The commission has also set a target for all European households to have access to download speeds of at least 100Mbps by 2025,
All this means is that ISPs will put a new, premium, service on their portfolios, priced at whatever it would cost them to install - or whatever they choose: either to make a killing from, or to discourage uptake.
There is nothing in this target to say the provision has to be affordable. So if an ISP in an out-of-the-way place, maybe halfway up a mountain, decides it would cost them €250,000 to provide their half-dozen subscribers with 100MBit/s connections, they would price the product accordingly.
As such, this is just a wish, but not a practical requirement that EU citizens must be given this sort of speed, for the tenner-a-month they are paying for "ordinary" broadband, now.
It will never hit the curriculum because schools could never retain IT competent teachers. As soon as they were sufficiently highly skilled to teach any sort of IT class that was relevant, they'd be off to work in IT, rather then remain a teacher.
This is the exact same reason why companies don't train their (IT) staff. What is the point in spending money to make it easier for them to leave you?
Before deploying a "porn finding" dog, make sure to leave your collection in the police car.
The last thing you'd want to happen is the dog detects your thumb drive, or your phone - which given it's proximity is much more likely.
Or, worse: it detects your supervisor's phone / tablet / sd-card which then has to be taken in as evidence.
Yes, I know this mutt only detects residual fumes off electronics - if it actually "detects" anything at all that it's not pointed at. But the possibility of it grassing up its owner is too amusing.
C-level leadership is elected by the employees for a one-year term.
So how to "ordinary" employees (even ones from a recruitment company) know what qualities to look for in a C-level? Do they understand the legal obligations that C-levelship brings. Do they know what is possible or within scope for a particular "C"?
Or do they simply engage in a beauty contest and vote for people they like, or who make the biggest promises: "vote for me as your CEO and I'll give everyone a pay rise and annual bonus"
It all sounds lovely and group-huggy. But does it actually make the company more successful or a better place to work?
When you enjoyed someone's work, you leave them a tip
But so few articles are worth a dam'. Most aren't even worth the time spent reading them (so the authors should be compensating us for the time wasted by attractive headlines with content that fails to deliver).
However, we already have a system for rewarding authors who consistently produce worthwhile content that is good enough to explicitly seek out: subscriptions. Personally, I am still searching for a publication that produces enough of this high quality content to make the cost of their subs. reasonable. Having the occasional article - maybe one a week - that is relevant, authoritative and informative doesn't make up for all the time spent wading through (in this case: The Guardian) dross just to find it.
* It's been a long time since the last release
* We've put all the updates into a new version to save time updating old releases
* You can now download it from our website
* We fixed a load of bugs
* Auto installs are easier
* You can change the GUI
Is that it? What about new features? What would I be able to do with this release that I couldn't do with an old one? What new "super powers" will it give me?
If I was marketing a software tool intended for technical people, all the new functionality would be at the top of the list. Sure, techies want to download and install it easier, but if they were willing to jump through the hoops needed to install earlier versions, then making this faster doesn't sound like too big a deal. And as for different desktops... we're all pretty much au fait with all of them now and you'd have to be rather "precious" to not use a tool because you didn't like the GUI.
I reckon Dyson's comment is merely to conceal the real reason: young engineers are cheap.
There are plenty of them, they are easily manipulated into working long hours.
They are disposable (and "Not taking notice of experts" means your operation will soon go broke: reinventing every wheel that the experienced guys in the neighbouring companies just take, off the shelf).
I doubt that if Dyson had shareholders to worry about, he would take this view. But since the company is his own personal play-thing, he's welcome to spend his money as he pleases. But so far as products go, his company seems to have a problem learning from experience. Nobody I know who bought a "die-soon" vacuum cleaner would ever buy another Dyson product.
What good is a grand new economy if there's nothing in it that I can see myself getting paid to do?
This is the basic problem. All these futurology pieces extrapolate the supply side: what will be available, possible or substituting existing stuff. But none of them take the next step of analysing the demand side: asking who will be the customers for these advances?
Even if we end up removing all the manual manufacturing, office-based administration, transport and food production jobs, who will be able to afford trips in flying cars, or would need an AI in their pocket?
Even if we do get a UBI economy, will that basic income contain provision for computerised meds, and why would people with no prospect of a job - or more importantly: the children of people who don't / can't / will never work in their lives - ever need high quality online education (or any education at all)?
This list doesn't say why any of these things would be beneficial. Take self-driving cars (just because it's at the top of the pile). The benefits are not having to own your own vehicle, being able to get pissed out of your skull and still get home, better access for disabled people, not having to take a test, less congestion, sleeping on the way to work, not having to pay for the vehicle when you're not using it, not having to worry about it being broken - just send for another one.
These are what people will buy into the technology for, not simply to say "Look at me! I've got a driverless car" which seems to be the geek's motivation.
But when it comes to other items, such as AI, the benefits of raw, naked, AI are never stated. Will it really benefit Joe Average to have a computer in his / her / its pocket that is smarter than they are?
And a final point worth considering: how many of these "exciting" technologies will be centrally controlled?
Also works when a 23 year-old "expert" from one of the big consulting firms reports to the CIO that the servers are underutillised.
My reply was "certainly, what level of utilisation would you like?" but the grin on my face gave it away. It was then followed by a laymans explanation of utilisation vs. response times. And a decision that the consultancy wasn't in the company's best interests.
5G' will remain a marketing & industry term that companies will use as they see fit.
In that case we should start to see some marketing one-upmanship any day soon. With the advent of the marketing term that can be used as they see fit New!!!! 6G systems.
A lazy person does the least amount of work necessary to do a job. If that involves doing nothing and letting someone else do it for you then that counts, too.
That philosophy also includes working out which jobs are worth doing and which are unnecessary or futile. An active person might clean their house every day. A lazy person might only do it when visitors are due. Which one is correct?
It is also worth noting that anyone who has read the Perl Book (one of life's necessities, no matter how lazy you are) already knows this.
as early as 2090, rates of ice loss at the site could exceed gains from new snowfall. And within a century after that, melting could begin to release waste
So in about 200 years, the people alive then will have something to worry about.
To put this into perspective, let's look back at the technology of 1816 and compare it with today's. Then we can assume at least the same level of advancement from now until 2216 (if not, then I would expect the world of that era would have bigger problems than some sewage and diesel at the North Pole) and what would seem like an issue today will be entirely manageable by then.
Nope, a good UX is pure fantasy. I'm still waiting for one.
They all try to put too many options together. They all still have a pile of "miscellaneous" functions that all get lumped together. They still all use the technical / marketing terms of the designers (rather than the real-world experience descriptions of actual users). Almost none have sensible default settings or logically connected changes and it's a rarity to see them structured in any sort of workflow: good or bad. They always seem to be designed "logically" (captain) rather than with the most frequently used options the least number (i.e. 1) key-click away. And the layout of the remote control needed to operate them is frankly, awful.
all policy shall be based on the weight of evidence
for an economic policy is a disaster. There is no "weight of evidence" as every situation that a central bank, finance ministry or stock exchange would be unique.
However, simply by knowing that the country was following a "rational" policy means it would be gamed by all the "players" who could get access. Although it's doubtful that any actual people would get a look - since the automatic traders would dominate the day. Outsmarting a system like that would make taking candy from a baby look like hard work.
It does not financially ruin people when they are armed with legal precedent
Uh, huh. Except that hardly ever happens:
In 2013, while 8 percent of all federal criminal charges were dismissed (either because of a mistake in fact or law or because the defendant had decided to cooperate), more than 97 percent of the remainder were resolved through plea bargains, and fewer than 3 percent went to trial.
For the overwhelming majority of people who come into contact with the "justice" system, to be accused is to be guilty.
helps set a precedent for anyone accused of mishandling data classified at the highest levels.
Provided they have a chance of being in charge of the country (or know someone who is).
But for ordinary people, who would be financially ruined by the cost of a legal case and are therefore rail-roaded into a plea bargain, it's back to the usual: to be accused is to be guilty. Doncha just love an equal, impartial and fair justice system>
Especially when there's a 50:50 chance that she'd be in a position to rain down bucketloads of the brown stuff on any and every-one dumb enough to try it or who had any association (however remote) with the action.
So the plan is to use the extremely scarce water on the Moon to make hydrogen for rocket fuel. Since this is a "better" choice than making rocket fuel on Earth, which is two-thirds water?
This sounds like a very short-sighted proposition as it consumes a resource that could be put to far better use for lunar colonisation.
It also puts the nascent LEO -> "out there" transportation business at the financial mercy of whoever owns and controls the Moon-sourced fuel supply.
OK, I went to the page that explained about all the stuff that has changed. Some apps have been substituted for different ones. Different artwork. A new daemon or two. New themes. And some different ways of doing stuff.
But where is the list of things that I couldn't do on older releases, that I will be able to do now? What new opportunities does this release open up to me, as a user? What extra functions does this release have?
In short, where is the compelling case to spend time and effort to install this release?
Slashdot Mirror
The commission has also set a target for all European households to have access to download speeds of at least 100Mbps by 2025,
All this means is that ISPs will put a new, premium, service on their portfolios, priced at whatever it would cost them to install - or whatever they choose: either to make a killing from, or to discourage uptake.
There is nothing in this target to say the provision has to be affordable. So if an ISP in an out-of-the-way place, maybe halfway up a mountain, decides it would cost them €250,000 to provide their half-dozen subscribers with 100MBit/s connections, they would price the product accordingly.
As such, this is just a wish, but not a practical requirement that EU citizens must be given this sort of speed, for the tenner-a-month they are paying for "ordinary" broadband, now.
This is the exact same reason why companies don't train their (IT) staff. What is the point in spending money to make it easier for them to leave you?
Before deploying a "porn finding" dog, make sure to leave your collection in the police car.
The last thing you'd want to happen is the dog detects your thumb drive, or your phone - which given it's proximity is much more likely.
Or, worse: it detects your supervisor's phone / tablet / sd-card which then has to be taken in as evidence.
Yes, I know this mutt only detects residual fumes off electronics - if it actually "detects" anything at all that it's not pointed at. But the possibility of it grassing up its owner is too amusing.
C-level leadership is elected by the employees for a one-year term.
So how to "ordinary" employees (even ones from a recruitment company) know what qualities to look for in a C-level? Do they understand the legal obligations that C-levelship brings. Do they know what is possible or within scope for a particular "C"?
Or do they simply engage in a beauty contest and vote for people they like, or who make the biggest promises: "vote for me as your CEO and I'll give everyone a pay rise and annual bonus"
It all sounds lovely and group-huggy. But does it actually make the company more successful or a better place to work?
When you enjoyed someone's work, you leave them a tip
But so few articles are worth a dam'. Most aren't even worth the time spent reading them (so the authors should be compensating us for the time wasted by attractive headlines with content that fails to deliver).
However, we already have a system for rewarding authors who consistently produce worthwhile content that is good enough to explicitly seek out: subscriptions. Personally, I am still searching for a publication that produces enough of this high quality content to make the cost of their subs. reasonable. Having the occasional article - maybe one a week - that is relevant, authoritative and informative doesn't make up for all the time spent wading through (in this case: The Guardian) dross just to find it.
* It's been a long time since the last release
* We've put all the updates into a new version to save time updating old releases
* You can now download it from our website
* We fixed a load of bugs
* Auto installs are easier
* You can change the GUI
Is that it? What about new features? What would I be able to do with this release that I couldn't do with an old one? What new "super powers" will it give me?
If I was marketing a software tool intended for technical people, all the new functionality would be at the top of the list. Sure, techies want to download and install it easier, but if they were willing to jump through the hoops needed to install earlier versions, then making this faster doesn't sound like too big a deal. And as for different desktops ... we're all pretty much au fait with all of them now and you'd have to be rather "precious" to not use a tool because you didn't like the GUI.
Ireland should pay
If you read the actual story, it will tell you that the EU is insisting Apple pays the unpaid tax to Ireland
The american government fines european companies billions (BP, Volkswagen). Now the EU has started fining american companies in return.
It seems fair.
I reckon Dyson's comment is merely to conceal the real reason: young engineers are cheap.
There are plenty of them, they are easily manipulated into working long hours.
They are disposable (and "Not taking notice of experts" means your operation will soon go broke: reinventing every wheel that the experienced guys in the neighbouring companies just take, off the shelf).
I doubt that if Dyson had shareholders to worry about, he would take this view. But since the company is his own personal play-thing, he's welcome to spend his money as he pleases. But so far as products go, his company seems to have a problem learning from experience. Nobody I know who bought a "die-soon" vacuum cleaner would ever buy another Dyson product.
What good is a grand new economy if there's nothing in it that I can see myself getting paid to do?
This is the basic problem. All these futurology pieces extrapolate the supply side: what will be available, possible or substituting existing stuff. But none of them take the next step of analysing the demand side: asking who will be the customers for these advances?
Even if we end up removing all the manual manufacturing, office-based administration, transport and food production jobs, who will be able to afford trips in flying cars, or would need an AI in their pocket?
Even if we do get a UBI economy, will that basic income contain provision for computerised meds, and why would people with no prospect of a job - or more importantly: the children of people who don't / can't / will never work in their lives - ever need high quality online education (or any education at all)?
This list doesn't say why any of these things would be beneficial. Take self-driving cars (just because it's at the top of the pile). The benefits are not having to own your own vehicle, being able to get pissed out of your skull and still get home, better access for disabled people, not having to take a test, less congestion, sleeping on the way to work, not having to pay for the vehicle when you're not using it, not having to worry about it being broken - just send for another one.
These are what people will buy into the technology for, not simply to say "Look at me! I've got a driverless car" which seems to be the geek's motivation.
But when it comes to other items, such as AI, the benefits of raw, naked, AI are never stated. Will it really benefit Joe Average to have a computer in his / her / its pocket that is smarter than they are?
And a final point worth considering: how many of these "exciting" technologies will be centrally controlled?
Also works when a 23 year-old "expert" from one of the big consulting firms reports to the CIO that the servers are underutillised.
My reply was "certainly, what level of utilisation would you like?" but the grin on my face gave it away. It was then followed by a laymans explanation of utilisation vs. response times. And a decision that the consultancy wasn't in the company's best interests.
if Kim Dotcom were to ring the United States DoJ and request a lift to the US, he'd have a "courtesy plane" waiting to pick him up within the hour
Yes, and if he asked I am sure the DoJ would tell him why he wouldn't be needing a return ticket.
You will be given a fair trial, then executed
Even more to the point, how could he then afford to mount a defence against anything he is accused of, since his assets have been taken?
5G' will remain a marketing & industry term that companies will use as they see fit.
In that case we should start to see some marketing one-upmanship any day soon. With the advent of the marketing term that can be used as they see fit New!!!! 6G systems.
That philosophy also includes working out which jobs are worth doing and which are unnecessary or futile. An active person might clean their house every day. A lazy person might only do it when visitors are due. Which one is correct?
It is also worth noting that anyone who has read the Perl Book (one of life's necessities, no matter how lazy you are) already knows this.
as early as 2090, rates of ice loss at the site could exceed gains from new snowfall. And within a century after that, melting could begin to release waste
So in about 200 years, the people alive then will have something to worry about.
To put this into perspective, let's look back at the technology of 1816 and compare it with today's. Then we can assume at least the same level of advancement from now until 2216 (if not, then I would expect the world of that era would have bigger problems than some sewage and diesel at the North Pole) and what would seem like an issue today will be entirely manageable by then.
we had well designed UX experiences
Nope, a good UX is pure fantasy. I'm still waiting for one.
They all try to put too many options together. They all still have a pile of "miscellaneous" functions that all get lumped together. They still all use the technical / marketing terms of the designers (rather than the real-world experience descriptions of actual users). Almost none have sensible default settings or logically connected changes and it's a rarity to see them structured in any sort of workflow: good or bad. They always seem to be designed "logically" (captain) rather than with the most frequently used options the least number (i.e. 1) key-click away. And the layout of the remote control needed to operate them is frankly, awful.
all policy shall be based on the weight of evidence
for an economic policy is a disaster. There is no "weight of evidence" as every situation that a central bank, finance ministry or stock exchange would be unique.
However, simply by knowing that the country was following a "rational" policy means it would be gamed by all the "players" who could get access. Although it's doubtful that any actual people would get a look - since the automatic traders would dominate the day. Outsmarting a system like that would make taking candy from a baby look like hard work.
It does not financially ruin people when they are armed with legal precedent
Uh, huh. Except that hardly ever happens: In 2013, while 8 percent of all federal criminal charges were dismissed (either because of a mistake in fact or law or because the defendant had decided to cooperate), more than 97 percent of the remainder were resolved through plea bargains, and fewer than 3 percent went to trial.
For the overwhelming majority of people who come into contact with the "justice" system, to be accused is to be guilty.
helps set a precedent for anyone accused of mishandling data classified at the highest levels.
Provided they have a chance of being in charge of the country (or know someone who is).
But for ordinary people, who would be financially ruined by the cost of a legal case and are therefore rail-roaded into a plea bargain, it's back to the usual: to be accused is to be guilty. Doncha just love an equal, impartial and fair justice system>
no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Especially when there's a 50:50 chance that she'd be in a position to rain down bucketloads of the brown stuff on any and every-one dumb enough to try it or who had any association (however remote) with the action.
This sounds like a very short-sighted proposition as it consumes a resource that could be put to far better use for lunar colonisation.
It also puts the nascent LEO -> "out there" transportation business at the financial mercy of whoever owns and controls the Moon-sourced fuel supply.
But where is the list of things that I couldn't do on older releases, that I will be able to do now? What new opportunities does this release open up to me, as a user? What extra functions does this release have?
In short, where is the compelling case to spend time and effort to install this release?
Note: As per our maintenance policy, the release of Rails 5.0 will mean that bug fixes will only apply to 5.0.x
So all you have to do when you get too many bugs is to just roll a new release and magically your support obligations disappear. Excellent plan.