If the marketing people could not visualise the product to the customers how did they manage to sell it, that's a mystery to me. Did they sell empty promises [?]
Yes, that's what marketers do. They are bullsh8t artists.
Yes, users don't know what they want. And this is THEIR problem, not mine. After paying through the nose a few times, maybe they start thinking BEFORE ordering instead of ordering "something" and then keep patching and tinkering with it 'til it runs as stable as a pig on stilts.
Earth Living 101, Lesson #1: Humans are NOT rational.
And, they'll blame the technician for not reading their mind correctly.
I'm going to make a Trump-clone-robot factory, and send Trump-bots into all the countries who have workers displaced by robots, and the TrumpBots will fight for jobs bigly and fantastically! They'll know more about protecting jobs than the Generals and economists, who are losers and bad hombres.
Plus, mining is gradually being automated. The conveyor carts and trucks will probably be the first to be automated, some already so.
There's also progress in direct dirt-and-rock mining bots. Although they use some AI, they are also assisted remotely for the times the AI gets confused. One remote operator can assist several bots.
Blaming lopsided trade deals with other countries for job loss has some merit, but is a fading threat compared to automation. T is fighting yesterday's battle.
[NOTE: Slashdot's filter won't let me type the word "troll" too many times, so I'm using "T" instead in most cases.]
The most common definitions seem to be something like "someone who intends to agitate", which requires measuring "intent", which is not an objective metric (unless they admit it somewhere).
There's a continuum between "useful" trolls and people just being jerks for the sake jerk-hood. Socrates is an early example of a useful T: he made people think; jerks simply make everybody frustrated by playing word games or calling people names. Most those labelled T's are something in-between.
I've been called a T many times in software engineering forums where some blowhard claims that Tool/Methodology X is objectively the greatest thing since sliced bread. I push them to produce objective evidence, and they usually fail and get angry, and end up claiming "you are just not smart enough to get it". That's when you know you got them.
Objective evidence stands on its own. One doesn't have to "get" rocket science to see whether a rocket reached its destination of fell short. (Plus, a tool having a big learning curve is a problem in itself. It makes staffing harder for orgs.)
Such people make the common mistake of extrapolating their own thought processes to everybody else. Tool X may fit their own mind well, but everybody's brain is different. My pressure hopefully makes them realize this, or at least ponder it even if they don't immediately agree their evidence is subjective or poor.
For non-trivial projects, often users don't know what the hell they want. They may try to express it, but often express it poorly. After all, they are not experienced techies.
What they really want is to see it in production, or at least a decent mock-up. That way the impact of their decisions can be seen directly. And often one can devise a better way to do what they really want, but it can take a while to understand what they are really getting at.
Automation taking enough jobs to destabilize society is a real possibility. It can be a good thing when machines do most the grunt work.
However, if the wealth generated by machines is not sufficiently distributed, there will be major unrest. And idle people tend to get into trouble.
There may be plenty of work in monitoring machines, people with problems, politicians, etc., but our society is not set up to allocate resources to such tasks.
I don't know if the solution is "socialism" and make-work projects, or something else not fully defined yet. We can theorize until the cows come home, but it's new territory and nobody really knows the best societal solutions.
Change is always painful for at least some, and it's coming faster than ever.
The vast majority of 'consumers' have no idea what's going on 'under the hood' of the hardware and software tech they're using
Same with us in IT. Over time there's more layers. Just the other day someone was helping me diagnose app performance problems on a given server. She discovered a problem in the virtual-server-to-physical-server translation layer, related to the file system.
She was slinging server virtualization terms that were new to me. There's a new layer on the block and I know diddly squat about the details.
And we have to rely ever more on JavaScript libraries to get the eye-candy UI's executives want to see in web pages, including "responsive" for diff device sizes. I'd like to dig into how those libraries work, but I got too many other projects; so I have to blindly trust those libraries.
I was just reading about nostalgia for the Commodore-64 days among techies where one had almost full control of applications from machine-language and each pixel in the UI. I can see that other techies are also a bit unnerved by "layer-ification".
More turtles will hop on the stack, get used to it. Most of us IT mortals can only master a handful of turtles. Eventually even the Sheldon-memory-level techies won't be able to keep up on all IT turtles.
but it obviously does and I am going to try to figure out how." Insane (religious) people would say "It's magic! IT'S MAGIC! Believe in our supernatural sky daddy!".
That's a description of observers, not of "God". One group is more curious than the other.
Anyhow, this debate would probably get stuck in a never-ending exhibit of Laynes Law if continued.
Just going around Saturn is enough to produce the stresses that induce heat
Because its orbit is not particularly eccentric, that's too small a force to account for most the heat under the current models.
We have other moons and planets in the solar system to study heat and test our models on frictional tidal heating, internal nuclear decay, and mineral composition. Enceladus doesn't fit that data. Yes, it's possible there's something really different or odd about its composition, but nobody has identified such a configuration. It's still a puzzle.
Most heat theories seem to revolve around close encounters with nearby smaller moons caused by unstable orbits, perhaps related to the walnut shape of Iapetus, suggesting debris stress or "slow" collisions. The same force may even refresh the rings of Saturn. Seems there's a Dark Agitator near Saturn (cue spooky space music).
Indeed. I don't see any relationship between finding life on a moon and (traditional) deities. Scriptures say almost nothing concrete about outer space either way.
You literally can't prove or disprove God because there is no testable hypothesis.
I have to disagree. If a giant bearded guy showed up in all of Earth's telescopes and appeared to be at an infinite size at an infinite distance (no parallax detected with galaxy profiles visible in-between), and he turned Jupiter and Uranus plaid after promising to do so, that would be pretty good evidence of God, or at least "a god".
One could argue it's merely advanced alien technology, but the boundary between "supernatural" and advanced tech is rather blurry. If the Universe is a computer simulation/emulation, for example, the server owner is "God" for all intent and purposes from our perspective, fitting the traditional idea of "God". "Supernatural" could be relative.
"Are we an emulation?" is a valid scientific question and is potentially testable, or at least can potentially leave scientific clues.
Europa should be better hunting grounds than Enceladus because Europa has been similar to how it is now for probably most of its life. Enceladus's condition may merely be a coincidence in time: nobody really knows yet what heats Enceladus; its heat may be periodic or temporary.
But we know that tidal forces with Jupiter and its other big moons are what heats Europa. Its big neighboring moons have been around probably since the formation of the Jupiter system.
Europa's heat matches tidal models, meaning it probably had lots of time to evolve and nurture life. Saturn has only one big moon, Titan, and it's rather far from Enceladus, and thus not a notable tidal force.
Plus, Europa is much bigger than Enceladus, giving life more chances to form.
Slashdot Mirror
And bow-ties really are cameras
and, do you play the guitar?
Just blame it on the cat...or not
Yes, that's what marketers do. They are bullsh8t artists.
Earth Living 101, Lesson #1: Humans are NOT rational.
And, they'll blame the technician for not reading their mind correctly.
I'm going to make a Trump-clone-robot factory, and send Trump-bots into all the countries who have workers displaced by robots, and the TrumpBots will fight for jobs bigly and fantastically! They'll know more about protecting jobs than the Generals and economists, who are losers and bad hombres.
http://www.theonion.com/articl...
First, they hire a neckbeard without people skills...
That's a bunch of malar~ '^ #~ g^g^g^g^g @aa` a , % [NO CARRIER]
No problem! There will be no EPA to complain. Bring marshmallows and a red cap to the party.
I love the smell of dereg in the morning!
I'm not sure what you mean. Engineering and technician jobs? That's not exactly "coming back". Techie's are not T's common base.
Plus, the R&D may not be done in the same state as the mining. The R&D may even be done in China!
Plus, mining is gradually being automated. The conveyor carts and trucks will probably be the first to be automated, some already so.
There's also progress in direct dirt-and-rock mining bots. Although they use some AI, they are also assisted remotely for the times the AI gets confused. One remote operator can assist several bots.
Blaming lopsided trade deals with other countries for job loss has some merit, but is a fading threat compared to automation. T is fighting yesterday's battle.
Kudos for insulting them both. Ad hominems should be fair and balanced ;-)
There is no official clear definition of "troll".
[NOTE: Slashdot's filter won't let me type the word "troll" too many times, so I'm using "T" instead in most cases.]
The most common definitions seem to be something like "someone who intends to agitate", which requires measuring "intent", which is not an objective metric (unless they admit it somewhere).
There's a continuum between "useful" trolls and people just being jerks for the sake jerk-hood. Socrates is an early example of a useful T: he made people think; jerks simply make everybody frustrated by playing word games or calling people names. Most those labelled T's are something in-between.
I've been called a T many times in software engineering forums where some blowhard claims that Tool/Methodology X is objectively the greatest thing since sliced bread. I push them to produce objective evidence, and they usually fail and get angry, and end up claiming "you are just not smart enough to get it". That's when you know you got them.
Objective evidence stands on its own. One doesn't have to "get" rocket science to see whether a rocket reached its destination of fell short. (Plus, a tool having a big learning curve is a problem in itself. It makes staffing harder for orgs.)
Such people make the common mistake of extrapolating their own thought processes to everybody else. Tool X may fit their own mind well, but everybody's brain is different. My pressure hopefully makes them realize this, or at least ponder it even if they don't immediately agree their evidence is subjective or poor.
For non-trivial projects, often users don't know what the hell they want. They may try to express it, but often express it poorly. After all, they are not experienced techies.
What they really want is to see it in production, or at least a decent mock-up. That way the impact of their decisions can be seen directly. And often one can devise a better way to do what they really want, but it can take a while to understand what they are really getting at.
The worst features of tablets plus the worst of PC's: Microsoft at its "best".
English and JavaScript both suck rotting eggs from hell. Are we really stuck with them?
For some reason, the North Korean soccer team makes me nervous.
Like "Dark Matter"
Automation taking enough jobs to destabilize society is a real possibility. It can be a good thing when machines do most the grunt work.
However, if the wealth generated by machines is not sufficiently distributed, there will be major unrest. And idle people tend to get into trouble.
There may be plenty of work in monitoring machines, people with problems, politicians, etc., but our society is not set up to allocate resources to such tasks.
I don't know if the solution is "socialism" and make-work projects, or something else not fully defined yet. We can theorize until the cows come home, but it's new territory and nobody really knows the best societal solutions.
Change is always painful for at least some, and it's coming faster than ever.
Same with us in IT. Over time there's more layers. Just the other day someone was helping me diagnose app performance problems on a given server. She discovered a problem in the virtual-server-to-physical-server translation layer, related to the file system.
She was slinging server virtualization terms that were new to me. There's a new layer on the block and I know diddly squat about the details.
And we have to rely ever more on JavaScript libraries to get the eye-candy UI's executives want to see in web pages, including "responsive" for diff device sizes. I'd like to dig into how those libraries work, but I got too many other projects; so I have to blindly trust those libraries.
I was just reading about nostalgia for the Commodore-64 days among techies where one had almost full control of applications from machine-language and each pixel in the UI. I can see that other techies are also a bit unnerved by "layer-ification".
More turtles will hop on the stack, get used to it. Most of us IT mortals can only master a handful of turtles. Eventually even the Sheldon-memory-level techies won't be able to keep up on all IT turtles.
That's a description of observers, not of "God". One group is more curious than the other.
Anyhow, this debate would probably get stuck in a never-ending exhibit of Laynes Law if continued.
Because its orbit is not particularly eccentric, that's too small a force to account for most the heat under the current models.
We have other moons and planets in the solar system to study heat and test our models on frictional tidal heating, internal nuclear decay, and mineral composition. Enceladus doesn't fit that data. Yes, it's possible there's something really different or odd about its composition, but nobody has identified such a configuration. It's still a puzzle.
Most heat theories seem to revolve around close encounters with nearby smaller moons caused by unstable orbits, perhaps related to the walnut shape of Iapetus, suggesting debris stress or "slow" collisions. The same force may even refresh the rings of Saturn. Seems there's a Dark Agitator near Saturn (cue spooky space music).
Indeed. I don't see any relationship between finding life on a moon and (traditional) deities. Scriptures say almost nothing concrete about outer space either way.
I have to disagree. If a giant bearded guy showed up in all of Earth's telescopes and appeared to be at an infinite size at an infinite distance (no parallax detected with galaxy profiles visible in-between), and he turned Jupiter and Uranus plaid after promising to do so, that would be pretty good evidence of God, or at least "a god".
One could argue it's merely advanced alien technology, but the boundary between "supernatural" and advanced tech is rather blurry. If the Universe is a computer simulation/emulation, for example, the server owner is "God" for all intent and purposes from our perspective, fitting the traditional idea of "God". "Supernatural" could be relative.
"Are we an emulation?" is a valid scientific question and is potentially testable, or at least can potentially leave scientific clues.
Europa should be better hunting grounds than Enceladus because Europa has been similar to how it is now for probably most of its life. Enceladus's condition may merely be a coincidence in time: nobody really knows yet what heats Enceladus; its heat may be periodic or temporary.
But we know that tidal forces with Jupiter and its other big moons are what heats Europa. Its big neighboring moons have been around probably since the formation of the Jupiter system.
Europa's heat matches tidal models, meaning it probably had lots of time to evolve and nurture life. Saturn has only one big moon, Titan, and it's rather far from Enceladus, and thus not a notable tidal force.
Plus, Europa is much bigger than Enceladus, giving life more chances to form.