Part of the reason this "story" got play is that it contained a partial truth. CNN did actually inadvertently air a very short segment having mild nudity, or at least "ambiguous" nudity, not "30 minutes" as the fake story claimed.
A lot of dodgy news stories are like that: they contain enough truth to give it some legitimacy and to make it hard to outright refute. Disputes are nuanced, and nuanced doesn't sell and spread in the age of sound-bites.
Another common example was Hillary's alleged "illegal server". It had not been found illegal in the court of law, but some legal experts claim they can make the case it would be determined illegal if a full trial happened. (The State Dept. policy manual is not considered official Federal law by itself.)
But generally if you go by "innocent until proven guilty", then it's premature to call it "illegal". But being "possibly" illegal is enough to make it difficult to summarily say such phrasing is outright wrong.
Fucking up every part of the American economy, one step at a time.
Maybe some disruption is good. It's hard to see how yet, but I'm hoping his ad-hoc trial-and-error style will accidentally find new optimums, like a genetic algorithm.
I realize there's a good chance this view is wrong and that he turns out to be a bull in a china shop (pun half-intended), but I'll keep an open mind.
Trump is such an unusual specimen that we don't have enough precedents to say what will actually happen. Get some pop-corn, and enjoy the Great American Experiment. (Just don't forget the safety goggles.)
Whatever happens, it will make for a Yuuuuge entry in future history books. You can brag to your grand-children that you witnessed and (hopefully) survived this most notable period of history.
China will never innovate until there's a culture change. In China, decisions come from the top. Those below do what they are told and do not challenge authority...This has been engrained in Chinese culture for centuries...
While true for large companies, entrepreneurship is alive and well there. If you don't like what the boss is doing, become your own boss.
They are arguably even more innovative because they are less burdened by the over-broad patent laws/judges we have. They are freer to mix and match technologies. Our patent system is killing us. It arguably made sense in Edison's day, but software is different.
The one advantage of the Chinese setup is you don't get a demagogue rising to the top purely by promising the ignorant and hateful everything they hope to get...
Apparently you didn't study the birth of communism or the later "Cultural Revolution".
If factory automation gets inexpensive enough that it starts replacing all those factory workers in China, the country will again be ripe for some potentially ugly revolutions and demagogues. The Chinese citizens have shown multiple times they are not afraid of protesting and civil resistance, at least.
Remember, China is (nominally) left wing, so for the deluded liberal left, just as with the Cuban regime, it can do no wrong. Human rights violations, oppression of free speech, torture? So what, who cares.
You are confusing political system with economic system. The dichotomies of the 1950's are mostly dead. Capitalist economies can and do have authoritarian political systems, and socialistic economies can and do have a democratic political system.
As far as what kind of economy China has, it looks pretty mixed to me. They didn't become the manufacturing power-house they are using mere socialism.
No one on Slashdot would ever promote right wing conspiracy theories! How absurd...
As an experiment let's start GoatGate: Facetweet that goat.se is really a QR-Code to get access info to a Roswell warehouse where Obama stores saucers to be launched to collect all guns.
I can just imagine all the suckers trying to scan that image with their phone at gun parties.
(Warning: if you don't know what I'm talking about, google with browser images switched off. Trust me.)
They have shitty evidence - But John Podesta does like to bugger little children. You can tell because he looks like an old man version of a programmer.
You seem to be of the belief that IF we all grow up being jerks to each other, calling each other slant-eyes, spicks, crackers, coons, etc. then we'll all grow thick skins and tolerate jerkihood.
I'm going to resist criticizing that perspective because culture is ultimately subjective: science and math do not give us a definitive answer to what is "good". At its very best, it can only tell us the trade-offs. You are NOT going to find an equation proving you are right; your nerd skills will fail you here.
Regardless, a culture is a culture and such statements are offensive in "blue" areas for good or bad just like nudity is highly offensive in the Bible Belt. Yes, I can go and lecture the Bible Belt and tell them their book is likely a fairy tale and that they are "doing it wrong". But it won't work. They are what they are, logic or not.
Compromise to co-exist, or split up. You are NOT going to "fix" the other culture.
Does the pressure actually create a hole(s), or merely push the electrolyte layer so hard that the distance between the parts with current grows temporarily too thin and hot?
And, why didn't testing catch this? Wouldn't one typically squeeze some test phones at different angles until they actually go bad to see where the thresholds and failures are? Or did manufacturing put in bad distances, or design left tolerances unrealistic for manufacturing to meet?
I realize you weren't there, I'm just asking what's typically done or expected in such design labs.
I wonder if marketing pressure triggered a VW/Wells-Fargo-like situation where there's pressure on the engineers to cheat by skipping or ignoring tests.
Maybe they need to learn or be taught how to break their code or logic into smaller sub-sections. They may be biting off chunks bigger than their brain can digest and get themselves into knots.
Maybe also teach them to create "trace codes" that document the logic paths a result took. Append them to a string that can be used for debugging. For example, if an amount is chopped because it exceeds State Law X's max, then append ",state-law-X-max" to the trace string so that they can know that particular rule was triggered in producing the results. I do this myself if there are a lot of potential business rules in between a result. Very helpful.
If it doesn't hurt performance much, even store the trace strings in the database result(s).
Why are there not physical insulators between the "risky" parts instead of merely air gaps? I'm not a psychical* engineer, so am I missing something? Do physical protection layers reduce cooling or something?
* I don't mean I'm virtual, but that I don't engineer physical stuff. Software.
Doesn't work where? Us "blue" people are offended by his statements and offended by people who give him a pass on them whether you want us to be or not. YOUR half of the nation may think it's fine, but my half doesn't, and we are not happy about it. The Culture War has intensified, for good or bad.
The "traditional" way economists think about automation is that it frees up people to work on other tasks and services that others want.
And I'm not entirely sure we have reached or approached some "automation singularity" where this pattern is no longer true. There still a lot of manual or semi-manual tasks and services I'd like as a consumer if I had the money and/or time: our needs and wants are almost infinite. For example, there's a lot of half-broken stuff around our house that I either don't know how to fix or don't want to take the time to learn. If I had more money, I'd get it fixed.
We may have to change our economic system to redistribute the flow of wealth toward regular consumers so that they can realistically request such services. Thanks to machines, the potential capacity for production is greatly expanding, but there is some mysterious log-jam keeping most consumers from tapping into this potential productivity explosion. I'll call this "dark demand" as the economic equivalent of "dark matter" or "dark energy".
We may have to economically experiment to move past this log-jam. It may require taxing the rich, Helicopter Money*, a combo, or something else entirely. Politicians may have to admit they don't really know the solution and have to experiment.
That's a tricky political presentation, but the alternative is either stagnation and possibly riots and war. It's probably better to live with the risk of experimentation. Sticking with the status quo is also experimentation such that experimenting will happen one way or another.
Maybe different countries can volunteer to try different things, and mutually agree to bail out the fellow experimenters if the the experiment fails in one country: pool the risk of experimenting. Deregulation and tax-cuts can also be tried by a member; that will make conservatives happy (hopefully without pollution and safety risk.)
One can theorize until they are blue in the face; ultimately ya gotta test in the real world.
* Inflation has remained sub-par for almost 2 decades. The best economies run at around 2.3% annual inflation, but we are stuck at around 1.8%, and that stumps analysts. Automation is perhaps the main reason for this: the capacity ceiling is higher than they think, for inflation only tends to go up if the economy approaches max productivity.
Unless "those evil media people" sound-edited T's statements or I somehow missed the "real" context after checking multiple sources, I have to take what T actually says as his own words.
Slashdot Mirror
That story was actually true if you remove the word "bus".
Part of the reason this "story" got play is that it contained a partial truth. CNN did actually inadvertently air a very short segment having mild nudity, or at least "ambiguous" nudity, not "30 minutes" as the fake story claimed.
A lot of dodgy news stories are like that: they contain enough truth to give it some legitimacy and to make it hard to outright refute. Disputes are nuanced, and nuanced doesn't sell and spread in the age of sound-bites.
Another common example was Hillary's alleged "illegal server". It had not been found illegal in the court of law, but some legal experts claim they can make the case it would be determined illegal if a full trial happened. (The State Dept. policy manual is not considered official Federal law by itself.)
But generally if you go by "innocent until proven guilty", then it's premature to call it "illegal". But being "possibly" illegal is enough to make it difficult to summarily say such phrasing is outright wrong.
Maybe some disruption is good. It's hard to see how yet, but I'm hoping his ad-hoc trial-and-error style will accidentally find new optimums, like a genetic algorithm.
I realize there's a good chance this view is wrong and that he turns out to be a bull in a china shop (pun half-intended), but I'll keep an open mind.
Trump is such an unusual specimen that we don't have enough precedents to say what will actually happen. Get some pop-corn, and enjoy the Great American Experiment. (Just don't forget the safety goggles.)
Whatever happens, it will make for a Yuuuuge entry in future history books. You can brag to your grand-children that you witnessed and (hopefully) survived this most notable period of history.
While true for large companies, entrepreneurship is alive and well there. If you don't like what the boss is doing, become your own boss.
They are arguably even more innovative because they are less burdened by the over-broad patent laws/judges we have. They are freer to mix and match technologies. Our patent system is killing us. It arguably made sense in Edison's day, but software is different.
Apparently you didn't study the birth of communism or the later "Cultural Revolution".
If factory automation gets inexpensive enough that it starts replacing all those factory workers in China, the country will again be ripe for some potentially ugly revolutions and demagogues. The Chinese citizens have shown multiple times they are not afraid of protesting and civil resistance, at least.
You are confusing political system with economic system. The dichotomies of the 1950's are mostly dead. Capitalist economies can and do have authoritarian political systems, and socialistic economies can and do have a democratic political system.
As far as what kind of economy China has, it looks pretty mixed to me. They didn't become the manufacturing power-house they are using mere socialism.
...what could possibly go wrong?
As an experiment let's start GoatGate: Facetweet that goat.se is really a QR-Code to get access info to a Roswell warehouse where Obama stores saucers to be launched to collect all guns.
I can just imagine all the suckers trying to scan that image with their phone at gun parties.
(Warning: if you don't know what I'm talking about, google with browser images switched off. Trust me.)
Suspect: "But that's how they do it in the movies..."
"Psst, kid, wanna try Linux? It's free..."
How about we scale up Jade Helm conspiracies to scare right-wing wackos right out of the country altogether.
You darn Social Tolerance Warriors! The Mobile Media has lied to you snowflakes! That's not fire, that's his hair.
But a solid insulator in theory makes it much harder for both sides of the bread to meet in the middle of the sandwich when pressure is applied.
(I shouldn't attempt analogies while hungry.)
You seem to be of the belief that IF we all grow up being jerks to each other, calling each other slant-eyes, spicks, crackers, coons, etc. then we'll all grow thick skins and tolerate jerkihood.
I'm going to resist criticizing that perspective because culture is ultimately subjective: science and math do not give us a definitive answer to what is "good". At its very best, it can only tell us the trade-offs. You are NOT going to find an equation proving you are right; your nerd skills will fail you here.
Regardless, a culture is a culture and such statements are offensive in "blue" areas for good or bad just like nudity is highly offensive in the Bible Belt. Yes, I can go and lecture the Bible Belt and tell them their book is likely a fairy tale and that they are "doing it wrong". But it won't work. They are what they are, logic or not.
Compromise to co-exist, or split up. You are NOT going to "fix" the other culture.
Mechanical engineers will be replaced by mechanical engineers.
Back to seriousness, battery design would be a combination of mechanical and electrical engineering, wouldn't it?
Does the pressure actually create a hole(s), or merely push the electrolyte layer so hard that the distance between the parts with current grows temporarily too thin and hot?
And, why didn't testing catch this? Wouldn't one typically squeeze some test phones at different angles until they actually go bad to see where the thresholds and failures are? Or did manufacturing put in bad distances, or design left tolerances unrealistic for manufacturing to meet?
I realize you weren't there, I'm just asking what's typically done or expected in such design labs.
I wonder if marketing pressure triggered a VW/Wells-Fargo-like situation where there's pressure on the engineers to cheat by skipping or ignoring tests.
Maybe they need to learn or be taught how to break their code or logic into smaller sub-sections. They may be biting off chunks bigger than their brain can digest and get themselves into knots.
Maybe also teach them to create "trace codes" that document the logic paths a result took. Append them to a string that can be used for debugging. For example, if an amount is chopped because it exceeds State Law X's max, then append ",state-law-X-max" to the trace string so that they can know that particular rule was triggered in producing the results. I do this myself if there are a lot of potential business rules in between a result. Very helpful.
If it doesn't hurt performance much, even store the trace strings in the database result(s).
Correction, I meant "physical engineer". But if you were a psychical engineer, you'd know that already.
Why are there not physical insulators between the "risky" parts instead of merely air gaps? I'm not a psychical* engineer, so am I missing something? Do physical protection layers reduce cooling or something?
* I don't mean I'm virtual, but that I don't engineer physical stuff. Software.
Doesn't work where? Us "blue" people are offended by his statements and offended by people who give him a pass on them whether you want us to be or not. YOUR half of the nation may think it's fine, but my half doesn't, and we are not happy about it. The Culture War has intensified, for good or bad.
When you have a name like "Drupal", you don't want to be associated with sex at all.
That's utterly ridic
Similar record, yes. Shuuuddup
The "traditional" way economists think about automation is that it frees up people to work on other tasks and services that others want.
And I'm not entirely sure we have reached or approached some "automation singularity" where this pattern is no longer true. There still a lot of manual or semi-manual tasks and services I'd like as a consumer if I had the money and/or time: our needs and wants are almost infinite. For example, there's a lot of half-broken stuff around our house that I either don't know how to fix or don't want to take the time to learn. If I had more money, I'd get it fixed.
We may have to change our economic system to redistribute the flow of wealth toward regular consumers so that they can realistically request such services. Thanks to machines, the potential capacity for production is greatly expanding, but there is some mysterious log-jam keeping most consumers from tapping into this potential productivity explosion. I'll call this "dark demand" as the economic equivalent of "dark matter" or "dark energy".
We may have to economically experiment to move past this log-jam. It may require taxing the rich, Helicopter Money*, a combo, or something else entirely. Politicians may have to admit they don't really know the solution and have to experiment.
That's a tricky political presentation, but the alternative is either stagnation and possibly riots and war. It's probably better to live with the risk of experimentation. Sticking with the status quo is also experimentation such that experimenting will happen one way or another.
Maybe different countries can volunteer to try different things, and mutually agree to bail out the fellow experimenters if the the experiment fails in one country: pool the risk of experimenting. Deregulation and tax-cuts can also be tried by a member; that will make conservatives happy (hopefully without pollution and safety risk.)
One can theorize until they are blue in the face; ultimately ya gotta test in the real world.
* Inflation has remained sub-par for almost 2 decades. The best economies run at around 2.3% annual inflation, but we are stuck at around 1.8%, and that stumps analysts. Automation is perhaps the main reason for this: the capacity ceiling is higher than they think, for inflation only tends to go up if the economy approaches max productivity.
Unless "those evil media people" sound-edited T's statements or I somehow missed the "real" context after checking multiple sources, I have to take what T actually says as his own words.