If he's shooting the car into space, he must not be very happy with it! If even the CEO is dumping it as far away as possible I'll think twice before buying one!
Not only that, he advocates government take your money and likewise dump it into the third-world.
I submit Gates did more good in the world earning his money than he ever will giving it away.
Africa will still be a shithole in a thousand years, no matter how much money is dumped into it. I have a lot more respect for billionaires like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos (even tho he's a wanker), who actually spend their money doing things that will advance humanity in a tangible way. I submit that investing your money in the best humanity has to offer rather than the dregs will result in greater returns.
It's a matter of priorities. Keeping the ISS afloat means we don't have money for other projects, like the moon or Mars. It would be nice if congress would budget enough money for both, but they ain't gonna do that, so we have the choice of using the money that NASA is actually going to get to stay in same place, or accomplish some new goals. Life means making choices. That sucks, but there it is.
Why would they bother when the music won't be experienced as an album? Users can buy only the tracks they're interested in, order them as they see fit, or put them on a play list mixed with other music. Artists made creative use of the limitations imposed by LP's and CD's. Now that those limitations have been removed there's no point in putting the effort into structuring the material for formats it won't be experienced in.
As an old-timer I understand what you're saying about the album experience, and I miss it, too. But I understand that the album format evolved due to limitations of the media. Sadly, everything is a trade-off. We've exchanged the album experience for unlimited playback time and the convenience of being able to drag our entire music collection around with us on our phones.
Keep in mind music is recorded to sound best in the media it's going to be distributed in. The ambience of the media is factored into the production, whether intentionally or not.
If you play an old 78 from the 1920's on a modern turntable with modern amplification, it sounds like someone is frying an egg in the background, because modern equipment can pick up the defects in the media.
If you play it on 1920's Victrola, it'll actually sound pretty decent, because the acoustic reproduction equipment is incapable of picking up the noise generated by the media. It's the equipment the music was made to be played on.
I suspect the same thing is at work with modern media. If I listen to a piece of music recorded in the vinyl era reengineered for modern formats, it usually sounds like it's lost something. Music is recorded with the current limitations of reproduction technologies in mind, and when you change the reproduction parameters the result can frequently be sub-optimal. Modern formats may be "better" technically, but if it's presenting sounds that weren't intended to be heard when the original music was recorded, the ear isn't likely to interpret it as sounding better.
I don't have any problem with believing music originally produced for vinyl sounds better when reproduced on it. But I doubt it would do much for music produced with modern technologies if they were transferred to vinyl.
Back when it was a separate server OS (before the Server.app debacle) it used to have insanely good Continuous Integration, Continuous Deployment and Build Reporting capabilities built in. It was an extremely useful out-of-the-box solution even for non-macOS/iOS development shops.
That was then, this is now. For the last several releases even getting network accounts to work right has been a nightmare. It's the exact opposite of their desktop. It Just *Doesn't* Work(TM).
I guess some country is going to have an opportunity to test their anti-satellite missles. Who will it be? China? United States? Russia? Time to fetch the popcorn!
Easy enough to say when you have enough resources that you won't need to work to support yourself. How does he propose to distribute this bounteous windfall? Does he think the companies run the AI production facilities are going to be handing out their product to the idled (non-)workers?
Yeah, right, Bill. You go first!
Anyone else remember the 1960's, when they were telling us by 2000 everyone would only have to work 20 hours a week? That sure ended well!
If it's commercial interests, it'll probably be governed by a board of directors. If it's by governments, it'll probably be essentially a military dictatorship (although it will probably be phrased more politely). In any event, given the conditions of living on Mars, highly centralized government is almost a certainty. A lot of things have to be coordinated, such as production of breathable air, creation of food and shelter, etc. Given that any mistakes could be catastrophic, there probably aren't going to be a lot of opportunities for doing your own thing or entrepreneurship. Sorry libertarians.
You're probably correct. That's pretty much how North America was settled. See the Virginia Company. How pretty it turned out is left as an exercise to the reader.
Motor skills are not all their is to musicianship. If they were, Robert Fripp would be considered a better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix (some people do, but not many - including Robert Fripp himself). And practicing motor skills does not give you a particularly great understanding of harmony, rhythm or melody, nor how to apply them. And the principal applies elsewhere as well - that was the point of the TFA.
I understand perfectly well how IQ scores are standardized. But the point remains - regardless of the metric you want to use, most humans cluster around a certain point, whereas the extremely intelligent are outliers, who show no signs of displacing the less intelligent anytime soon. In fact, the opposite is occurring. So, I think it's a legitimate question - past a certain point, does intelligence bequeath any particular advantage? Survival or otherwise? Optimal intelligence seems to in the IQ of 120-130 range. Beyond that, there doesn't seem to be any particular advantage.
The assumption of the article is that higher IQ is "better". By what metric? If higher IQ is necessarily more advantageous, why did humans evolve to have average IQ's of 100 rather than 180? You would think if the higher IQ was more advantageous, the 180 IQ people would have displaced the lower IQ ones. Yet, that hasn't happened.
Nor do I see that the people with the highest IQ's are the most successful in their fields. There are plenty of virtuoso musicians I can think of that are actually drooling idiots when they put down their instruments, and plenty of geniuses that can't carry a tune in a bucket.
Perhaps our problem here is the assumption that intelligence in the end-all and be-all of human achievement. Perhaps it ain't necessarily so.
It's actually a perfect example of common sense. If Google damages AT&T or Comcast's wires while moving them, how quickly do you think they're going to get around to fixing them? Even assuming Google can be trusted to look after their competitor's best interests, how do they test their competitor's networks to ensure they haven't done any damage? And if they do damage their competitor's wiring, how long will it take the competitor to figure out what's happened and fix it, and who's going to be stuck with compensating their customers for loss of service?
Ok, I'll give you that Musk is a tax soak. But unlike most tax soaks, he actually delivers some cool and useful things for the taxpayers dime. In this case, I'm willing to look the other way. When it comes to cutting waste of taxpayer funds, there are a lot of other candidates I'd cut before I got around to Musk.
Slashdot Mirror
They probably decided Apple were Russians or Nazis or racists or something, and banned them from Twitter in a huff. They get that way sometimes.
If he's shooting the car into space, he must not be very happy with it! If even the CEO is dumping it as far away as possible I'll think twice before buying one!
Not only that, he advocates government take your money and likewise dump it into the third-world.
I submit Gates did more good in the world earning his money than he ever will giving it away.
Africa will still be a shithole in a thousand years, no matter how much money is dumped into it. I have a lot more respect for billionaires like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos (even tho he's a wanker), who actually spend their money doing things that will advance humanity in a tangible way. I submit that investing your money in the best humanity has to offer rather than the dregs will result in greater returns.
It's a matter of priorities. Keeping the ISS afloat means we don't have money for other projects, like the moon or Mars. It would be nice if congress would budget enough money for both, but they ain't gonna do that, so we have the choice of using the money that NASA is actually going to get to stay in same place, or accomplish some new goals. Life means making choices. That sucks, but there it is.
At least you could then avoid it by not using Apple hardware.
I'm not seeing a downside to this.
How to piss off a frog...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...
I'd be a lot more entertained watching Bill Gates being thrown out of the plane.
Why would they bother when the music won't be experienced as an album? Users can buy only the tracks they're interested in, order them as they see fit, or put them on a play list mixed with other music. Artists made creative use of the limitations imposed by LP's and CD's. Now that those limitations have been removed there's no point in putting the effort into structuring the material for formats it won't be experienced in.
As an old-timer I understand what you're saying about the album experience, and I miss it, too. But I understand that the album format evolved due to limitations of the media. Sadly, everything is a trade-off. We've exchanged the album experience for unlimited playback time and the convenience of being able to drag our entire music collection around with us on our phones.
Keep in mind music is recorded to sound best in the media it's going to be distributed in. The ambience of the media is factored into the production, whether intentionally or not.
If you play an old 78 from the 1920's on a modern turntable with modern amplification, it sounds like someone is frying an egg in the background, because modern equipment can pick up the defects in the media.
If you play it on 1920's Victrola, it'll actually sound pretty decent, because the acoustic reproduction equipment is incapable of picking up the noise generated by the media. It's the equipment the music was made to be played on.
I suspect the same thing is at work with modern media. If I listen to a piece of music recorded in the vinyl era reengineered for modern formats, it usually sounds like it's lost something. Music is recorded with the current limitations of reproduction technologies in mind, and when you change the reproduction parameters the result can frequently be sub-optimal. Modern formats may be "better" technically, but if it's presenting sounds that weren't intended to be heard when the original music was recorded, the ear isn't likely to interpret it as sounding better.
I don't have any problem with believing music originally produced for vinyl sounds better when reproduced on it. But I doubt it would do much for music produced with modern technologies if they were transferred to vinyl.
Back when it was a separate server OS (before the Server.app debacle) it used to have insanely good Continuous Integration, Continuous Deployment and Build Reporting capabilities built in. It was an extremely useful out-of-the-box solution even for non-macOS/iOS development shops.
That was then, this is now. For the last several releases even getting network accounts to work right has been a nightmare. It's the exact opposite of their desktop. It Just *Doesn't* Work(TM).
I think this guy is a lot more likely to feel a connection with some astronomer's fist, if they ever get their hands on him.
I guess some country is going to have an opportunity to test their anti-satellite missles. Who will it be? China? United States? Russia? Time to fetch the popcorn!
That sounds like a good way to end up making the license plates.
Easy enough to say when you have enough resources that you won't need to work to support yourself. How does he propose to distribute this bounteous windfall? Does he think the companies run the AI production facilities are going to be handing out their product to the idled (non-)workers?
Yeah, right, Bill. You go first!
Anyone else remember the 1960's, when they were telling us by 2000 everyone would only have to work 20 hours a week? That sure ended well!
If it's commercial interests, it'll probably be governed by a board of directors. If it's by governments, it'll probably be essentially a military dictatorship (although it will probably be phrased more politely). In any event, given the conditions of living on Mars, highly centralized government is almost a certainty. A lot of things have to be coordinated, such as production of breathable air, creation of food and shelter, etc. Given that any mistakes could be catastrophic, there probably aren't going to be a lot of opportunities for doing your own thing or entrepreneurship. Sorry libertarians.
You're probably correct. That's pretty much how North America was settled. See the Virginia Company. How pretty it turned out is left as an exercise to the reader.
Face it, it ain't the 20th century anymore. Rock concerts quit being fun a long time ago. That world is long, long gone.
Motor skills are not all their is to musicianship. If they were, Robert Fripp would be considered a better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix (some people do, but not many - including Robert Fripp himself). And practicing motor skills does not give you a particularly great understanding of harmony, rhythm or melody, nor how to apply them. And the principal applies elsewhere as well - that was the point of the TFA.
I understand perfectly well how IQ scores are standardized. But the point remains - regardless of the metric you want to use, most humans cluster around a certain point, whereas the extremely intelligent are outliers, who show no signs of displacing the less intelligent anytime soon. In fact, the opposite is occurring. So, I think it's a legitimate question - past a certain point, does intelligence bequeath any particular advantage? Survival or otherwise? Optimal intelligence seems to in the IQ of 120-130 range. Beyond that, there doesn't seem to be any particular advantage.
The assumption of the article is that higher IQ is "better". By what metric? If higher IQ is necessarily more advantageous, why did humans evolve to have average IQ's of 100 rather than 180? You would think if the higher IQ was more advantageous, the 180 IQ people would have displaced the lower IQ ones. Yet, that hasn't happened.
Nor do I see that the people with the highest IQ's are the most successful in their fields. There are plenty of virtuoso musicians I can think of that are actually drooling idiots when they put down their instruments, and plenty of geniuses that can't carry a tune in a bucket.
Perhaps our problem here is the assumption that intelligence in the end-all and be-all of human achievement. Perhaps it ain't necessarily so.
No.
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society."
--Aristotle
So tell us - exactly what are you contributing to society that gives you standing to tell these billionaire what their obligations to it are?
It's actually a perfect example of common sense. If Google damages AT&T or Comcast's wires while moving them, how quickly do you think they're going to get around to fixing them? Even assuming Google can be trusted to look after their competitor's best interests, how do they test their competitor's networks to ensure they haven't done any damage? And if they do damage their competitor's wiring, how long will it take the competitor to figure out what's happened and fix it, and who's going to be stuck with compensating their customers for loss of service?
Maybe true - but I'll bet they want them now!
One can only hope his Big Fucking Rocket delivers comparable performance. I'll be truly impressed if he gets to Mars in half the time he promised!
Ok, I'll give you that Musk is a tax soak. But unlike most tax soaks, he actually delivers some cool and useful things for the taxpayers dime. In this case, I'm willing to look the other way. When it comes to cutting waste of taxpayer funds, there are a lot of other candidates I'd cut before I got around to Musk.