with deliciousness. That is a learned behavior, drilled into you by people who
Wrong. I eat what I like and don't eat what I don't like. I've seen gajillion ads for shit I still don't like. If gajillion ads won't make me like it, 100 gajillion won't either.
Oligopolies and monopolies typically lose their competitive edge once they reach the top of the hill.
They get fat, happy, and entrenched in their ways and cannot undo the bad habits until things are so bad that they have no other choice but to change. By that time the company is usually too deep to be saved.
It's kind of like somebody not changing their bad diet until they have a debilitating stroke. However, the equivalent of a stroke in Big Co-ville is bankruptcy.
Rinse, die, repeat.
IBM was very lucky to have a decent second life in the late 90's. But it was largely because their consulting side was a mostly a new team, who were still fresh and hungry. Whether they'll get a 3rd chance will be interesting to see...
How is that different from many patents? The hard part is often experimenting and testing, NOT the construction itself.
For example, Thomas Edison tested thousands of materials before he settled on the best one for his new light bulbs. The actual manufacturing of the filament was relatively mundane.
And as maintenance coders, sometimes we find the solution to a bug is one line of code. Newbie managers then balk at paying so much for changing one line. You then tell them the hard part is finding and knowing which line to change, not changing the line itself.
director, James Comey, said last week that the agency paid more to get into the iPhone 5C than he will make in the remaining seven years and four months he has in his job, suggesting the hack cost more than $1.3m, based on his annual salary.
Good, he's shown he's not smart enough to deserve more.
A) A vehicle for spam (from which MS expects a slice of ad revenue) B) Active-X "2.0" with more security holes than Swiss-cheese after a shotgun attack C) An attempt by MS to create an MS-controlled internet D) All of the above
Even in.Net one often spends a lot of time dealing with the screwy HTML/JS/CSS/DOM stack and UI issues rather than focus on domain logic itself.
Every stupid device renders the UI different enough or handles JS/DOM actions different enough to create headaches.
We should learn from desktop kits and use coordinate vectors and server-side formatting instead of client-side formatting/layout, as I ranted about a month ago. Client-side layout formatting is evil.
The Web is labor drain for devs. Sure, it gets us a nice paycheck, but is not economically rational beyond ourselves.
We are doing it wrong! I would much rather solve domain needs than micromanage UI's. I'd feel productive and helpful again rather than a slave of DOM.
The house-price issue is interesting. Part of the problem is that you can't manufacture more housing with ever more efficient machines: it's the location that matters and machines don't make land (although make-island projects are kind of doing that).
Thus, the technology advances that make cars and gizmos get cheaper over time (relative to inflation) don't do the same for housing.
People want to be close enough to work to not have a crappy commute, yet have a decent-sized house. The volume of real-estate that satisfies that is mostly fixed.
We could pass laws to reduce real-estate speculation by investors, but I don't think that will make much of a dent. The real problem is that it's a fixed resource among a growing population.
Nonsense on your nonsense claim. To MOST people, healthy foods do not taste very good.
I would note the definition/criteria of "healthy" is subject to long debate.
That being said, I'm okay with gov't programs to encourage the distribution of healthier foods, such as fresh fruit. I'm skeptical that will resolve obesity, but it has OTHER health benefits.
Also, what we consider common fruits have been bred to have too much sugar, which is almost as bad as soda sugar. If we re-bred them without so much sugar, less people would eat them.
Machines are "willing" to make potentially endless material wealth, but a bottleneck of funds at the top prevents most people from taking advantage of this ability. Why settle for a clogged system? I don't see the logic in that. Please explain the logic in leaving it clogged.
"Because it sucked more in the past" is NOT a reason to NOT tune the current system for better performance. That's dusty bureaucrat thinking.
I can tell you the source. McDonalds and other fast food.
I have to disagree. The calorie density of the food itself does NOT appear to be the cause of obesity when careful studies are done.
The only reason "healthy" food makes people lose weight is because it tastes like crap. Eating bad-tasting food indeed is an appetite suppressor, resulting in some weight loss. You can demonstrate the extreme of this by shitting in a hamburger: nobody will eat it.
It's the yumminess that makes a burger fattening, not fat, per se.
Humans evolved to be farmers or hunters/gatherers. That's 90%+ of our past, and natural selection shaped us for that. Desk-jobs and cars throw that out of whack. We are designed to be physically active more than half the day, and if we go against this, we get chubby.
The standard of living of an unemployed person in a country such as the United States is FAR better than an unemployed person in a poverty-stricken nation.
I hardly call that a solid measure of success. That's almost like somebody in the middle ages saying, "At least we know how to heal with leaches sometimes. Sumerians didn't have that knowledge and died more often."
And unemployment is only going to get worse. That's even less consuming over time.
It IS trickling down to consumers in ways that are difficult to measure.
So difficult that nobody can articulate them well, it seems.
As the free market will adjust by lower prices which in turn mean more people can now spend money on more products and it will equalize again as long as we do not do anything about it like government interference.
The lower manufacturing price likely won't offset the loss of spending money caused by not having a job. Even now, typically less than half the price of manufactured goods is manufacturing itself. If factory bots were 100% efficient, the cost of goods would thus drop to half of what they are now at best, but incomes would be dropping to roughly 1/8 of current salaries.
Something doesn't add up about your theory. The savings is failing to trickle-down to rank and file consumers for some reason. A pipe is clogged somewhere.
It appears we'll have to shift to more socialism and/or wealth redistribution. I don't see nearly enough "new wave" jobs to replace factory and routine service jobs. And many of the "high brow" jobs are being offshored to India etc. also.
The theory that new technology always creates enough new jobs to offset the automation-related losses is likely dead in the water. It was an observed pattern, not a inherent "law". Moore's "law" also seems to be petering out, showing that past trends don't always guarantee the same future trends. Those "laws" are turning out not to be laws.
To keep people busy and alert, some form of "workfare" may be needed, whereby those receiving public assistance are required to perform say 20 hours of community service a week. This may be helping the elderly, gardening for public buildings, picking up litter, day care, neighborhood security patrol, jury duty, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Bad art
Wrong. I eat what I like and don't eat what I don't like. I've seen gajillion ads for shit I still don't like. If gajillion ads won't make me like it, 100 gajillion won't either.
Googlework Orange
Put a Commadore-64 emulator on it
Hold on here, there's hopefully a happy medium between the two.
Oligopolies and monopolies typically lose their competitive edge once they reach the top of the hill.
They get fat, happy, and entrenched in their ways and cannot undo the bad habits until things are so bad that they have no other choice but to change. By that time the company is usually too deep to be saved.
It's kind of like somebody not changing their bad diet until they have a debilitating stroke. However, the equivalent of a stroke in Big Co-ville is bankruptcy.
Rinse, die, repeat.
IBM was very lucky to have a decent second life in the late 90's. But it was largely because their consulting side was a mostly a new team, who were still fresh and hungry. Whether they'll get a 3rd chance will be interesting to see...
Bleep happens. Live and Learn to avoid it again.
How is that different from many patents? The hard part is often experimenting and testing, NOT the construction itself.
For example, Thomas Edison tested thousands of materials before he settled on the best one for his new light bulbs. The actual manufacturing of the filament was relatively mundane.
And as maintenance coders, sometimes we find the solution to a bug is one line of code. Newbie managers then balk at paying so much for changing one line. You then tell them the hard part is finding and knowing which line to change, not changing the line itself.
Good, he's shown he's not smart enough to deserve more.
I'm not sure we want high density. It's a terrorist and disease risk, and also complicates emergency evacuation.
They are called weasels for a weason.
I bet it's one of:
A) A vehicle for spam (from which MS expects a slice of ad revenue)
B) Active-X "2.0" with more security holes than Swiss-cheese after a shotgun attack
C) An attempt by MS to create an MS-controlled internet
D) All of the above
Even in .Net one often spends a lot of time dealing with the screwy HTML/JS/CSS/DOM stack and UI issues rather than focus on domain logic itself.
Every stupid device renders the UI different enough or handles JS/DOM actions different enough to create headaches.
We should learn from desktop kits and use coordinate vectors and server-side formatting instead of client-side formatting/layout, as I ranted about a month ago. Client-side layout formatting is evil.
The Web is labor drain for devs. Sure, it gets us a nice paycheck, but is not economically rational beyond ourselves.
We are doing it wrong! I would much rather solve domain needs than micromanage UI's. I'd feel productive and helpful again rather than a slave of DOM.
The house-price issue is interesting. Part of the problem is that you can't manufacture more housing with ever more efficient machines: it's the location that matters and machines don't make land (although make-island projects are kind of doing that).
Thus, the technology advances that make cars and gizmos get cheaper over time (relative to inflation) don't do the same for housing.
People want to be close enough to work to not have a crappy commute, yet have a decent-sized house. The volume of real-estate that satisfies that is mostly fixed.
We could pass laws to reduce real-estate speculation by investors, but I don't think that will make much of a dent. The real problem is that it's a fixed resource among a growing population.
Nonsense on your nonsense claim. To MOST people, healthy foods do not taste very good.
I would note the definition/criteria of "healthy" is subject to long debate.
That being said, I'm okay with gov't programs to encourage the distribution of healthier foods, such as fresh fruit. I'm skeptical that will resolve obesity, but it has OTHER health benefits.
Also, what we consider common fruits have been bred to have too much sugar, which is almost as bad as soda sugar. If we re-bred them without so much sugar, less people would eat them.
Machines are "willing" to make potentially endless material wealth, but a bottleneck of funds at the top prevents most people from taking advantage of this ability. Why settle for a clogged system? I don't see the logic in that. Please explain the logic in leaving it clogged.
"Because it sucked more in the past" is NOT a reason to NOT tune the current system for better performance. That's dusty bureaucrat thinking.
Could Tor get around that clause by indicating the server is "somewhere in Nebraska"?
This guy is ahead of the curve
I have to disagree. The calorie density of the food itself does NOT appear to be the cause of obesity when careful studies are done.
The only reason "healthy" food makes people lose weight is because it tastes like crap. Eating bad-tasting food indeed is an appetite suppressor, resulting in some weight loss. You can demonstrate the extreme of this by shitting in a hamburger: nobody will eat it.
It's the yumminess that makes a burger fattening, not fat, per se.
Humans evolved to be farmers or hunters/gatherers. That's 90%+ of our past, and natural selection shaped us for that. Desk-jobs and cars throw that out of whack. We are designed to be physically active more than half the day, and if we go against this, we get chubby.
Do I take radiation pills for an iodine accident?
That is the BEST sociological explanation of Trump's popularity I have seen yet.
"We are only semi-barbarians now" is not a strong selling point
I hardly call that a solid measure of success. That's almost like somebody in the middle ages saying, "At least we know how to heal with leaches sometimes. Sumerians didn't have that knowledge and died more often."
And unemployment is only going to get worse. That's even less consuming over time.
So difficult that nobody can articulate them well, it seems.
The lower manufacturing price likely won't offset the loss of spending money caused by not having a job. Even now, typically less than half the price of manufactured goods is manufacturing itself. If factory bots were 100% efficient, the cost of goods would thus drop to half of what they are now at best, but incomes would be dropping to roughly 1/8 of current salaries.
Something doesn't add up about your theory. The savings is failing to trickle-down to rank and file consumers for some reason. A pipe is clogged somewhere.
It appears we'll have to shift to more socialism and/or wealth redistribution. I don't see nearly enough "new wave" jobs to replace factory and routine service jobs. And many of the "high brow" jobs are being offshored to India etc. also.
The theory that new technology always creates enough new jobs to offset the automation-related losses is likely dead in the water. It was an observed pattern, not a inherent "law". Moore's "law" also seems to be petering out, showing that past trends don't always guarantee the same future trends. Those "laws" are turning out not to be laws.
To keep people busy and alert, some form of "workfare" may be needed, whereby those receiving public assistance are required to perform say 20 hours of community service a week. This may be helping the elderly, gardening for public buildings, picking up litter, day care, neighborhood security patrol, jury duty, etc.
If you have an alternative, I'm all ears.