Some of the best people I've known in life have been believers, and by "best", I mean, really walked the best meaning of their faith.
I'm 60 years old. I have lived, long-term, in rural Pennsylvania; Manhattan, NY; Ft Lauderdale and Boca Raton, Florida; and rural Montana. I'm reasonably outgoing in general, and I taught martial arts and public service self-defense classes for decades, so I ran into a lot of people in, and peripheral to, that. I've worked for both large and small employers. I've owned and operated six small businesses, five of which have been successful, all of which had employees. I'm a musician (rock, blues), and have been in many bands, and worked in several studios, including one of my own. I've been to a lot of different churches for a lot of different reasons, though never as an adherent or believer in any form of theist proposal. I am of a Jewish bloodline. I am what I would describe as a progressive thinker (although modern "progressives" typically consider me heretical. For that matter, so do modern conservatives:) I have what I would consider a reasonable circle of current friends and acquaintances locally; and keep in regular touch with a very large number of not-local friends via the net. EMail, not social media - I prefer conversations to popping out text bites.
In my six decades, I have met exactly three people who I can say made me recognize that they met the criteria of "really walked the best meaning of their faith."
Two were in Florida; they're a married couple, and I think they are not only models for the best of what their faith (Christianity) claims to be about, but also exemplary human beings. I miss them, haven't been back to Florida in years, but we stay in contact.
The other one was here in Montana, and was a Methodist pastor. He was killed in a a motor vehicle accident, leaving behind a wife and two children (and the wife... not a great example of anything other than being really annoying.)
I have found, with the exceptions only as noted above, that once you get past the surface posturing of the religious, the odds overwhelmingly favor discovering some toxic combination of ridiculous hubris, enlightened self-interest, vicious classing / ostracizing habits, and a wholly illusory mindset that drives them to think they possess some inherent right to coerce others not of their faith to act in various specific ways -- and, in the specific case of those who rigidly follow certain surahs in the Qur'an, to kill them.
By way of contrast, I have met so many non-religious people that I would describe as exemplary human beings that I couldn't possibly even provide an estimate of a count.
The good that religion has done, and to some extent continues to do, in my view, is most evident in architecture and art (but I repeat myself); as custodians of history and historically significant artifacts, particularly with regard to the Catholics; and in various degrees, providing isolation and room for advanced thought within which many scientific and philosophical advances / insights have come to light, no pun intended. Representative examples include Gregor Mendel in science, and Thomas Aquinas in philosophy. Mendel's best known contribution was to genetics; Aquinas's was to the understanding of the morality and reason of the laws of a society (to which we here in the US really ought to be paying a lot more attention to.) There are many others.
As we are now graced (again, no pun intended) with a solid understanding of scientific method, and a rather overwhelming swarm of philosophers (and wanna-be philosophers), and some truly great architects, and great formal schools for architects, I would be very comfortable seeing all modern religion go the way of belief in Akhenaten's cult. Which is to say, away, dead and gone.
But religion clearly forms a mental safety net for people of certain states of mind that remain common. I think we're stuck with it for the foreseeable future. But I do
But if he can induce defections among Bernie supporters w/ things like his trade policies, as well as support from new mothers by Ivanka's childcare proposals yesterday
On Wednesday the 14th (yesterday as I write this), Nate Silver predicted that Clinton has a 79 percent chance of winning the presidency, compared to Donald Trump's 20 percent. As far as having a handle on what polls are actually telling us overall, I don't know of anyone who is better than Silver. Perfect, no. But he's very, very good.
So... I'm still pretty confident I've called it correctly, barring some huge event that does Clinton in.
But again, this is a fascinating election. The candidates both have serious problems with what should be their bases. How will that really roll out? We will see. I've given my opinion, but of course that's all it is.
Well, that "smart move" has caused this not-so-smart customer to become a non-customer and go to buying used mac pro's off of EBay. Several of them. I'd have been perfectly happy to buy more from Apple, 15-20k worth, but I am not perfectly happy to scatter hard drives and whatnot insecurely and inconveniently all over my desk, because that turns my desk into crapland, and I won't tolerate that, because, you know, I'm "not smart."
They made some smart moves erecting a walled, highly entropic and censorious garden for apps; not putting a radio into the iPhone; not providing for wireless charging; and yanking out the analog audio jack. So smart, that I got rid of my iPhone, and my SO is ditching hers next time around, as she's become a bit jealous of my not-so-smart phone that has all these foolish features: sideloading, open development, radio, wireless charging, analog jack, memory expansion cards... yeah, we're so not-smart.
They can make smart moves all they want. But as long as those smart moves consist of failing to deliver what we want in a product, they can suck it.
I didn't think about / know about using it to control music playback. There are lots of songs I'd just as soon skip. Super. Thanks.:)
Gangsta rap:
There are two kinds of music I absolutely despise: rap, and country. Also country-rap. Which some have called c-rap, and with which appellation I wholeheartedly agree.
For whatever it's worth (exactly one anecdote), I really like my smartwatch (it's a Gear Live, square face, fairly early vintage.) Picture here.
It puts text, email, slack and other notifications right where I can see them without having to reach for anything, turn it on, etc. That alone is worth a lot, as most things can be ignored until later, but for the ones I want to know about and respond to immediately, I can. Timers are very useful, I use them for many things from timing aquarium water top-offs to cooking and reminding me to let the dog back in. The watch faces are very clever and pretty, and I like them a lot, even though I answer to no one and very rarely care what time it is. The tracking of my heart rate and steps is nice too, as I need to pay attention to my health. Doesn't hurt to be able to ask it questions, either. All of this is either nearly or completely hands-free. For instance, rotate wrist so the watch is up, it wakes up. Then say: "Ok google, set a timer for five minutes." Easy. Awesome. Super-useful.
This stuff is quite practical (even the time... most people need to know, even if I don't.)
Just like any gadget, it's not for everyone, I'm sure. But I really don't think you can put a smartwatch in the general category of "doesn't make sense." Instead, put anyone who says that in either the "doesn't make sense for me" category, or in the "I don't understand smartwatches" category, for which you can, if you like, lay the responsibility for at the watch manufacturer's feet -- specifically, marketing. Most smartwatch ads I've seen haven't been very... smart.
Plus, I have news for you: A middling quality headphone jack is of far higher quality and average lifetime than any USB jack ever manufactured. A truly high quality headphone jack is darned near bulletproof. USB jacks and connectors and cables are connectivity and structural strength fails from word one. Particularly the smaller types. Plus, when the user's USB jack wears out sooner because they've regularly been jamming headphones into it and then putting various stresses on the USB cable, as well as plugging in the charging cord every day or so, they won't just lose the ability to use wired headphones. They'll lose the ability to charge their phone. Because Apple's still far behind the crowd on wireless charging. Me, I just put my phone on the cradle and it charges, no physical connection to the phone required. I've owned my phone for months now and have yet to plug anything into the stinking USB jack. So it isn't broken. Yet. But anyway.
If you don't want wires, bluetooth is already there. Bingo, no connection, no wear and tear. If anything wears out, it'll almost certainly be your relatively less expensive headphones / earbuds. If you do want wires (and frankly, an analog connection via the headphone jack will provide better quality audio), the headphone jack is a far more reliable choice than any USB jack ever conceived. And your phone will almost certainly last longer, too. Say... you don't think Apple might have been tucking a little planned obsolescence in there, do you? No, couldn't be!
Nah, Apple's just being an idiot about this. But hey, they thought a trashcan and a bunch of desk warts was "professional", so at least they're being consistent in their blundering along the path of abject stupidity.
One good thing here is it underscores what a poor choice it is to create a design with non-replaceable batteries.
If Samsung hadn't been in such a hurry to design planned obsolescence into the phone via non-replaceable batteries, all they would have had to do is send out new batteries, instead of ENTIRE NEW PHONES. You listening, Samsung?.... of course not.:)
Well, all I can describe it as, is as having all the appearance of a particularly apt form of karma. They intentionally fucked the customer; the universe fucked them back. Harder. [gentle smile]
Because republicans don't have the headcount to decide the election without the independents, that's why. I have seen no indication that independents are leaning Trumpward. In fact, Trump seems to have almost zero appeal outside of the 15% or so of the electorate that voted for him in the primaries; Worse, people are coming out against him in droves -- including leading republicans, even after he won the party's nomination. That's a pretty bad corner to be in, I think. They aren't so much going be "voting Clinton" as they are going to be voting "not Trump." I honestly expect him to lose the presidential election by a landslide.
We will see, of course; but that's definitely my read of the present tea leaves.:)
FWIW, I am neither a Republican or a Democrat. I identify as a "compassionate constitutionalist", when forced to identify at all. I choose my candidates (and issues, when they are on the ballot) by how they address the most critical issues. I've voted for both Republicans and Democrats at various times. Libertarian once (Ron Paul.)
The forces that lifted Obama to the Presidency do not seem to be present for Hillary.
The generally acceptable qualities that lifted Mitt Romney almost to the presidency aren't there at all for Trump.
The general buzz is that very few people like either candidate a whole lot, this time around. But Trump is pretty far behind, plus, he is a threat to the status quo (as was Sanders, and look what happened to him.) The plainest evidence of this is the number of high level republicans who have said they will not vote for the man.
It's all over but the shouting, looks like. Of course, there will be a lot of that, both pre- and post-election. There always is.
If you're implying all output of all the extra automation is never seen by 99% of the population
Of course that's not what I'm implying. By the "1%", I was indicating what pretty much everyone else has meant for the last decade or so: the wealthiest individuals and families, the top 1% of wealth-holders.
You can throw stats around all you want -- but they're enormously easy to manipulate. The facts on the ground, however, are not. And when they don't agree with the stats... the stats are wrong.
Since there is clearly such a market in the Windows and Linux realms, there's no reasonable way to assume there isn't one in the OS X realm until or unless actual marketing of a middle tower were to prove that was the (entirely exceptional) case. No pun intended. But I'm just that good.:)
Those lost "proceeds" surface in the form of cheaper products and being able to buy more things with the same amount of work, not necessarily higher wages or higher revenue by itself.
More typically, they surface as increases in the wealth of the 1% and corresponding increases in financial influence on politicians and regulators that tilt the playing field ever more towards that 1%.
There are exceptions, particularly in computing technology. But generally speaking, almost anyone with a blue-collar job used to be able to afford a decent house, a car, an education, and a stay-at-home spouse. That's no longer typical. That's your blazing red flag, right there. It speaks the truth louder than anything else. The fact that someone has a very powerful computer in their phone won't do much, if anything, to enable the owner buy that house, or stay at home to raise their 1.88 children at the same level as was previously possible. Real income has not kept pace with real costs — and that's pretty much the deciding factor, right there.
But labour[sic] most certainly gets reallocated/redistributed, history has shown this.
This is a first. There's never been a situation previously where a significant (and likely unlimited and continuously, and rapidly, growing) wave of higher-qualified workers who did not require wages entered the workforce.
Workers that never cheat, never steal, are never late, very rarely "sick", have no unions, no wages, no insurance, no internecine or even trivial conflict, are unfailingly polite, are immune to office romance, gossip, corporate espionage, complaints of mistreatment, have no interest in and do not require promotion, will never misuse company time, and are replaceable the very moment something more effective is available without any consequences to social security charges, unemployment tithing, legal costs, or need for security personnel to walk the previous "employee" to the door.
Whatever ideas you have of re-employment absorbing the displaced workers need to factor in all of the above.
Here's how it'll go: as soon as the cost of putting automation in place drops below the cost of keeping a human in place, the human will lose their job. The only way to slow this down is to artificially raise the price of letting the human go, which has very rigid practical limits related to cost of product and the nature of competition and will consequently peter out very quickly in any case where it is attempted. Transition to this brand new form of automation will naturally tend to accelerate to whatever degree said automation can be made more sophisticated. That, at present, is looking quite open-ended. If that's true — and we have no significant reason to think it isn't at this time — then the entire process is also open-ended.
At some point in such a process, society will have to formally change its economic structure. This is for the simple reason that large numbers of unemployed citizens will eventually constitute a critical mass of opinion and potential independent action. Either that, or the displaced workers and therefore the cost of supporting them will have to be outright eliminated from society. There are no other paths. Something will have to be done to effectively deal with the former workers. Currently, there is no such accommodating mechanism in place. The closest thing to it is the Basic Income idea; but as yet, that's not a government process, at most it represents tiny experiments, and usually nothing more than unimplemented ideas entirely within the bounds of citizen groups.
Those that persist in viewing this particular technology as highly similar to previous introductions of machinery are not going to be able to anticipate the changes that are coming. It's inevitably going to be a very challenging time for society, and a very, very ugly time for many individuals until the economic and social structures can effectively deal with a non-working populace.
Clicking sounds? They don't have touch screens? How retarded.
They live in 3D, Mr Flatscreen. It's 3D gestures all the way down. Using wavefronts. The echoes of which they can reconstruct into 3D maps on the fly. Er, swim.
Cower before your superiors. Oh, wait, you can't -- no flippers. Also too slow. Limited range of hearing. Weak. Small.
If you're paying $500 a month rent on a $700 a month income, it's very clear that you can't do math at all.
You're in the wrong place, doing the wrong job, or both.
At that level of income, you need to be with roomies of some stripe, or at home.
And voting libertarian isn't going to help. It's a two party system. That means libertarians don't get to play. You can't fix it. The only people who can fix it, either don't want to fix it, or aren't willing to fix it.
It's not just that. Most people live at, or near, their income level. Society encourages this in many ways, and young people in particular are vulnerable to it because they lack the experience with the slings and arrows of unemployment in the face of established debt and other costs, so they don't sock away as is prudent.
When the question of "accept job or don't accept job" comes up, many times, there is a state of panic driving decisions to some degree. Same thing happens when one of the Bobs tells you "hey, you've been replaced by Jayesh, you have three months to train him, then you're on the street. Be sure to fill out your TPS reports. That'd be ghreaaaat."
My Galaxy S7 also uses the headphone as its radio antenna (FM radio, etc.)
Hopefully, Samsung won't follow Apple into this particular stupidity zone. However, even if they do, it'll be at least few years before I have to deal with such idiocy.
You know, as an owner of lots of Macs, it's been painful to watch them fumble the Mac Pro and Mac Mini lines so badly, while ignoring the middle tower market completely; now the iPhone sings a little louder in this symphony of screw-ups with its latest really serious dysfunctional hardware choice...
Be a trip if they managed to get someone to the head of the company who understood hardware better.
Oh well. Lots of other things to do than worry about Apple these days.
Yes, I understand. No, I don't think it's a problem. Quality websites will continue to enjoy significant traffic. Web sites that have little to offer will not. Serving costs and cost per transferred bit continue to drop. There are plenty of web sites that offer really crappy content and deserve to die, frankly. Sites that offer high quality content will do well. Mind you, there are plenty of sites that claim they offer "high quality content", some of which try quite hard to sell same, which are really offering garbage of one kind or another -- dumbed-down stories, agitprop, superstition. Those sites have their own demographic -- the content junk food consumers. I can't be arsed to be concerned with them. They might die, they might not, I don't care because (a) I will probably not visit such a site more than once, and (b) if I hadn't visited them the first time, I would have been better off anyway.
Nor do I worry about advertisers (I see very little in the way of ads simply because most advertisers and advertising networks have abused the privilege of using my display space.) From my POV, it's important to keep in mind that the web was pretty neat before javascript ever came along. Because you don't need all that to present ads (or a good story) to people who are competent readers.
Another thing: I have yet to see a "webapp" that is worth a crap, the slashdot app on my phone being a primo example of exactly that -- a half-assed, poorly supported, hardly-thought-out-at-all ghosting of the functionality of the actual web site. I use it when I have to; IOW, when I'm not in front of a desktop machine or a laptop. Otherwise, it's like trying to eat corn flakes off a cactus. It sucks, but if all you HAVE is corn flakes on a cactus...
The number of people on the Internet has grown hugely. If half of them remain surfing actual websites, that's still a huge number of people. The web is fine. Apps have appeared. Some people use them. Meh.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm 60 years old. I have lived, long-term, in rural Pennsylvania; Manhattan, NY; Ft Lauderdale and Boca Raton, Florida; and rural Montana. I'm reasonably outgoing in general, and I taught martial arts and public service self-defense classes for decades, so I ran into a lot of people in, and peripheral to, that. I've worked for both large and small employers. I've owned and operated six small businesses, five of which have been successful, all of which had employees. I'm a musician (rock, blues), and have been in many bands, and worked in several studios, including one of my own. I've been to a lot of different churches for a lot of different reasons, though never as an adherent or believer in any form of theist proposal. I am of a Jewish bloodline. I am what I would describe as a progressive thinker (although modern "progressives" typically consider me heretical. For that matter, so do modern conservatives :) I have what I would consider a reasonable circle of current friends and acquaintances locally; and keep in regular touch with a very large number of not-local friends via the net. EMail, not social media - I prefer conversations to popping out text bites.
In my six decades, I have met exactly three people who I can say made me recognize that they met the criteria of "really walked the best meaning of their faith."
Two were in Florida; they're a married couple, and I think they are not only models for the best of what their faith (Christianity) claims to be about, but also exemplary human beings. I miss them, haven't been back to Florida in years, but we stay in contact.
The other one was here in Montana, and was a Methodist pastor. He was killed in a a motor vehicle accident, leaving behind a wife and two children (and the wife... not a great example of anything other than being really annoying.)
I have found, with the exceptions only as noted above, that once you get past the surface posturing of the religious, the odds overwhelmingly favor discovering some toxic combination of ridiculous hubris, enlightened self-interest, vicious classing / ostracizing habits, and a wholly illusory mindset that drives them to think they possess some inherent right to coerce others not of their faith to act in various specific ways -- and, in the specific case of those who rigidly follow certain surahs in the Qur'an, to kill them.
By way of contrast, I have met so many non-religious people that I would describe as exemplary human beings that I couldn't possibly even provide an estimate of a count.
The good that religion has done, and to some extent continues to do, in my view, is most evident in architecture and art (but I repeat myself); as custodians of history and historically significant artifacts, particularly with regard to the Catholics; and in various degrees, providing isolation and room for advanced thought within which many scientific and philosophical advances / insights have come to light, no pun intended. Representative examples include Gregor Mendel in science, and Thomas Aquinas in philosophy. Mendel's best known contribution was to genetics; Aquinas's was to the understanding of the morality and reason of the laws of a society (to which we here in the US really ought to be paying a lot more attention to.) There are many others.
As we are now graced (again, no pun intended) with a solid understanding of scientific method, and a rather overwhelming swarm of philosophers (and wanna-be philosophers), and some truly great architects, and great formal schools for architects, I would be very comfortable seeing all modern religion go the way of belief in Akhenaten's cult. Which is to say, away, dead and gone.
But religion clearly forms a mental safety net for people of certain states of mind that remain common. I think we're stuck with it for the foreseeable future. But I do
Actually, I love the heavy bass and drums behind a lot of rap music. If they would just shut the heck up, I'd enjoy most of it thoroughly.
But... no. Sigh.
On Wednesday the 14th (yesterday as I write this), Nate Silver predicted that Clinton has a 79 percent chance of winning the presidency, compared to Donald Trump's 20 percent. As far as having a handle on what polls are actually telling us overall, I don't know of anyone who is better than Silver. Perfect, no. But he's very, very good.
So... I'm still pretty confident I've called it correctly, barring some huge event that does Clinton in.
But again, this is a fascinating election. The candidates both have serious problems with what should be their bases. How will that really roll out? We will see. I've given my opinion, but of course that's all it is.
Well... but my Big Bambu Cheech and Chong LP came with a huge rolling paper. So there's that.
Is it, now?
Well, that "smart move" has caused this not-so-smart customer to become a non-customer and go to buying used mac pro's off of EBay. Several of them. I'd have been perfectly happy to buy more from Apple, 15-20k worth, but I am not perfectly happy to scatter hard drives and whatnot insecurely and inconveniently all over my desk, because that turns my desk into crapland, and I won't tolerate that, because, you know, I'm "not smart."
They made some smart moves erecting a walled, highly entropic and censorious garden for apps; not putting a radio into the iPhone; not providing for wireless charging; and yanking out the analog audio jack. So smart, that I got rid of my iPhone, and my SO is ditching hers next time around, as she's become a bit jealous of my not-so-smart phone that has all these foolish features: sideloading, open development, radio, wireless charging, analog jack, memory expansion cards... yeah, we're so not-smart.
They can make smart moves all they want. But as long as those smart moves consist of failing to deliver what we want in a product, they can suck it.
I didn't think about / know about using it to control music playback. There are lots of songs I'd just as soon skip. Super. Thanks. :)
Gangsta rap:
There are two kinds of music I absolutely despise: rap, and country. Also country-rap. Which some have called c-rap, and with which appellation I wholeheartedly agree.
For whatever it's worth (exactly one anecdote), I really like my smartwatch (it's a Gear Live, square face, fairly early vintage.) Picture here.
It puts text, email, slack and other notifications right where I can see them without having to reach for anything, turn it on, etc. That alone is worth a lot, as most things can be ignored until later, but for the ones I want to know about and respond to immediately, I can. Timers are very useful, I use them for many things from timing aquarium water top-offs to cooking and reminding me to let the dog back in. The watch faces are very clever and pretty, and I like them a lot, even though I answer to no one and very rarely care what time it is. The tracking of my heart rate and steps is nice too, as I need to pay attention to my health. Doesn't hurt to be able to ask it questions, either. All of this is either nearly or completely hands-free. For instance, rotate wrist so the watch is up, it wakes up. Then say: "Ok google, set a timer for five minutes." Easy. Awesome. Super-useful.
This stuff is quite practical (even the time... most people need to know, even if I don't.)
Just like any gadget, it's not for everyone, I'm sure. But I really don't think you can put a smartwatch in the general category of "doesn't make sense." Instead, put anyone who says that in either the "doesn't make sense for me" category, or in the "I don't understand smartwatches" category, for which you can, if you like, lay the responsibility for at the watch manufacturer's feet -- specifically, marketing. Most smartwatch ads I've seen haven't been very... smart.
What? Things wear out? What??? UNPOSSIBLE!
Plus, I have news for you: A middling quality headphone jack is of far higher quality and average lifetime than any USB jack ever manufactured. A truly high quality headphone jack is darned near bulletproof. USB jacks and connectors and cables are connectivity and structural strength fails from word one. Particularly the smaller types. Plus, when the user's USB jack wears out sooner because they've regularly been jamming headphones into it and then putting various stresses on the USB cable, as well as plugging in the charging cord every day or so, they won't just lose the ability to use wired headphones. They'll lose the ability to charge their phone. Because Apple's still far behind the crowd on wireless charging. Me, I just put my phone on the cradle and it charges, no physical connection to the phone required. I've owned my phone for months now and have yet to plug anything into the stinking USB jack. So it isn't broken. Yet. But anyway.
If you don't want wires, bluetooth is already there. Bingo, no connection, no wear and tear. If anything wears out, it'll almost certainly be your relatively less expensive headphones / earbuds. If you do want wires (and frankly, an analog connection via the headphone jack will provide better quality audio), the headphone jack is a far more reliable choice than any USB jack ever conceived. And your phone will almost certainly last longer, too. Say... you don't think Apple might have been tucking a little planned obsolescence in there, do you? No, couldn't be!
Nah, Apple's just being an idiot about this. But hey, they thought a trashcan and a bunch of desk warts was "professional", so at least they're being consistent in their blundering along the path of abject stupidity.
One good thing here is it underscores what a poor choice it is to create a design with non-replaceable batteries.
If Samsung hadn't been in such a hurry to design planned obsolescence into the phone via non-replaceable batteries, all they would have had to do is send out new batteries, instead of ENTIRE NEW PHONES. You listening, Samsung? .... of course not. :)
Well, all I can describe it as, is as having all the appearance of a particularly apt form of karma. They intentionally fucked the customer; the universe fucked them back. Harder. [gentle smile]
Well, that will be very interesting if it happens. Tune in in mid-November, and we'll talk about it then.
Because republicans don't have the headcount to decide the election without the independents, that's why. I have seen no indication that independents are leaning Trumpward. In fact, Trump seems to have almost zero appeal outside of the 15% or so of the electorate that voted for him in the primaries; Worse, people are coming out against him in droves -- including leading republicans, even after he won the party's nomination. That's a pretty bad corner to be in, I think. They aren't so much going be "voting Clinton" as they are going to be voting "not Trump." I honestly expect him to lose the presidential election by a landslide.
We will see, of course; but that's definitely my read of the present tea leaves. :)
FWIW, I am neither a Republican or a Democrat. I identify as a "compassionate constitutionalist", when forced to identify at all. I choose my candidates (and issues, when they are on the ballot) by how they address the most critical issues. I've voted for both Republicans and Democrats at various times. Libertarian once (Ron Paul.)
The generally acceptable qualities that lifted Mitt Romney almost to the presidency aren't there at all for Trump.
The general buzz is that very few people like either candidate a whole lot, this time around. But Trump is pretty far behind, plus, he is a threat to the status quo (as was Sanders, and look what happened to him.) The plainest evidence of this is the number of high level republicans who have said they will not vote for the man.
It's all over but the shouting, looks like. Of course, there will be a lot of that, both pre- and post-election. There always is.
Of course that's not what I'm implying. By the "1%", I was indicating what pretty much everyone else has meant for the last decade or so: the wealthiest individuals and families, the top 1% of wealth-holders.
You can throw stats around all you want -- but they're enormously easy to manipulate. The facts on the ground, however, are not. And when they don't agree with the stats... the stats are wrong.
Not without a middle tower, there isn't.
Since there is clearly such a market in the Windows and Linux realms, there's no reasonable way to assume there isn't one in the OS X realm until or unless actual marketing of a middle tower were to prove that was the (entirely exceptional) case. No pun intended. But I'm just that good. :)
More typically, they surface as increases in the wealth of the 1% and corresponding increases in financial influence on politicians and regulators that tilt the playing field ever more towards that 1%.
There are exceptions, particularly in computing technology. But generally speaking, almost anyone with a blue-collar job used to be able to afford a decent house, a car, an education, and a stay-at-home spouse. That's no longer typical. That's your blazing red flag, right there. It speaks the truth louder than anything else. The fact that someone has a very powerful computer in their phone won't do much, if anything, to enable the owner buy that house, or stay at home to raise their 1.88 children at the same level as was previously possible. Real income has not kept pace with real costs — and that's pretty much the deciding factor, right there.
...we should burn the observatories so this can never happen again
(credit: Simpsons / Moe)
This is a first. There's never been a situation previously where a significant (and likely unlimited and continuously, and rapidly, growing) wave of higher-qualified workers who did not require wages entered the workforce.
Workers that never cheat, never steal, are never late, very rarely "sick", have no unions, no wages, no insurance, no internecine or even trivial conflict, are unfailingly polite, are immune to office romance, gossip, corporate espionage, complaints of mistreatment, have no interest in and do not require promotion, will never misuse company time, and are replaceable the very moment something more effective is available without any consequences to social security charges, unemployment tithing, legal costs, or need for security personnel to walk the previous "employee" to the door.
Whatever ideas you have of re-employment absorbing the displaced workers need to factor in all of the above.
Here's how it'll go: as soon as the cost of putting automation in place drops below the cost of keeping a human in place, the human will lose their job. The only way to slow this down is to artificially raise the price of letting the human go, which has very rigid practical limits related to cost of product and the nature of competition and will consequently peter out very quickly in any case where it is attempted. Transition to this brand new form of automation will naturally tend to accelerate to whatever degree said automation can be made more sophisticated. That, at present, is looking quite open-ended. If that's true — and we have no significant reason to think it isn't at this time — then the entire process is also open-ended.
At some point in such a process, society will have to formally change its economic structure. This is for the simple reason that large numbers of unemployed citizens will eventually constitute a critical mass of opinion and potential independent action. Either that, or the displaced workers and therefore the cost of supporting them will have to be outright eliminated from society. There are no other paths. Something will have to be done to effectively deal with the former workers. Currently, there is no such accommodating mechanism in place. The closest thing to it is the Basic Income idea; but as yet, that's not a government process, at most it represents tiny experiments, and usually nothing more than unimplemented ideas entirely within the bounds of citizen groups.
Those that persist in viewing this particular technology as highly similar to previous introductions of machinery are not going to be able to anticipate the changes that are coming. It's inevitably going to be a very challenging time for society, and a very, very ugly time for many individuals until the economic and social structures can effectively deal with a non-working populace.
They live in 3D, Mr Flatscreen. It's 3D gestures all the way down. Using wavefronts. The echoes of which they can reconstruct into 3D maps on the fly. Er, swim.
Cower before your superiors. Oh, wait, you can't -- no flippers. Also too slow. Limited range of hearing. Weak. Small.
Wow, you just suck.
"You're trying to insight dysentery among the fishes, aren't ya?"
You'd better hope they don't eliminate people who don't know that the terminating period for that sentence belongs inside the quotes, sparky. :)
If you're paying $500 a month rent on a $700 a month income, it's very clear that you can't do math at all.
You're in the wrong place, doing the wrong job, or both.
At that level of income, you need to be with roomies of some stripe, or at home.
And voting libertarian isn't going to help. It's a two party system. That means libertarians don't get to play. You can't fix it. The only people who can fix it, either don't want to fix it, or aren't willing to fix it.
Welcome to the machine.
It's not just that. Most people live at, or near, their income level. Society encourages this in many ways, and young people in particular are vulnerable to it because they lack the experience with the slings and arrows of unemployment in the face of established debt and other costs, so they don't sock away as is prudent.
When the question of "accept job or don't accept job" comes up, many times, there is a state of panic driving decisions to some degree. Same thing happens when one of the Bobs tells you "hey, you've been replaced by Jayesh, you have three months to train him, then you're on the street. Be sure to fill out your TPS reports. That'd be ghreaaaat."
My Galaxy S7 also uses the headphone as its radio antenna (FM radio, etc.)
Hopefully, Samsung won't follow Apple into this particular stupidity zone. However, even if they do, it'll be at least few years before I have to deal with such idiocy.
You know, as an owner of lots of Macs, it's been painful to watch them fumble the Mac Pro and Mac Mini lines so badly, while ignoring the middle tower market completely; now the iPhone sings a little louder in this symphony of screw-ups with its latest really serious dysfunctional hardware choice...
Be a trip if they managed to get someone to the head of the company who understood hardware better.
Oh well. Lots of other things to do than worry about Apple these days.
Yes, I understand. No, I don't think it's a problem. Quality websites will continue to enjoy significant traffic. Web sites that have little to offer will not. Serving costs and cost per transferred bit continue to drop. There are plenty of web sites that offer really crappy content and deserve to die, frankly. Sites that offer high quality content will do well. Mind you, there are plenty of sites that claim they offer "high quality content", some of which try quite hard to sell same, which are really offering garbage of one kind or another -- dumbed-down stories, agitprop, superstition. Those sites have their own demographic -- the content junk food consumers. I can't be arsed to be concerned with them. They might die, they might not, I don't care because (a) I will probably not visit such a site more than once, and (b) if I hadn't visited them the first time, I would have been better off anyway.
Nor do I worry about advertisers (I see very little in the way of ads simply because most advertisers and advertising networks have abused the privilege of using my display space.) From my POV, it's important to keep in mind that the web was pretty neat before javascript ever came along. Because you don't need all that to present ads (or a good story) to people who are competent readers.
Another thing: I have yet to see a "webapp" that is worth a crap, the slashdot app on my phone being a primo example of exactly that -- a half-assed, poorly supported, hardly-thought-out-at-all ghosting of the functionality of the actual web site. I use it when I have to; IOW, when I'm not in front of a desktop machine or a laptop. Otherwise, it's like trying to eat corn flakes off a cactus. It sucks, but if all you HAVE is corn flakes on a cactus...
The number of people on the Internet has grown hugely. If half of them remain surfing actual websites, that's still a huge number of people. The web is fine. Apps have appeared. Some people use them. Meh. :)