It would require millions of these things to make any difference
Can you show your work on that?
The nice thing about garbage dumped in the oceans, if there can be said to be any nice thing about it, is that a lot of it actually ends up in several relatively small patches. I've actually the north atlantic garbage patch. Pretty gross the way garbage builds up there. I suspect it's a node where currents create a convergence. Whatever the cause, it at least serves to bring quite a bit of the floating garbage to one place. Millions of these devices wouldn't be needed, though I agree with the other commenter that it would be interesting to find out where you got that number.
You cannot clean it up. It is too late for that.
I suspect you were one of those kids who, when your parents were away for a week, did nothing until, on the last day, you looked at the kitchen and slumped your shoulders in defeat that nothing could now be done. Any mess can be cleaned up. Once you decide on what must be done, how to do it is only a detail. Luckily, other people than you are concerning themselves with those details. But please, feel free to continue to sit in your armchair and tell everyone how it can't be done. We appreciate your input.
Why bother with any of this? Samsung smart TVs actually work really well as dumb TVs too. Don't give it network access, and it's a great dumb TV that will work very well with anything I hook up to it.
I very much prefer any "smart" device that I own to be under my control, not be a black-box listening device in my home, thank-you.
Apple still redirects 100% of all SMS traffic aimed at other iPhone users through its own servers. Installing facebook or twitter on my phone doesn't do that. If I buy an iPhone I can choose if I want to use Twitter or Facebook at all. I can't choose whether I want Apple to have all my SMS traffic.
Considering that the time when Moore's law has been applicable hasn't appreciably sped up the development of AI, I fail to see how the end of Moore's law will appreciably slow it down. Can someone point me to a chat bot that is better than ELIZA?
When you can't find an obvious reason, look for who stands to gain. Traditional auto companies have been fighting a delaying battle against Tesla for years. Tesla is way ahead of them in an area they know they will eventually have to compete in. Plus Tesla is one of the most short-sold companies in history. Doesn't take much to spark a temporary fluctuation in stock prices.
I would be astonished if there weren't some of these motives behind this. Likely a combination - a lot of those who have short positions on Tesla are funded by traditional auto.
This is the same kind of FUD Microsoft tried against Linux with SCO. No different.
* A fucking 3.5 mm plug so I can listen AND charge the phone at the same time (not this bullshit slow wireless recharging shenanigans), and * Longer battery life
It's not necessarily all the new issues that have come along. And it's not that the current iPhones are so good people don't want to upgrade. It's the issues they have had from the beginning that are biting them in the ass: * No replaceable battery * No MicroSD card slot * A texting app that won't actually send an SMS to a non-iPhone by default, and which diverts every text you do send to another iPhone through their servers * Updates that intentionally drain your battery on older models * Updates that make simple things like your charger stop working, or which intentionally disable phones with third-party repairs
This is all stuff Apple has done from the beginning. They treated the phones as disposable, and the on-phone storage as some sort of precious commodity, like we were back in the 90's and there are severe silicon shortages. Their institutional arrogance was through the roof - iPhones will only work well out of the box with Apple services or Apple servers and getting them to import or export information elsewhere is just painful. People looked the other way and forgave them that because, at least with Apple stuff, iPhones mostly just worked.
Every one of those issues, though, is a goodwill sink. When iPhones were priced less and, at least with their own gear, just worked, then the sinks on goodwill were less than the features you got, and they had sales growth. However, when you add removing the headphone jack, back-to-back updates which have disabled some sort of third party charger or device, and successive generations that have gotten more expensive for what... a further reduction in dot pitch you need a microscope to discern, with all that people ask themselves if iPhone is worth the aggravation. And once it stops being a bit thick everywhere you go with Apple hype, people start to realize they bought into something that's not so shiny after all.
All Apple knows is fewer people are upgrading. What they don't (can't) fully know is how many previous iPhone users are actually not just not upgrading but jumping ship to a more open platform. I suspect it's a lot more than you think. I don't think the slowdown in sales is the west dissing Huawei and China getting all national pride about phones. I suspect what we are seeing is Apple starting to reap the results of a lot of anti-customer policies they have had from the beginning. Hype can plaster over treating your customers like shit for a little while. Not forever.
The only question I have about ChromeOS is why? I admit, I still don't understand the purpose of the OS at all. Sure, some people spend a lot of time online, but are there really people who do everything computer-related with a browser? And, even so, isn't Android with a browser basically ChromeOS? What is even the point in buying a laptop that inherently does less than a normal one, that costs about the same, and that locks you into a platform where everyone else owns all your data?
I don't know why I should respond to "we pay for everyone to stay home and relax", since I never said that.
Fair enough, but you also argued...
No, we don't [need to work]. Unless by "need" you mean a psychological need.
...so you seemed to be arguing that work was something we didn't have to do.
But, ok, since you're now mantaining that you didn't intend to mean no one works, tell me, what does a "leisure society" look like? How many hours a week are we all working versus leisuring? Describe this society and how we make it work.
Right now by need I mean in order for society not to collapse. But in the future, when widespread leisure is an option, we may find it's a psychological need.
Tell me how toy think the list of jobs I originally gave are going to get done today if we pay for everyone to stay home and relax?
And yet they pay for any number of wasteful government programs.
Agreed, friend. There are many, many wasteful government programs. I would love to see those removed and the money spent on them released back to the public in the form of lower taxes. However, wasteful government programs today don't justify, pay for, or make possible a basic work-free income for everyone. Someone has to pay for that. Someone has to do the work to get us there.
We are, I suspect, at least two generations away from having the level of automation that will make what you want actually possible. We can not only foresee the possibility (like we could in the 1950's) of automation at that level, we are now at the point where we can say, yes, you know what, it just might actually be possible. And now that we've come to that stage, there are people who want it now. Like a teenager, our reach is exceeding our grasp. We have the understanding to see it's possible, but some of us don't have the understanding to realize it can't be possible today. Unfortunately, we will, without major medical breakthroughs, likely never ourselves be the beneficiaries of the type of technology that will make possible the kind of leisure that you want. However, stopping now won't get us there. Leisure now will not get us there. And I'm not willing to just pay off those that don't want to work while those of us who realize we still need to shoulder the burden for them too.
To be honest, even when that technology has arrived, it will bring a new set of issues. I don't think we ever will get "there", where no one has to work. In fact, I hope we never do. That will be a troubling society. I hope we have to work less, I hope we get to work more intelligently, and I hope we all get the time we want with our families and loved ones. I hope we develop into a society where families work together, where schooling and working is integrated into a holistic entity where there is no fine line between the two. And I hope we, as a society, have a firm grasp on the need for working and striving and have good leisure addiction awareness and counseling.
That all being said, this is where we live, and today, we all need to work.
Don't worry, Firefox ignored clear majority user preferences with its UI change choices on back-to-back-to-back releases and they are still doing great. Chrome has nothing to worry about.
Is a Lack of Data Holding Back Universal Basic Income Programs?
No, it's good sense and fiscal restraint.
They've been trying UBI since the 1960s in Canada.
Not sure what part of Canada you're from, but thankfully this hasn't surfaced anywhere near me. I understand there were some trials in Ontario, but then I think they've tried most things once or twice somewhere in Ontario.
We have the technology and resources to enable a leisure society with guaranteed minimum living conditions for everyone.
We don't have that level of technology. Not today we don't. The day we have automation to do everything menial for us, then I will agree we can revisit the issue. Until then, leisure won't get iron, copper, oil, bauxite, or the host of rare earth minerals we need out of the ground. Leisure won't smelt any of that. Leisure won't plant or mill wheat, oats, barley, canola, corn, or sunflowers. Leisure certainly won't plant the rice you had on your yuppy idealist leisurely sushi roll. Leisure won't pick wild blueberries or honeycrisp apples. Leisure won't assemble the laptop you are reading this on, not fully. In many cases not even by half. Leisure won't fix the power lines blown down in the last storm, it won't run new transatlantic cables, it won't design or build satellites.
Any my taxes won't pay your leisure while I have any say on it.
When we can fully automate all of the above, that is when we can revisit the issue. And even then, even then, who is going to design it all? Who is going to research new technologies and drive innovation? You think leisure will do that?
Rather than push towards a leisure society, how about we push towards normalizing our population to what is required? We are more than a generation from automating everything on my list.
Now you're just being obtuse. I didn't mean tow the actual ISS to mars and stick it there. That was a metaphor to mean it has all the technologies you need.
But I see you didn't actually answer the question. What technology do we need to be able to live on Mars that we don't have? Answer the question. All you said was the un-verified claim that we can't live at that gravity level, which didn't answer the question, it just made a blanket and unverified claim that we just "can't live there". There are actually some easy ways to increase apparent gravity, but I'd love to see a reference for people not being able to live in low gravity. As you said, citation needed.
Citation needed on "we already have The tech to live there"
Because ISS, moron. We live there today. Park it on the surface of Mars and you have a colony. You might want to park it underground on Mars to make radiation shielding easier, but that's just a detail.
The technology to live there is well understood. We use regenerative CO2 scrubbers all over the place, and there have already been lots of successes with CO2 - > C + O2 reactors. Power generation is not an issue. We're in no imminent danger of running out of nuclear material. We already know water is there. Hydroponics is a very well established science.
Ball is in your court. Name one technology we don't have today that we would need in order to live on Mars.
The hard part today isn't the tech to live there, it's getting sufficient infrastructure there to make it self sufficient. Which was my original point. As technology for living there improves (reducing the amount of mass it takes to make a colony viable), and as heavy lift capacity gets cheaper and cheaper (reducing the cost/effort it takes to get things there), eventually those two meet somewhere in the middle. What kind of colony you make possible depends on where on that continuum they meet. If heavy lift gets cheaper faster than the tech to make a self-sufficient infrastructure improves (automates and miniaturizes) then you end up with a colony dependent on resupply like the ISS is today. If infrastructure technology also improves in conjunction with heavy lift then we end up with the possibility for a self-sufficient colony becomes viable. Since so many of the technologies to make heavy lift cheaper are also the same technologies to make self sufficient infrastructure easier, I suspect that our first real colony (not necessarily visit) will be 95% self sufficient and will probably be for the purpose of maintaining a science station and refueling round trips.
Wow, now in stereophonic. I love sterero! Oh... wait... no, it is in both speakers, but the sound is the same. How disappointing, it is mono after all.:(
That's right, say my name. Or at least read it. And do yourself a favour and keep reading it. There's a chance, small yet non-zero (I am an optimist after all) each time you read it that some sense will stick.
Um no. This is a lot different from building an airplane or colonizing the Americas. Those were done on Earth.
Doesn't matter where it is. The technology for living there is easy. We have it now. Today. The thing that's hard is lowering the cost of getting enough infrastructure there to be able to make it self sustaining. Two things are going to happen to make that viable. As technology increases the amount "stuff" that is needed, the amount of hardware infrastructure it will take to make things self sufficient will reduce along with the expense of getting it there until they meet in the middle.
It was Elon Musk who famously noted that the material cost of a rocket was pretty damn low:
“Obviously the lowest cost you can make anything for is the spot value of the material constituents, and that’s if you had a magic wand and could rearrange the atoms. So there’s just a question of how efficient you can be about getting the atoms from raw material state to rocket shape.”
NASA literally laughed at him when he started SpaceX. They are now on the curve for reducing space access costs by an order of magnitude. I have no trouble foreseeing another order of magnitude reduction.
Tesla cars are almost auto-fabbed today. SpaceX rockets use 3D printed pressure vessels - this isn't 3D printed pot-metal charms off Etsy any more. We're not far off widespread deployment of 3D printers capable of real-time creation and deposition of wide varieties of alloys. We're less than a generation away from machines that will auto-fab a house. Do you really think that colonization of Mars is actually going to be all that difficult at that point?
This is no different from any endeavor that is on the edge of what our abilities and technology allow. It can seem silly and fraught with far more risk than benefit. This is because the end benefit lies beyond our vision. Just like it did for the Wright brothers and those (and this wasn't a fringe minority) that felt, even after their success, that manned flight was dumb and too risky and provided little benefit.
One of human's worst traits is that we head in a direction before we're smart and/or wise enough to know the end result. One of human's best traits is that we head in a direction before we're smart and/or wise enough to know the end result.
For better or worse, it's going to happen. It's going to happen because technology will make it possible. Right now technology is only in reach of governments and billionaires. And they are already talking about it and making not unserious plans. Once the technology threshold lowers, it's inevitable.
I suspect neither Bill (Anders or Nye) can understand that end point for the same reason that baby boomers have a hard time understanding millennials. Who in their right mind will live with their nose in their phone their entire life? Bill Bye thinks that living in domes and spacesuits makes living on Mars not worth it. For a lot of millenials today, that would hardly require a change in behaviour. There are a lot of people who would unquestionably go today. No, the end result is inevitable. Manned exploration will happen. Colonization will happen.
I've seen Slashvertisements before, but most are at least subtle. This is like one of those articles that should actually be labelled with that little "advertisement" tags that the advertiser hopes their "click bait" title will induce you to ignore.
Is readership down? This is actually troubling to see editorial standards drop like this.
Doesn't run on iPads, iPhones or Android phones or tablets nor is there any web hosted version.
There are viewers for every platform. I have an editor for Android, I've never investigated iPhone, from lack of interest. There are most certainly a web hosted versions for ODF document editing.
We don't want or need MS Office any more.
The world of personal computing is much larger than just desktop applications.
I can count on one hand the number of times I've felt a pressing need to edit an office document on my phone. I think all but one was making a presentation slide as a lark. No one is going to do serious word processing on their phone. Then again, a spreadsheet is useful, and calc has served quite well on my phone.
This isn't "Microsoft sending", this is Bing's algorithm categorizing that search result. This is not news. If I were to list all the "_________ download" searches that listed a torrent or instructions for how to find something for free as the first item, this would be a long post.
This is a non-story. Why am I even bothering to take the time t
To obtain more market share? To eliminate a competitor? To allow the executives to be employed for another year? Come on, man, think. Don't just assume everyone but you is a moron.
Maybe not quite everyone. But someone who thinks that doubling down on the print video game strategy guide business is a good idea? That's setting the bar pretty low.
The actual funny thing is, they could have been the IGN or Wikia. But they actively eschewed such things since it detracted from the print business.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you show your work on that?
The nice thing about garbage dumped in the oceans, if there can be said to be any nice thing about it, is that a lot of it actually ends up in several relatively small patches. I've actually the north atlantic garbage patch. Pretty gross the way garbage builds up there. I suspect it's a node where currents create a convergence. Whatever the cause, it at least serves to bring quite a bit of the floating garbage to one place. Millions of these devices wouldn't be needed, though I agree with the other commenter that it would be interesting to find out where you got that number.
I suspect you were one of those kids who, when your parents were away for a week, did nothing until, on the last day, you looked at the kitchen and slumped your shoulders in defeat that nothing could now be done. Any mess can be cleaned up. Once you decide on what must be done, how to do it is only a detail. Luckily, other people than you are concerning themselves with those details. But please, feel free to continue to sit in your armchair and tell everyone how it can't be done. We appreciate your input.
Why bother with any of this? Samsung smart TVs actually work really well as dumb TVs too. Don't give it network access, and it's a great dumb TV that will work very well with anything I hook up to it.
I very much prefer any "smart" device that I own to be under my control, not be a black-box listening device in my home, thank-you.
Apple still redirects 100% of all SMS traffic aimed at other iPhone users through its own servers. Installing facebook or twitter on my phone doesn't do that. If I buy an iPhone I can choose if I want to use Twitter or Facebook at all. I can't choose whether I want Apple to have all my SMS traffic.
Considering that the time when Moore's law has been applicable hasn't appreciably sped up the development of AI, I fail to see how the end of Moore's law will appreciably slow it down. Can someone point me to a chat bot that is better than ELIZA?
When you can't find an obvious reason, look for who stands to gain. Traditional auto companies have been fighting a delaying battle against Tesla for years. Tesla is way ahead of them in an area they know they will eventually have to compete in. Plus Tesla is one of the most short-sold companies in history. Doesn't take much to spark a temporary fluctuation in stock prices.
I would be astonished if there weren't some of these motives behind this. Likely a combination - a lot of those who have short positions on Tesla are funded by traditional auto.
This is the same kind of FUD Microsoft tried against Linux with SCO. No different.
It's not the rover, look at the boxes to the bottom right
Does the photo look to you like they are selling mass produced rovers now?
Is it just me, or is that just somehow ironic?
It's not necessarily all the new issues that have come along. And it's not that the current iPhones are so good people don't want to upgrade. It's the issues they have had from the beginning that are biting them in the ass:
* No replaceable battery
* No MicroSD card slot
* A texting app that won't actually send an SMS to a non-iPhone by default, and which diverts every text you do send to another iPhone through their servers
* Updates that intentionally drain your battery on older models
* Updates that make simple things like your charger stop working, or which intentionally disable phones with third-party repairs
This is all stuff Apple has done from the beginning. They treated the phones as disposable, and the on-phone storage as some sort of precious commodity, like we were back in the 90's and there are severe silicon shortages. Their institutional arrogance was through the roof - iPhones will only work well out of the box with Apple services or Apple servers and getting them to import or export information elsewhere is just painful. People looked the other way and forgave them that because, at least with Apple stuff, iPhones mostly just worked.
Every one of those issues, though, is a goodwill sink. When iPhones were priced less and, at least with their own gear, just worked, then the sinks on goodwill were less than the features you got, and they had sales growth. However, when you add removing the headphone jack, back-to-back updates which have disabled some sort of third party charger or device, and successive generations that have gotten more expensive for what... a further reduction in dot pitch you need a microscope to discern, with all that people ask themselves if iPhone is worth the aggravation. And once it stops being a bit thick everywhere you go with Apple hype, people start to realize they bought into something that's not so shiny after all.
All Apple knows is fewer people are upgrading. What they don't (can't) fully know is how many previous iPhone users are actually not just not upgrading but jumping ship to a more open platform. I suspect it's a lot more than you think. I don't think the slowdown in sales is the west dissing Huawei and China getting all national pride about phones. I suspect what we are seeing is Apple starting to reap the results of a lot of anti-customer policies they have had from the beginning. Hype can plaster over treating your customers like shit for a little while. Not forever.
The only question I have about ChromeOS is why? I admit, I still don't understand the purpose of the OS at all. Sure, some people spend a lot of time online, but are there really people who do everything computer-related with a browser? And, even so, isn't Android with a browser basically ChromeOS? What is even the point in buying a laptop that inherently does less than a normal one, that costs about the same, and that locks you into a platform where everyone else owns all your data?
Is there something I'm missing?
Fair enough, but you also argued...
But, ok, since you're now mantaining that you didn't intend to mean no one works, tell me, what does a "leisure society" look like? How many hours a week are we all working versus leisuring? Describe this society and how we make it work.
Right now by need I mean in order for society not to collapse. But in the future, when widespread leisure is an option, we may find it's a psychological need.
Tell me how toy think the list of jobs I originally gave are going to get done today if we pay for everyone to stay home and relax?
Agreed, friend. There are many, many wasteful government programs. I would love to see those removed and the money spent on them released back to the public in the form of lower taxes. However, wasteful government programs today don't justify, pay for, or make possible a basic work-free income for everyone. Someone has to pay for that. Someone has to do the work to get us there.
We are, I suspect, at least two generations away from having the level of automation that will make what you want actually possible. We can not only foresee the possibility (like we could in the 1950's) of automation at that level, we are now at the point where we can say, yes, you know what, it just might actually be possible. And now that we've come to that stage, there are people who want it now. Like a teenager, our reach is exceeding our grasp. We have the understanding to see it's possible, but some of us don't have the understanding to realize it can't be possible today. Unfortunately, we will, without major medical breakthroughs, likely never ourselves be the beneficiaries of the type of technology that will make possible the kind of leisure that you want. However, stopping now won't get us there. Leisure now will not get us there. And I'm not willing to just pay off those that don't want to work while those of us who realize we still need to shoulder the burden for them too.
To be honest, even when that technology has arrived, it will bring a new set of issues. I don't think we ever will get "there", where no one has to work. In fact, I hope we never do. That will be a troubling society. I hope we have to work less, I hope we get to work more intelligently, and I hope we all get the time we want with our families and loved ones. I hope we develop into a society where families work together, where schooling and working is integrated into a holistic entity where there is no fine line between the two. And I hope we, as a society, have a firm grasp on the need for working and striving and have good leisure addiction awareness and counseling.
That all being said, this is where we live, and today, we all need to work.
Don't worry, Firefox ignored clear majority user preferences with its UI change choices on back-to-back-to-back releases and they are still doing great. Chrome has nothing to worry about.
Oh.... wait....
No, it's good sense and fiscal restraint.
Not sure what part of Canada you're from, but thankfully this hasn't surfaced anywhere near me. I understand there were some trials in Ontario, but then I think they've tried most things once or twice somewhere in Ontario.
We don't have that level of technology. Not today we don't. The day we have automation to do everything menial for us, then I will agree we can revisit the issue. Until then, leisure won't get iron, copper, oil, bauxite, or the host of rare earth minerals we need out of the ground. Leisure won't smelt any of that. Leisure won't plant or mill wheat, oats, barley, canola, corn, or sunflowers. Leisure certainly won't plant the rice you had on your yuppy idealist leisurely sushi roll. Leisure won't pick wild blueberries or honeycrisp apples. Leisure won't assemble the laptop you are reading this on, not fully. In many cases not even by half. Leisure won't fix the power lines blown down in the last storm, it won't run new transatlantic cables, it won't design or build satellites.
Any my taxes won't pay your leisure while I have any say on it.
When we can fully automate all of the above, that is when we can revisit the issue. And even then, even then, who is going to design it all? Who is going to research new technologies and drive innovation? You think leisure will do that?
Rather than push towards a leisure society, how about we push towards normalizing our population to what is required? We are more than a generation from automating everything on my list.
Now you're just being obtuse. I didn't mean tow the actual ISS to mars and stick it there. That was a metaphor to mean it has all the technologies you need.
But I see you didn't actually answer the question. What technology do we need to be able to live on Mars that we don't have? Answer the question. All you said was the un-verified claim that we can't live at that gravity level, which didn't answer the question, it just made a blanket and unverified claim that we just "can't live there". There are actually some easy ways to increase apparent gravity, but I'd love to see a reference for people not being able to live in low gravity. As you said, citation needed.
Because ISS, moron. We live there today. Park it on the surface of Mars and you have a colony. You might want to park it underground on Mars to make radiation shielding easier, but that's just a detail.
The technology to live there is well understood. We use regenerative CO2 scrubbers all over the place, and there have already been lots of successes with CO2 - > C + O2 reactors. Power generation is not an issue. We're in no imminent danger of running out of nuclear material. We already know water is there. Hydroponics is a very well established science.
Ball is in your court. Name one technology we don't have today that we would need in order to live on Mars.
The hard part today isn't the tech to live there, it's getting sufficient infrastructure there to make it self sufficient. Which was my original point. As technology for living there improves (reducing the amount of mass it takes to make a colony viable), and as heavy lift capacity gets cheaper and cheaper (reducing the cost/effort it takes to get things there), eventually those two meet somewhere in the middle. What kind of colony you make possible depends on where on that continuum they meet. If heavy lift gets cheaper faster than the tech to make a self-sufficient infrastructure improves (automates and miniaturizes) then you end up with a colony dependent on resupply like the ISS is today. If infrastructure technology also improves in conjunction with heavy lift then we end up with the possibility for a self-sufficient colony becomes viable. Since so many of the technologies to make heavy lift cheaper are also the same technologies to make self sufficient infrastructure easier, I suspect that our first real colony (not necessarily visit) will be 95% self sufficient and will probably be for the purpose of maintaining a science station and refueling round trips.
Wow, now in stereophonic. I love sterero! :(
Oh... wait... no, it is in both speakers, but the sound is the same. How disappointing, it is mono after all.
That's right, say my name. Or at least read it. And do yourself a favour and keep reading it. There's a chance, small yet non-zero (I am an optimist after all) each time you read it that some sense will stick.
Doesn't matter where it is. The technology for living there is easy. We have it now. Today. The thing that's hard is lowering the cost of getting enough infrastructure there to be able to make it self sustaining. Two things are going to happen to make that viable. As technology increases the amount "stuff" that is needed, the amount of hardware infrastructure it will take to make things self sufficient will reduce along with the expense of getting it there until they meet in the middle.
It was Elon Musk who famously noted that the material cost of a rocket was pretty damn low:
NASA literally laughed at him when he started SpaceX. They are now on the curve for reducing space access costs by an order of magnitude. I have no trouble foreseeing another order of magnitude reduction.
Tesla cars are almost auto-fabbed today. SpaceX rockets use 3D printed pressure vessels - this isn't 3D printed pot-metal charms off Etsy any more. We're not far off widespread deployment of 3D printers capable of real-time creation and deposition of wide varieties of alloys. We're less than a generation away from machines that will auto-fab a house. Do you really think that colonization of Mars is actually going to be all that difficult at that point?
This is no different from any endeavor that is on the edge of what our abilities and technology allow. It can seem silly and fraught with far more risk than benefit. This is because the end benefit lies beyond our vision. Just like it did for the Wright brothers and those (and this wasn't a fringe minority) that felt, even after their success, that manned flight was dumb and too risky and provided little benefit.
One of human's worst traits is that we head in a direction before we're smart and/or wise enough to know the end result.
One of human's best traits is that we head in a direction before we're smart and/or wise enough to know the end result.
For better or worse, it's going to happen. It's going to happen because technology will make it possible. Right now technology is only in reach of governments and billionaires. And they are already talking about it and making not unserious plans. Once the technology threshold lowers, it's inevitable.
I suspect neither Bill (Anders or Nye) can understand that end point for the same reason that baby boomers have a hard time understanding millennials. Who in their right mind will live with their nose in their phone their entire life? Bill Bye thinks that living in domes and spacesuits makes living on Mars not worth it. For a lot of millenials today, that would hardly require a change in behaviour. There are a lot of people who would unquestionably go today. No, the end result is inevitable. Manned exploration will happen. Colonization will happen.
Holy Flaming Slashvertisements, Batman.
I've seen Slashvertisements before, but most are at least subtle. This is like one of those articles that should actually be labelled with that little "advertisement" tags that the advertiser hopes their "click bait" title will induce you to ignore.
Is readership down? This is actually troubling to see editorial standards drop like this.
There are viewers for every platform. I have an editor for Android, I've never investigated iPhone, from lack of interest. There are most certainly a web hosted versions for ODF document editing.
We don't want or need MS Office any more.
I can count on one hand the number of times I've felt a pressing need to edit an office document on my phone. I think all but one was making a presentation slide as a lark. No one is going to do serious word processing on their phone. Then again, a spreadsheet is useful, and calc has served quite well on my phone.
This isn't "Microsoft sending", this is Bing's algorithm categorizing that search result. This is not news. If I were to list all the "_________ download" searches that listed a torrent or instructions for how to find something for free as the first item, this would be a long post.
This is a non-story. Why am I even bothering to take the time t
So if Mozilla doesn't tell me what I want, how will I ever know?
Does your computer always wag you, or just when you browse the internet?
Maybe not quite everyone. But someone who thinks that doubling down on the print video game strategy guide business is a good idea? That's setting the bar pretty low.
The actual funny thing is, they could have been the IGN or Wikia. But they actively eschewed such things since it detracted from the print business.
Ah sweet irony.