STEM (in Europe: MINT) degrees needed for the current "skilled" jobs
* In numbers alone, the ration between eliminated and created jobs got worse with each "industrial revolution". During the first one, the combined labor force of farmhands set free by the beginning automation in farming was not enough to fulfill the labor needs of the new factories. For the following technologies, the ratio declined until the latest (digitalisation of office) did not create more new jobs than it ate. So for the next one, it may be the first time, where actually less new jobs will be created than eliminated. And that they require an already lacking skillset, is not helping either.
Well I never said they didn't.... they probably rather knew when to ignore the results
Ignoring research is either stupid or genius. Apple got most of its mojo from ignoring conventional (or rather: historical) UX guidelines and not from new technology. Like the Henry Ford quote, that if he listened to market research, people would only have asked for a better horse.
The ribbon in MS Word is MS way to enforce how to use the tool. The tool is so complex, it needs various modes of operation. The default mode is all about writing text and applying styles (note: I used other tools like Lyx and Adobe Framemaker that favour the use of styles, and I hate the notion of letting the users cherry pick fonts without using styles). The review mode is all about adding Notes and tracking changes.
I guess that's the problems most users have with ribbons: Typing and cherrypicking fonts is all they do! Like when was the last time you saw Joe Sixpack use the notes and change tracking?
It will provide a clear workflow: top - bottom, left-right, corner to corner -- whatever, it will be CLEAR what to do first, next and to finish.
How does it know what the user WANTS to do next? It should be the user telling the machine what to do next, not the other way round, or you're switching who is the "tool" here.
A computer should automate a workflow, to free users from repetitive tasks and NOT guide a user through a fixed workflow over and over again.
Not the person who is paying for storage?
Not if you lost your credentials, not if you're injured and in a coma, not if you're in custody or kidnapped.
There is a reason why setups like this are usually called "Dead man switch".
That's assumingthat you are able to log into your account to remove the data. May not be the best approach.
Not mentioned in the study: 60% use a VPN to bypass a geoblocked hulu.
Even better: In some Isaac Asimov Novel (forgot which) starships became way to complicated to be operated by humans. They had to be steered and navigated by "AI" (or cybernetic or positronic or electronic brains.)
But was something like a computer connected to the controls? No. Not electronic or even mechanically using servo motors: Each ship had to have a robot, as only a robot could operate all the required buttons, rudders and levers.
How can someone capable of imagining an artificial brain operating the most complex machinery not even have the faintest idea that mechanical controls could be obsolete by a time we have starships and AI
It really comes down to how much of your concentration each method of communication requires
It starts with as simple things like having to get dressed for a call.
Well, the truth of the matter is, what makes Science Fiction frequently valuable is not that they accurately portray the future. One of the great things about science fiction is that it alters our own reality slightly so we can look at it better.
Science Fiction will tell us much less about the future then it tells us about the time it was written - their hopes and fears about the future.
*ALL YOUR PR0N IS BELONG TO US!*
This probably is showing my age.... And the inability of the /. spam filter complaining about yelling.
I guess at one point the "collecting" part becomes more satisfying than that.
Wow.. that's REALLY sick!
The question to my mind was: Did that guy dedupe his own collection before uploading?
Yes. you shouldn't be forced to watch all of it... Problem is finding the good 15%....
When I say "google it" people know I've suggested they look 'it' up online. It's well understood. I *could* say it lots of other ways... why should I?
No... When you say "Google it" people only will know that you suggested to ... well.. Google it,
Which by definition means "to use Google"
When someone asks you for a kleenex, would you hand them a glass of water? NO! Because, you know, words have meanings.
Yes, there may be some ambiguity, but that's why we can use dictionaries and such stuff to make sure everyone means the same.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01...
How would the drawing in this movie have been any different if it was about a Frisbee?
Are you positive? Isn't he rather the best example of positive character development? Yes, he is introduced as the clumsy fat kid, and the first "heroic" things he does are more by accident. But the circumstances transform him to have actual courage.
That's usually the whole point of side characters - contrast or complement the main characters. And they are by definition neither incompetent nor evil.
And a) i don't want to see obese people at all and b) please stop calling everything above "skinny" obese. That's the very far end of the scale and doesn't help anyone. Obese is the state where weight IS your main health problem and turned into a medical condition itself and not just a risk or contributing factor to potential, future health problems.
Sorry but...
El Cubano: (walks into a restaurant and gets a table)
Waiter/waitress: What can I get you to drink?
El Cubano: Coke, please.
Waiter/waitress: OK, I'll be right back with that.
El Cubano: (thinks to self, but he/she didn't ask what kind of coke I wanted)
Bickerdyke: Wondering why El Cubano didn't tell the waitress right away what he wanted to drink.
So if, even if, anywhere in the world "Coke" would be generic for any soft drink - NO ONE would just order a "Soft Drink" in the same way you can't just order "juice" or "ice cream" or "something to eat" "A beer" is the only exception, as that would usually give you the (one) beer they have on tap.
It's spelled, "Frisbee", and yes, it's a registered trademark of the Wham-O Toy Company. If a competitor advertised their own flying disc as a "frisbee", Wham-O would undoubtedly take legal action. Wham-O also owns the trademark for Hula Hoop.
Interesting, as both could be depicted in a simplified way by a plain circle.
So they are the actual "Hudsucker Industries"!
But these companies have an army of lawyers who would send cease and desist letters to newspapers and other organizations when they use brandnames generically. Xerox used to be very aggressive about it.
They have to. At least over here it's not general, widespread generic use that can make you loose your brand, but you have to proof that you took appropriate action to defend your brand.
I wonder if there is a way for Google to find people using the word "google" in a generic sense.
At least they tried.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
https://www.heise.de/newsticke...
http://www.literaturcafe.de/go...
And if you want, you may look up the official definition of "to google"
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
So people's stupidity should be allowed to harm Google's property?