Firefox's mobile version isn't super terrible, but it's lacking in some important areas. Their canvas performance is not even close to Chrome for example.
That's Edge in branding only. It's running a version of the Chromium engine underneath. It'd be great if MS ported their own EdgeHTML to other platforms. I hate having to boot up Windows just to test that stupid input focus stealing browser (with it's horrid dev tools).
IE and now Edge have one annoying UI quirk - immediately after you start it, you can click into the address bar, then it almost always takes away focus for some damned reason (actually, Windows does this all over the place - it's the primary reason I can't use that OS).
If they'd fixed this one problem, I'd probably use it more. I suspect they don't use their own software at Microsoft. They'd surely have noticed and fixed it by now if they did...
Well then you are missing the way way back side. If productivity increases, and reduces the need for workers, fewer people have money to buy goods - even when they are cheaper (though that doesn't happen due to price stickiness and profit motive/greed). This causes a downward spiral that we've been living in for decades.
I'm so tired of market fundamentalism. It is a soulless religion.
China has seen an increase in their middle class because they use policy to build it. In the 40s through the 60s in the US rich people paid huge percentages of their income in taxes (and only the top 5% at first paid that), which was directly redistributed back to workers through public works and other programs. Wages and salaries were controlled with both floors and caps. This even lead directly to employer benefits such as health insurance - they couldn't pay more, so they needed to offer something else - and the economy was so good from these policies that there was a lot of demand for everything.
Europe and Japan acheived similar wonders with similar policy. We can look at those places today to see the countries where those redistributive policies are stronger, are weathering the shit-storm market fundamentalism brought us over the last decade, better than the free market states.
Everyone doesn't know that - in fact, schools seem to go out of their way to avoid teaching that. Ownership of the means of production is the way you turn 1 dollar into 2, in a capitalist society. Working for a living is for suckers, and public schools mostly train suckers.
All we need to do is democratically make policy to solve these problems. Aging demographic is harder, and is usually taken care of through immigration, but the wealth gap is easier. We have simple models to follow from the 1940s. Tax the crap out of the wealthiest, and hand out the money. FDR had to use a public works program, but the actual mechanism you use to distribute wealth is actually less important.
The missing part is a political movement that feels empowered to make these demands. After WWII it was an easier justification - countrymen sent their kids off to war, and they felt they deserved something in return. I don't feel the need to go to war, but we do need some similar justification to make the demand palatable. This damned right wing market ideology that is so effectively propagated is making this a hard nut to crack though - the free market religion has been very effective at conscripting folks to advocate against their own interests.
The American dream worked quite well for baby boomers, and the post WWII generation. The only reason it doesn't work any more is because the systems we need in place to make it a real possibility for people have been systematically attacked and removed, because that system requires that we collectively pay for it. In a system geared toward the concentration of wealth (like all market driven economies), it starts to feel like a small group (people who are good at getting money into their pockets) are being picked on, and have to pay more than their fair share, and other forms of whining. In reality, the whole system has to work for any part to be stable. Keynes knew that, but modern neoliberals just want to believe they don't have to pay for a nice society - or they are just callous pricks who don't care. Either way, the American dream seems like a sham to those under 40 today, but it hasn't always been that way, and it doesn't always have to be that way. We just need to correct the system, just like we routinely have to do (check your older history books).
Social security insurance is just an insurance pool. The specific numbers written down are always meant to deal with the math of the time (and try to project forward), but they need to be updated once in a while. The system has been stable for over 80 years, and with only a small amount of effort can be stable for the next 80. It's not a complex system, though it would be nice if politicians (mostly Republicans) would stop messing with it for ideological reasons.
Stable insurance systems are all about scale, and no one scales better than government. The fed is actually quite good at insurance.
In capitalism, there are two important classes - employer/owner and employee/worker. In the US we have only 2 viable political parties (and really only one that can effectively set policy) - both represent different sets of owners/employers. It should be no surprise then that in a country with no working class political party, workers (and that includes workers with advanced degrees) get left behind or even worse, exploited.
Well it's that, but it's also the "stupid objectivity" problem. There is always an underlying op-ed position - even that is simply empiricism, as well as unspoken moral foundations, such as secularism, pluralism, etc. Edgar R. Murrows did certainly not give equal weight to two sides of a lynching disagreement the way CNN does give to torture today.
Concepts of ownership don't have to remain they way they are now though. These concepts in the history of the human race are actually quite young, and capitalism is barely a zygote. For most of our existence, we didn't have such nonsense restraining us. What happens if automation leaves us with no more scarcity?
First, economists are little more than apologists for whatever the political class wants to do with the economy. Economics is far more voodoo than it is science, and especially in it's current culturally enforced scarcity constraints. Second, Milton Friedman was an especially harmful apologist. Third, it would great if machines did all the hard work, so we could have more leisure. I'm all for it. Fourth, you are right! We would still find things to do, but we wouldn't necessarily have to deal with the abuses of markets when we don't have the artificially imposed scarcity constraint any more (which will look increasingly silly as machines produce so much excess), which in the long thousands of years of history of mankind aren't that old anyway, and aren't even all that great, having been criticized even by the ancients like Plato and Socrates, who had no love for that particular method of wealth distribution.
All of this is to say he's even right - iPhones are still mostly made by hand...
All that money they own only has value when society agrees it does - who are they going to spend that with, if the value of whatever currency they hold collapses? The 0.01% are in the same system with the rest of us, whether they like it or not.
Why? Are capitalism (which can basically only be defined by your relationship with an employer) and markets the only way we can think of to distribute goods and services? Are our imaginations so limited?
Well not yet, but machine intelligence will be able to program itself eventually, and they'll do it better than you or me. You think your brain is anything more than a biological machine?
That's all beside the point. It's not the automation or the AI that's causing all this unemployment pain - it's the system surrounding them. Mechanization, automation, AI - these things can all be used to solve every human problem we've ever faced, yet, all we get are warnings of impending doom from our visionless "leaders". Give me a break.
We should be discussing how to configure our political and economic systems to distribute the benefits of these things in some fair way, rather than just trying to scare people senseless. We should also be discussing how to create machine intelligence that won't try to kill us. Both of these things are possible with enough imagination and vision.
Democrats are generally far too sensitive about what their opponents say about them. Look at all the things the Democratic side says about Republicans - does that ever modulate their behavior? No. And they are winning everywhere (partly) because of it.
I agree in principle - but it's only better if Trump replaces a policy he kills with something better. I have no confidence he can or will do that with TPP or ObamaCare, or anything else.
I completely agree - this is more of a successor for the 3DS and the DS family in general, which has had it's lunch eaten by iPad.
Someone at Nintendo made a statement about how the tech is ready to remove the distinction between mobile gaming and living room gaming, and I think they were right (graphics are good enough on iPad/iPhone and higher end Android devices). This device makes tablet gaming look more like traditional tactile gaming, with it's funky built in controllers, and it's powerfull enough (as was the Wii U - which as a side note should have been named something more distinct).
What this console doesn't solve is the content pipeline - AAA studios are going to continue to produce content for the more powerfull standard bearers on XBox and PS4 (and PC). They're not going to want to port to the smaller market share of Nintendo Switch. We may see iOS and Android ports, but in order for this to really be successful Nintendo will either need to produce a TON of content in house, or find some other way to get third party support for this directly. Being a successor for the 3DS may provide the necessary market share to incentivize proper game development on the platform.
Nintendo does need to solve their ridiculous single console game install policy though, I don't want to re-buy my virtual console games for a third or fourth time. Steam, Google's Play Store and Apple's App Store are the right model. Nintendo needs to stop fooling around.
Nintendo's position seems to be that they can keep innovating in the console space, and keep their position atop a heap of their own making. They don't want to deliver on someone else's platform, because it isn't as profitable. They are going after big long term profit, not reactionary short term profit.
No matter how many times folks at Nintendo explain this, people still don't seem to get it - maybe the same people who invest in Nintendo after another company releases Pokemon Go. Or maybe because it's a bigger gamble or bolder play, and most people are very risk averse, they can't wrap their heads around it?
Exactly this. Netflix, a similar business, had figured out they needed leverage, so they started to produce their own content to draw a user base. They use that to negotiate more favorable deals with content providers. Valve did the same with Steam (though they started with their own content out of the gate). Nintendo did the same ages ago, etc.
1. Stop whining. 2. Get a better vision and understanding of business and competition. 3. Profit!
That's ridiculous. Older people have had a much longer period of time to have their genes mutated than young people.
The hypothesis doesn't say it's selecting a trait or gene (intelligently or otherwise), it's saying when a crap random mutation happens in some single cell, and the normal mitigating factors to deal with the broken cell fail, the last fail safe is to kill the whole colony/organism to prevent the spread of that broken gene through the herd. I can't even see why that's controversial, it makes sense without saying anything about the social fitness of anyone's genes/traits.
And it's not like cancer doesn't happen to young people.
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox's mobile version isn't super terrible, but it's lacking in some important areas. Their canvas performance is not even close to Chrome for example.
That's Edge in branding only. It's running a version of the Chromium engine underneath. It'd be great if MS ported their own EdgeHTML to other platforms. I hate having to boot up Windows just to test that stupid input focus stealing browser (with it's horrid dev tools).
IE and now Edge have one annoying UI quirk - immediately after you start it, you can click into the address bar, then it almost always takes away focus for some damned reason (actually, Windows does this all over the place - it's the primary reason I can't use that OS).
If they'd fixed this one problem, I'd probably use it more. I suspect they don't use their own software at Microsoft. They'd surely have noticed and fixed it by now if they did...
Well then you are missing the way way back side. If productivity increases, and reduces the need for workers, fewer people have money to buy goods - even when they are cheaper (though that doesn't happen due to price stickiness and profit motive/greed). This causes a downward spiral that we've been living in for decades.
I'm so tired of market fundamentalism. It is a soulless religion.
China has seen an increase in their middle class because they use policy to build it. In the 40s through the 60s in the US rich people paid huge percentages of their income in taxes (and only the top 5% at first paid that), which was directly redistributed back to workers through public works and other programs. Wages and salaries were controlled with both floors and caps. This even lead directly to employer benefits such as health insurance - they couldn't pay more, so they needed to offer something else - and the economy was so good from these policies that there was a lot of demand for everything.
Europe and Japan acheived similar wonders with similar policy. We can look at those places today to see the countries where those redistributive policies are stronger, are weathering the shit-storm market fundamentalism brought us over the last decade, better than the free market states.
Everyone doesn't know that - in fact, schools seem to go out of their way to avoid teaching that. Ownership of the means of production is the way you turn 1 dollar into 2, in a capitalist society. Working for a living is for suckers, and public schools mostly train suckers.
All we need to do is democratically make policy to solve these problems. Aging demographic is harder, and is usually taken care of through immigration, but the wealth gap is easier. We have simple models to follow from the 1940s. Tax the crap out of the wealthiest, and hand out the money. FDR had to use a public works program, but the actual mechanism you use to distribute wealth is actually less important.
The missing part is a political movement that feels empowered to make these demands. After WWII it was an easier justification - countrymen sent their kids off to war, and they felt they deserved something in return. I don't feel the need to go to war, but we do need some similar justification to make the demand palatable. This damned right wing market ideology that is so effectively propagated is making this a hard nut to crack though - the free market religion has been very effective at conscripting folks to advocate against their own interests.
The American dream worked quite well for baby boomers, and the post WWII generation. The only reason it doesn't work any more is because the systems we need in place to make it a real possibility for people have been systematically attacked and removed, because that system requires that we collectively pay for it. In a system geared toward the concentration of wealth (like all market driven economies), it starts to feel like a small group (people who are good at getting money into their pockets) are being picked on, and have to pay more than their fair share, and other forms of whining. In reality, the whole system has to work for any part to be stable. Keynes knew that, but modern neoliberals just want to believe they don't have to pay for a nice society - or they are just callous pricks who don't care. Either way, the American dream seems like a sham to those under 40 today, but it hasn't always been that way, and it doesn't always have to be that way. We just need to correct the system, just like we routinely have to do (check your older history books).
Social security insurance is just an insurance pool. The specific numbers written down are always meant to deal with the math of the time (and try to project forward), but they need to be updated once in a while. The system has been stable for over 80 years, and with only a small amount of effort can be stable for the next 80. It's not a complex system, though it would be nice if politicians (mostly Republicans) would stop messing with it for ideological reasons.
Stable insurance systems are all about scale, and no one scales better than government. The fed is actually quite good at insurance.
In capitalism, there are two important classes - employer/owner and employee/worker. In the US we have only 2 viable political parties (and really only one that can effectively set policy) - both represent different sets of owners/employers. It should be no surprise then that in a country with no working class political party, workers (and that includes workers with advanced degrees) get left behind or even worse, exploited.
Well it's that, but it's also the "stupid objectivity" problem. There is always an underlying op-ed position - even that is simply empiricism, as well as unspoken moral foundations, such as secularism, pluralism, etc. Edgar R. Murrows did certainly not give equal weight to two sides of a lynching disagreement the way CNN does give to torture today.
Genetic design will solve this. Once we start doing it on a large scale, adaptive evolution will be a thing of the past!
Or maybe he's now a very powerful person and that's intimidating? nah, let's go with the conspiracy theory!
Concepts of ownership don't have to remain they way they are now though. These concepts in the history of the human race are actually quite young, and capitalism is barely a zygote. For most of our existence, we didn't have such nonsense restraining us. What happens if automation leaves us with no more scarcity?
First, economists are little more than apologists for whatever the political class wants to do with the economy. Economics is far more voodoo than it is science, and especially in it's current culturally enforced scarcity constraints. Second, Milton Friedman was an especially harmful apologist. Third, it would great if machines did all the hard work, so we could have more leisure. I'm all for it. Fourth, you are right! We would still find things to do, but we wouldn't necessarily have to deal with the abuses of markets when we don't have the artificially imposed scarcity constraint any more (which will look increasingly silly as machines produce so much excess), which in the long thousands of years of history of mankind aren't that old anyway, and aren't even all that great, having been criticized even by the ancients like Plato and Socrates, who had no love for that particular method of wealth distribution.
All of this is to say he's even right - iPhones are still mostly made by hand...
All that money they own only has value when society agrees it does - who are they going to spend that with, if the value of whatever currency they hold collapses? The 0.01% are in the same system with the rest of us, whether they like it or not.
Why? Are capitalism (which can basically only be defined by your relationship with an employer) and markets the only way we can think of to distribute goods and services? Are our imaginations so limited?
Well not yet, but machine intelligence will be able to program itself eventually, and they'll do it better than you or me. You think your brain is anything more than a biological machine?
That's all beside the point. It's not the automation or the AI that's causing all this unemployment pain - it's the system surrounding them. Mechanization, automation, AI - these things can all be used to solve every human problem we've ever faced, yet, all we get are warnings of impending doom from our visionless "leaders". Give me a break.
We should be discussing how to configure our political and economic systems to distribute the benefits of these things in some fair way, rather than just trying to scare people senseless. We should also be discussing how to create machine intelligence that won't try to kill us. Both of these things are possible with enough imagination and vision.
Democrats are generally far too sensitive about what their opponents say about them. Look at all the things the Democratic side says about Republicans - does that ever modulate their behavior? No. And they are winning everywhere (partly) because of it.
I agree in principle - but it's only better if Trump replaces a policy he kills with something better. I have no confidence he can or will do that with TPP or ObamaCare, or anything else.
I completely agree - this is more of a successor for the 3DS and the DS family in general, which has had it's lunch eaten by iPad.
Someone at Nintendo made a statement about how the tech is ready to remove the distinction between mobile gaming and living room gaming, and I think they were right (graphics are good enough on iPad/iPhone and higher end Android devices). This device makes tablet gaming look more like traditional tactile gaming, with it's funky built in controllers, and it's powerfull enough (as was the Wii U - which as a side note should have been named something more distinct).
What this console doesn't solve is the content pipeline - AAA studios are going to continue to produce content for the more powerfull standard bearers on XBox and PS4 (and PC). They're not going to want to port to the smaller market share of Nintendo Switch. We may see iOS and Android ports, but in order for this to really be successful Nintendo will either need to produce a TON of content in house, or find some other way to get third party support for this directly. Being a successor for the 3DS may provide the necessary market share to incentivize proper game development on the platform.
Nintendo does need to solve their ridiculous single console game install policy though, I don't want to re-buy my virtual console games for a third or fourth time. Steam, Google's Play Store and Apple's App Store are the right model. Nintendo needs to stop fooling around.
If you think big companies and governments are truly separate, then I have a bridge to sell you. ;-)
Nintendo's position seems to be that they can keep innovating in the console space, and keep their position atop a heap of their own making. They don't want to deliver on someone else's platform, because it isn't as profitable. They are going after big long term profit, not reactionary short term profit.
No matter how many times folks at Nintendo explain this, people still don't seem to get it - maybe the same people who invest in Nintendo after another company releases Pokemon Go. Or maybe because it's a bigger gamble or bolder play, and most people are very risk averse, they can't wrap their heads around it?
Maybe it's time for an alternative to the paternalistic employee/employer relationship: http://www.democracyatwork.inf...
Exactly this. Netflix, a similar business, had figured out they needed leverage, so they started to produce their own content to draw a user base. They use that to negotiate more favorable deals with content providers. Valve did the same with Steam (though they started with their own content out of the gate). Nintendo did the same ages ago, etc.
1. Stop whining.
2. Get a better vision and understanding of business and competition.
3. Profit!
That's ridiculous. Older people have had a much longer period of time to have their genes mutated than young people.
The hypothesis doesn't say it's selecting a trait or gene (intelligently or otherwise), it's saying when a crap random mutation happens in some single cell, and the normal mitigating factors to deal with the broken cell fail, the last fail safe is to kill the whole colony/organism to prevent the spread of that broken gene through the herd. I can't even see why that's controversial, it makes sense without saying anything about the social fitness of anyone's genes/traits.
And it's not like cancer doesn't happen to young people.