Yes, but the retooling time to produce a different part takes time and re-calibration. Assuming this machine works as advertised (and the team behind it has an impressive list of credentials), then it will outright slay previous casting processes because the retooling time is now negligible. Hell, each run could be twenty or thirty different parts out of a specific assembly.
I am guessing that movie makers don't get out to the public theaters that often and may not realize what the entire "movie going" experience is like these days: 30 minutes of adds, the garbage food that was there 30 years ago (and sometime in the same bag), overblown sound system, Sometimes swept out, in new theaters the seating is good (but not always), people in the theater who don't understand basic etiquette.
Maybe have the movie makers watch a couple of films in public theaters each year so they remember why there is conflict on this subject.
Here is the problem: Bitcoin, by design is slowly limiting the amount of bitcoin available (this is similar to the availability of gold). So each bitcoin is worth more. I as a worked want to get paid in a fixed amount of bitcoin every week. I don't want to get paid on a floating amount based on daily trade values of the currency. Trying to budget for anything when you don't know if you are getting paid 1 bitcoin, 2 bitcoin or 1.76543 bitcoin this week would drive people mad. As more people use the currency, more currency is needed for people to use. Otherwise no one has currency to use and the currency is worthless to use.
The average person wants a currency that has a stable value and is easy to spend and be paid with. Playing the "well, we need to check its trading value before we can pay you" game will drive people to riot. Check out the bank runs and currency fluctuations of the 1920's and 1930's as a good example. Governments clamped down on a lot of the excesses at that point.
The difference between bitcoin and a money supply backed by a country: The country can increase or decrease the money supply to influence how the economy works. So the country can affect inflation or deflation and how much of it we have. BitCoin cannot. So if there is a run on bitcoin, there is no way to put the brakes on.
Right now no one values things by bitcoin without checking its value against the dollar. If people want to go onto an actual bitcoin economy that is indenpendant of the dollar they are going to encounter the issues the banking industry encountered in the 1920's and 1930's before banking regulation was instituted.
It can work if there is some sort of central authority managing the money supply. I'm sure Bitcoin thought of that and has built that into their system.
Bit coin is slowly limiting the supply of new bit coin (by design), which drives up the price of bitcoin. So every time you go to buy a good or service you spend less bitcoin because its value has increased. I see a problem emerging when someone says they want to get paid in a fixed amount of bitcoin per hour.
So now we can have cybernetic hearts, eye implants, hearing implants and direct brain implants that allow for brains to directly control computers. And now we can power them directly off of the human body. So we either have the Six Million Dollar man or the Borg. I'm not sure which.
Anyone who stays in a particular field for 40 years has a calling. Anyone who is it for the glory would have already moved on. That isn't my point.
To the uninitiated, Stallman comes off as screaming at clouds. Let me have a couple of thought exercises:
1. To most people, their android/IOS/Windows/Mac machine does what they want it to do and they don't think about it much beyond that. They don't have the time or the energy to look under the hood and play with the engine. They just want it to work, and Windows and Mac does that. Yes, Linux has gotten *alot* friendlier in the last 20 years but it isn't going to hold your hand like Windows and Mac does. So (like it or not) convenience is winning the war. So when Stallman comes by screaming the "end is nigh", "proprietary software is bad" uneducated people look at him like a screamer. The alternatives are not perceived as useful or inconvenient, even if more secure. So he is fighting an uphill battle.
2. Go watch people debate on the internet about a hot button political issue: Guns, Abortion, HealthCare, Taxation; You name it. It will quickly breakdown in to a couple of camps: The ProPeople and the ConPeople who will go at it all day and the WhyDon'tTheyShutUpPeople who might have been interested except someone who may have been friendly flamed them out of hand. Now change out Guns/Abortion and insert OpenSource or FreeSoftware. A lot of people get turned off by the zealotry and set it on ignore. Stallman's approach to people can be very inflammatory. I understand he has a specific message and is out to push that message. Without adjusting the presentation to account for the audience is like trying to teach Sanskrit to a pony. He has a reputation for insulting his audience or driving people away. I understand he is a purist, he is allowed to be a purist. But it turns alot of people off. Stallman wants people to go cold turkey and most people can't or won't do that.
Bringing people around means you have to find some common ground and a place where these people are willing to change. Start with a web browser, mail reader or art program (FireFox, Thunderbird, Gimp) and get them comfortable with those changes. Introduce them to additional programs that can replace the proprietary programs they used day-in, day out. That means programs that can replace iTunes, Word for Windows and every other daily use program out there. These programs have to be the real deal. Open/Libre Office does not have 100% of the functionality of Word so it isn't a replacement. iTunes is even harder to replace-yes there are music/move players out there; until it also has a movie,music store that can also update your phone with music it will be a tier 2 product.
rant over.
TLDR - Rehashing old arguments why open source software is at a competitive disadvantage to proprietary software.
The issue Stallman has (software that is not under lock and key, can be freely modified and redistributed is good) but oh my god he needs to stop acting like the bearded freak show on the city corner on a soap box screaming THE END IS NIGH.
Yes, spyware, malware, freakware, stealware is bad and open source software can help address these issues. But coming off as a loose cannon who is going to insult anyone who is not in lockstep alienates everyone you get within ten yards of. It also doesn't help that Stallman has a reputation as a misogynist, immediate turning off half the audience that could be sympathetic to the issue he is bringing up.
Stallman is going to have to decide which is more important: The content of the message he wants to deliver or how he plans to deliver it. Eventually some other person is going to package the exact same Stallman is saying in a more palatable form for mass consumption. Come to think of it, its already occuring with mainstream Linux distributions. But eventually someone who is charismatic and how the technical background will supplant Stallman as the flag bearer for the "Purer open source" that will protect everyone.
Lyft drivers were not anonymized. The driver numbers that Lyft assigned were not anonymized and could be used to track drivers over multiple sessions (or weeks). Uber would determine if someone was a Lyft driver in addition to an Uber driver by actively tracking the locations of the Lyft drivers and then correlating it to the locations of the Uber drivers. Also Uber could track which drivers were driving, when they were driving and where they were driving. I wouldn't be surprised if Uber built profiles on all the drivers they were tracking.
Uber changed its compensation package if drivers were also Lyft drivers. Uber would offer better fares to Lyft drivers as an inducement to quit Lyft.
It also means that Uber was tracking Lyft drivers (all Lyft drivers in range) without Lyft's permission and without the driver's permission. While the Lyft drivers may have given permission to Lyft for tracking, they did not give permission to Uber to track them. I expect this to be the crux of the argument.
Every couple of years another company comes out with their flying car concept. Aeromobil, Terrafugia, Moller have all grabbed headlines with their concept vehicles. Moller sank 100,000,000 dollars in research for flying cars. None have gotten past the concept or prototype stages.
The risks to the passengers and by standers due to a vehicle failure are very high.
Let me state that clearly: As long as the vehicle is operating correctly, everyone is okay; the moment the vehicle has a "mechanical issue" someone is going to die. With a flight elevations of 100-500 feet there isn't enough time to properly deploy a parachute. A fall from 100 feet means you are going 50mph from the fall alone (ignoring initial speed and wind resistance). In high density areas the odds of a flying vehicle hitting something else (pedestrian, vehicle, building) gets a lot higher.
Vehicle reliability and maintenance is going to be paramount. It is no wonder the FAA (as noted elsewhere in this thread) is going to go nuts over this subject. Even with high reliability the law of averages will catch up and someone will fall from the sky. The FAA does not want that level of crap on their desk.
The delta used to shift and move the river bed quite often. With the canals and leeves in place the natural tendency of the river to move is being fought against. It is the reason why the river breaks out at odd places just up stream or downstream of existing leeves. Part of this is a result of the silt deposits that used to be carried downstream by the Mississippi.
With the wetlands being destroyed the ocean barrier that helped protect against storms is being destroyed. Which exposed larger areas of the coast line to damage.
Time Travel wasn't something Ian Banks ever explored. Time Travel is really really hard to get right and has limited uses: Brootstrap problem, Be your own Grandfather problem, Kill Hitler scenarios, Predestination/Freewill scenarios. Which are all variations on closed loops or the butterfly effect from changing the past. Or time travel is used as a hand waving exercise to allow for other adventures (Doctor Who, The Voyagers, maybe Rick and Morty).
In the issues the Ian Banks was exploring with the Culture (cultural conflict and assimilation, what happens to societies when scarcity is no longer a driving impetus, What happens when the well intentioned dabble with "lesser" powers) didn't need Time Travel in order to explore them.
But back to your comment: Your dismissal of The Culture Series feels uninformed and shoot from the hip, let alone rude. On the flip side; while The Culture is well written I don't know if I would call it the greatest Sci-Fi ever written, there are plenty of contenders for that title (Look at all of the Hugo and Nebula winners for other choices).
The rest of the Culture had a different name for Grey Area: MeatF*cker. For exactly the reason you mentioned: Taking justice into his own hands (metaphorically).
Many companies have had studies that show "within a given grade/level people are paid equally". Yes we understand, if you are a level 6, you get paid between 75,000 and 85,000 per year. and everyone within the grade is relatively equal.
The real issue that is being artfully tap danced around is qualified women getting passed over for promotion for equal or lesser qualified men. Or just getting held up an extra 6-12 months before the promotion comes through. So men get promotions every 12-18 months and women get promotions every 18-24 months.
No I don't have actual data to back this up. There are plenty of anecdotes though. And the larger companies are carefully not taking the time for this kind of study, or have performed this kind of study and don't like the results and are not releasing the results because it makes them look awful and confirms the rumors of a BRO FIRST culture.
Larger cities need to invest in mass transit and maintain it. Look at NYC, Tokyo and London as working mass transit systems. Smaller cities need working bus systems that aren't starved for money in order to be useful.
And I'll get ahead of it here: mass transit needs to be properly funded in order to work properly. Mass transit does not appear to pay for itself on the surface, it pays for itself because of increase in population density that occurs as a result.
Its similar to what Microsoft was considering about 10 years ago. If you swapped to many cards the computer would consider it a new computer and demand a fresh install key. Microsoft backed down on that one. But there are stories Microsoft moving the idea along.
The sleazy thing John Deere did was change the terms of service for all of the older equipment they could get away with; all at once. I think it was back in October 2016. And the threat was: If you don't agree to the new terms of service we won't service your tractor.
Imagine every time you went to reboot your computer after a power outage the computer said: "Your computer restarted unexpectedly. Insert technician USB key to complete reboot sequence". That is the level of control John Deere is exerting and why farmers are buying hacked Russian motherboards for their tractors.
The issue isn't the software breaking as much as the software has lockouts for any and all replacement parts. Consider if you changed the oil and you had to log into your car to check the RFID tag in the oil filter and if you didn't have the password and an RFID approved oil filter the engine wouldn't start.
It also means you can't alter any part of the operation of the tractor that is computer controlled. You want a custom library for a specific crop: Pay John Deere. There was a story about a month ago about farmers buying hacked motherboards.
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but the retooling time to produce a different part takes time and re-calibration. Assuming this machine works as advertised (and the team behind it has an impressive list of credentials), then it will outright slay previous casting processes because the retooling time is now negligible. Hell, each run could be twenty or thirty different parts out of a specific assembly.
I am guessing that movie makers don't get out to the public theaters that often and may not realize what the entire "movie going" experience is like these days: 30 minutes of adds, the garbage food that was there 30 years ago (and sometime in the same bag), overblown sound system, Sometimes swept out, in new theaters the seating is good (but not always), people in the theater who don't understand basic etiquette.
Maybe have the movie makers watch a couple of films in public theaters each year so they remember why there is conflict on this subject.
Here is the problem: Bitcoin, by design is slowly limiting the amount of bitcoin available (this is similar to the availability of gold). So each bitcoin is worth more. I as a worked want to get paid in a fixed amount of bitcoin every week. I don't want to get paid on a floating amount based on daily trade values of the currency. Trying to budget for anything when you don't know if you are getting paid 1 bitcoin, 2 bitcoin or 1.76543 bitcoin this week would drive people mad. As more people use the currency, more currency is needed for people to use. Otherwise no one has currency to use and the currency is worthless to use.
The average person wants a currency that has a stable value and is easy to spend and be paid with. Playing the "well, we need to check its trading value before we can pay you" game will drive people to riot. Check out the bank runs and currency fluctuations of the 1920's and 1930's as a good example. Governments clamped down on a lot of the excesses at that point.
My second comment was spiced with irony.
The difference between bitcoin and a money supply backed by a country: The country can increase or decrease the money supply to influence how the economy works. So the country can affect inflation or deflation and how much of it we have. BitCoin cannot. So if there is a run on bitcoin, there is no way to put the brakes on.
Right now no one values things by bitcoin without checking its value against the dollar. If people want to go onto an actual bitcoin economy that is indenpendant of the dollar they are going to encounter the issues the banking industry encountered in the 1920's and 1930's before banking regulation was instituted.
It can work if there is some sort of central authority managing the money supply. I'm sure Bitcoin thought of that and has built that into their system.
Bit coin is slowly limiting the supply of new bit coin (by design), which drives up the price of bitcoin. So every time you go to buy a good or service you spend less bitcoin because its value has increased. I see a problem emerging when someone says they want to get paid in a fixed amount of bitcoin per hour.
So now we can have cybernetic hearts, eye implants, hearing implants and direct brain implants that allow for brains to directly control computers. And now we can power them directly off of the human body. So we either have the Six Million Dollar man or the Borg. I'm not sure which.
Anyone who stays in a particular field for 40 years has a calling. Anyone who is it for the glory would have already moved on. That isn't my point.
To the uninitiated, Stallman comes off as screaming at clouds. Let me have a couple of thought exercises:
1. To most people, their android/IOS/Windows/Mac machine does what they want it to do and they don't think about it much beyond that. They don't have the time or the energy to look under the hood and play with the engine. They just want it to work, and Windows and Mac does that. Yes, Linux has gotten *alot* friendlier in the last 20 years but it isn't going to hold your hand like Windows and Mac does. So (like it or not) convenience is winning the war. So when Stallman comes by screaming the "end is nigh", "proprietary software is bad" uneducated people look at him like a screamer. The alternatives are not perceived as useful or inconvenient, even if more secure. So he is fighting an uphill battle.
2. Go watch people debate on the internet about a hot button political issue: Guns, Abortion, HealthCare, Taxation; You name it. It will quickly breakdown in to a couple of camps: The ProPeople and the ConPeople who will go at it all day and the WhyDon'tTheyShutUpPeople who might have been interested except someone who may have been friendly flamed them out of hand. Now change out Guns/Abortion and insert OpenSource or FreeSoftware. A lot of people get turned off by the zealotry and set it on ignore. Stallman's approach to people can be very inflammatory. I understand he has a specific message and is out to push that message. Without adjusting the presentation to account for the audience is like trying to teach Sanskrit to a pony. He has a reputation for insulting his audience or driving people away. I understand he is a purist, he is allowed to be a purist. But it turns alot of people off. Stallman wants people to go cold turkey and most people can't or won't do that.
Bringing people around means you have to find some common ground and a place where these people are willing to change. Start with a web browser, mail reader or art program (FireFox, Thunderbird, Gimp) and get them comfortable with those changes. Introduce them to additional programs that can replace the proprietary programs they used day-in, day out. That means programs that can replace iTunes, Word for Windows and every other daily use program out there. These programs have to be the real deal. Open/Libre Office does not have 100% of the functionality of Word so it isn't a replacement. iTunes is even harder to replace-yes there are music/move players out there; until it also has a movie,music store that can also update your phone with music it will be a tier 2 product.
rant over.
TLDR - Rehashing old arguments why open source software is at a competitive disadvantage to proprietary software.
The issue Stallman has (software that is not under lock and key, can be freely modified and redistributed is good) but oh my god he needs to stop acting like the bearded freak show on the city corner on a soap box screaming THE END IS NIGH.
Yes, spyware, malware, freakware, stealware is bad and open source software can help address these issues. But coming off as a loose cannon who is going to insult anyone who is not in lockstep alienates everyone you get within ten yards of. It also doesn't help that Stallman has a reputation as a misogynist, immediate turning off half the audience that could be sympathetic to the issue he is bringing up.
Stallman is going to have to decide which is more important: The content of the message he wants to deliver or how he plans to deliver it. Eventually some other person is going to package the exact same Stallman is saying in a more palatable form for mass consumption. Come to think of it, its already occuring with mainstream Linux distributions. But eventually someone who is charismatic and how the technical background will supplant Stallman as the flag bearer for the "Purer open source" that will protect everyone.
Lyft drivers were not anonymized. The driver numbers that Lyft assigned were not anonymized and could be used to track drivers over multiple sessions (or weeks). Uber would determine if someone was a Lyft driver in addition to an Uber driver by actively tracking the locations of the Lyft drivers and then correlating it to the locations of the Uber drivers. Also Uber could track which drivers were driving, when they were driving and where they were driving. I wouldn't be surprised if Uber built profiles on all the drivers they were tracking.
Uber changed its compensation package if drivers were also Lyft drivers. Uber would offer better fares to Lyft drivers as an inducement to quit Lyft.
It also means that Uber was tracking Lyft drivers (all Lyft drivers in range) without Lyft's permission and without the driver's permission. While the Lyft drivers may have given permission to Lyft for tracking, they did not give permission to Uber to track them. I expect this to be the crux of the argument.
Every couple of years another company comes out with their flying car concept. Aeromobil, Terrafugia, Moller have all grabbed headlines with their concept vehicles. Moller sank 100,000,000 dollars in research for flying cars. None have gotten past the concept or prototype stages.
The risks to the passengers and by standers due to a vehicle failure are very high.
Let me state that clearly: As long as the vehicle is operating correctly, everyone is okay; the moment the vehicle has a "mechanical issue" someone is going to die. With a flight elevations of 100-500 feet there isn't enough time to properly deploy a parachute. A fall from 100 feet means you are going 50mph from the fall alone (ignoring initial speed and wind resistance). In high density areas the odds of a flying vehicle hitting something else (pedestrian, vehicle, building) gets a lot higher.
Vehicle reliability and maintenance is going to be paramount. It is no wonder the FAA (as noted elsewhere in this thread) is going to go nuts over this subject. Even with high reliability the law of averages will catch up and someone will fall from the sky. The FAA does not want that level of crap on their desk.
If I can add to this:
The delta used to shift and move the river bed quite often. With the canals and leeves in place the natural tendency of the river to move is being fought against. It is the reason why the river breaks out at odd places just up stream or downstream of existing leeves. Part of this is a result of the silt deposits that used to be carried downstream by the Mississippi.
With the wetlands being destroyed the ocean barrier that helped protect against storms is being destroyed. Which exposed larger areas of the coast line to damage.
Time Travel wasn't something Ian Banks ever explored. Time Travel is really really hard to get right and has limited uses: Brootstrap problem, Be your own Grandfather problem, Kill Hitler scenarios, Predestination/Freewill scenarios. Which are all variations on closed loops or the butterfly effect from changing the past. Or time travel is used as a hand waving exercise to allow for other adventures (Doctor Who, The Voyagers, maybe Rick and Morty).
In the issues the Ian Banks was exploring with the Culture (cultural conflict and assimilation, what happens to societies when scarcity is no longer a driving impetus, What happens when the well intentioned dabble with "lesser" powers) didn't need Time Travel in order to explore them.
But back to your comment: Your dismissal of The Culture Series feels uninformed and shoot from the hip, let alone rude. On the flip side; while The Culture is well written I don't know if I would call it the greatest Sci-Fi ever written, there are plenty of contenders for that title (Look at all of the Hugo and Nebula winners for other choices).
The rest of the Culture had a different name for Grey Area: MeatF*cker. For exactly the reason you mentioned: Taking justice into his own hands (metaphorically).
Many companies have had studies that show "within a given grade/level people are paid equally". Yes we understand, if you are a level 6, you get paid between 75,000 and 85,000 per year. and everyone within the grade is relatively equal.
The real issue that is being artfully tap danced around is qualified women getting passed over for promotion for equal or lesser qualified men. Or just getting held up an extra 6-12 months before the promotion comes through. So men get promotions every 12-18 months and women get promotions every 18-24 months.
No I don't have actual data to back this up. There are plenty of anecdotes though. And the larger companies are carefully not taking the time for this kind of study, or have performed this kind of study and don't like the results and are not releasing the results because it makes them look awful and confirms the rumors of a BRO FIRST culture.
Larger cities need to invest in mass transit and maintain it. Look at NYC, Tokyo and London as working mass transit systems. Smaller cities need working bus systems that aren't starved for money in order to be useful.
And I'll get ahead of it here: mass transit needs to be properly funded in order to work properly. Mass transit does not appear to pay for itself on the surface, it pays for itself because of increase in population density that occurs as a result.
As noted elsewhere. Go buy a Russian motherboard for your john deere. https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
Its similar to what Microsoft was considering about 10 years ago. If you swapped to many cards the computer would consider it a new computer and demand a fresh install key. Microsoft backed down on that one. But there are stories Microsoft moving the idea along.
The sleazy thing John Deere did was change the terms of service for all of the older equipment they could get away with; all at once. I think it was back in October 2016. And the threat was: If you don't agree to the new terms of service we won't service your tractor.
As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread: https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
Imagine every time you went to reboot your computer after a power outage the computer said: "Your computer restarted unexpectedly. Insert technician USB key to complete reboot sequence". That is the level of control John Deere is exerting and why farmers are buying hacked Russian motherboards for their tractors.
The issue isn't the software breaking as much as the software has lockouts for any and all replacement parts. Consider if you changed the oil and you had to log into your car to check the RFID tag in the oil filter and if you didn't have the password and an RFID approved oil filter the engine wouldn't start.
It also means you can't alter any part of the operation of the tractor that is computer controlled. You want a custom library for a specific crop: Pay John Deere. There was a story about a month ago about farmers buying hacked motherboards. https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
You missed the point of his comments. Go look up Daikatana and John Romero. Then you'll understand the level of snark being put out there.
I believe your corporate strategy has been properly expressed as DAIKATANA.