0
stringlengths 9
22.1k
|
|---|
You've obviously never had the displeasure of working for a shitty company.
If you go against company culture, you will find yourself in a very difficult position indeed. Disgruntled co-workers and pissed-off bosses will make your life hell and they will find a reason to get rid of you without having to pay up. Hell, if things get bad enough you yourself will have to quit without getting any kind of compensation and certainly no positive recommendation. |
I've not tried it but looking at one of their source links there seem to be a lot of caveats to offline which for me would make it pretty useless (but sounds like it will change):
Source link:
Only works in chrome
Can only read docs and spreadsheets offline, no editing
Offline GMail uses a completely different app and interface to online GMail (really don't see how this is going to work for me on a connection that keeps dropping out which is my usual issue when travelling)
Read and reply to calendar requests offline but can't create new calendar entries |
Ok. I'll bite. I cover lots of songs. Sometimes with different chords, harmonies, melodies, and even some of my own lyrics. By the time I'm playing it live it is MY song. I know it's different with some guy playing Jimmy Buffet covers at a Mexican restaurant. But you know what, how the fuck can you "own" a song. It's like saying I can't recite poetry, or the idea from a book I read earlier that night. And as much as you can argue that the artist created the lyrics and melody and chords on their own, I can assure you they didn't. The chords are a standard progression. The melody a snippet they heard as a child and have had rolling around in their head. The lyrics are just an arrangement of re-hashed ideas they've heard from other songs. Music is a living tradition that's passed down and built upon by every generation. Song writers simply distill and inflect their own feelings and ideas into their art. Saying they are solely responsible for it is like saying Einstein is responsible for modern physics; irregardless of the giants shoulders he stood on.
Furthermore, what does society lose from people playing covers? Not a damn thing. The original artist benefits more from it than they lose. Sublime probably gets a ton of new fans from the young and uninitiated who hear them at karaoke night or from a cover band. Licensing is drops in a bucket compared to traditional revenue streams, for the artist at least. And live music is great for the record industry. It creates fans. People that buy music and go to shows. Shit, they should be paying people to play covers. "Here is $20 bucks kid, now get up there and play that new song by XXX. We need to build some buzz and street cred." But no, they saw some obscure loop hole that'll get the executives a new sports cars, and they took it. |
My father is aware that he can keep the AOL email address, he just likes the AOL software for some reason. I've told him I can configure Firefox to open up to aol.com by default and he said the small amount he pays for AOL isn't a problem.
Ultimately, I'd like him to stop paying but as long as he's happy and can afford it (which he can - if it were a scenario where it was AOL or food I'd feel different) so I'm just glad he's happy. After all, I love my dad! : ) |
Dial-up Magic + Juno = my entire puberty](
Seriously, when I was a kid and learning to program free Juno was my only option for research/reading due to overly oppressive parents who claimed the internet would ruin me...(they never allowed me on their AOL account, and even broadband when we got it) Long story short I've been a web applications developer for 5+ years now and when I bring it up with my family they turn bright red in their absolute ignorance and stupidity.
I would stay up until midnight consistently to ensure that no one was using the phone-line. The entire family was none-the-wiser to my internet usage and you could blame my poor grades on the fact that I only had a four hour window to use the internet securely from 12:00am - 4:00am without getting my ass beat - I would program starting at 8:00pm, start downloading documents/source and researching at 12:00am, pass out at 4:00am, and sleep through the entire day of class. |
You got that right. I worked for AOL for a couple of years and was given a free account if I wanted it. I had to sign up like everyone else, then email my user ID to HR and they would put the flag on the account so I wouldn't be billed. I signed into the account once or twice when I first signed in and never again. Fast forward two years later and the centre I worked at was closing down to be moved to Bangalore and I get laid off. A couple of months later I am looking on my statement and sure enough, there was a charge for AOL there. I checked my statements and they took 3 payments before I noticed. I called and explained my situation and the guy even saw that I never used the account, but would not credit me the months I was out. He was nice enough too cancel service without any rebuttals though. |
I said who invented the Internet not the web.
>The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), was the world's first operational packet switching network and the core network of a set that came to compose the global Internet. The network was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) of the United States Department of Defense for use by its projects at universities and research laboratories in the US. The packet switching of the ARPANET was based on designs by Lawrence Roberts of the Lincoln Laboratory. In 1982 the Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP) was standardized and the concept of a world-wide network of fully interconnected TCP/IP networks called the Internet was introduced. After the ARPANET had been up and running for several years, ARPA looked for another agency to hand off the network to; ARPA's primary mission was funding cutting edge research and development, not running a communications utility. Eventually, in July 1975, the network had been turned over to the Defense Communications Agency, also part of the Department of Defense. In 1983, the U.S. military portion of the ARPANET was broken off as a separate network, the MILNET. MILNET subsequently became the unclassified but military-only NIPRNET, in parallel with the SECRET-level SIPRNET and JWICS for TOP SECRET and above. NIPRNET does have controlled security gateways to the public Internet. Access to the ARPANET was expanded in 1981 when the National Science Foundation (NSF) developed the Computer Science Network (CSNET) and again in 1986 when NSFNET provided access to supercomputer sites in the United States from research and education organizations. The networks based on the ARPANET were government funded and therefore restricted to noncommercial uses such as research; unrelated commercial use was strictly forbidden. This initially restricted connections to military sites and universities. During the 1980s, the connections expanded to more educational institutions, and even to a growing number of companies such as Digital Equipment Corporation and Hewlett-Packard, which were participating in research projects or providing services to those who were.
Several other branches of the U.S. government, the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of Energy (DOE) became heavily involved in Internet research and started development of a successor to ARPANET. In the mid 1980s, all three of these branches developed the first Wide Area Networks based on TCP/IP. NASA developed the NASA Science Network, NSF developed CSNET and DOE evolved the Energy Sciences Network or ESNet. Between 1984 and 1988 CERN began installation and operation of TCP/IP to interconnect its major internal computer systems, workstations, PCs and an accelerator control system. CERN continued to operate a limited self-developed system CERNET internally and several incompatible (typically proprietary) network protocols externally. There was considerable resistance in Europe towards more widespread use of TCP/IP and the CERN TCP/IP intranets remained isolated from the Internet until 1989. Commercial internet service providers (ISPs) began to emerge in the late 1980s and 1990s. The ARPANET was decommissioned in 1990. The Internet was commercialized in 1995 when NSFNET was decommissioned, removing the last restrictions on the use of the Internet to carry commercial traffic.
|
>The term "internet" was adopted in the first RFC published on the TCP protocol (RFC 675: Internet Transmission Control Program, December 1974) as an abbreviation of the term internetworking and the two terms were used interchangeably. In general, an internet was any network using TCP/IP. It was around the time when ARPANET was interlinked with NSFNET in the late 1980s, that the term was used as the name of the network, Internet, being a large and global TCP/IP network. |
VPNs mean single points of failure. Even the Tor network has 7 centralized servers that clients get relays from. VPNs would mean the government could just attack the endpoints of the VPNs, where your traffic enters the network.
If the network is entirely distributed and each node handles an equal amount of traffic, an attacker would have to control everything to control the network. But if a good chunk of traffic came in through a couple points, they could just control those. |
This debate went on for months, years ago on Usenet. The upshot back then was that by posting to Usenet you still retained copyright, but that your terms were implicitly to allow copying from server to server (Usenet is a store and forward type of network where many hundreds of copies of a given message are transmitted between the machines in the network).
In the same vein users who comment here implicitly agree to liberal terms for copyright, because restrictions in the terms would cause failure of the intended use of the system. |
The hacker says all the data was taken from Indian government servers. |
Nobody's under the assumption that piracy is right, but for the most part either the money's going to the wrong place (Record companies take a GOD DAMN HUGE cut of all the revenue, artists see little) or the content is simply easier to get to via piracy (DRM, or, shock horror, going to a brick-and-mortar store .)
When the creator deserves it, and is getting the majority of what you paid, it is simply immoral to not pay for the content if you have the money. Your argument is flawed in that it can easily be used to justify pirating in an essentially bad situation, "I paid for X last week therefore I've already done my part supporting the industry, whatever, I'm just going to pirate Y now." A sort of blanket statistic to bash innocent content creators in the wrong situations.
I'm not going to lobby to stop you from pirating in that situation, but when someone is arguing with themselves over whether they should pay for something, your argument is going to be fundamentally deconstructive.
When asking oneself "why should I pay for it?" Always examine the situation of where your money goes, then take that situation and use it to argue with yourself. Start with the mindset of "Yes I am going to pay for this" and then refine it based on evidence, because thought-out and reasoned and justified piracy (with context-specific evidence, not just blanket statistics) is the only form which is going to be constructive to our cause, blind piracy with a self-affirmation complex because you once bought something a week ago will just make pirates seem less credible and more like petty thieves. |
Let's get one thing straight: Pirates includes virtually everyone over the age of 20. That includes an impressive number of hypocrites who don't realize that they're trying to make their past choices illegal, like anti-gay republicans (we see through your thin veil).
None of these hypocrites that I've ever debated on Reddit regarding this subject had any plans of turning themselves in for their past actions. Fuck them. Their arguments have no value. It doesn't stop them from passionately pounding the downvote button for dissenters though (read: downvote for disagreeing, something we all love). |
This doesn't seem logically correct.
Cable doesn't make the ads - the companies that are selling the product make the ads. So, would cable be profiting from these ads? Because they sell air time to those companies, so I can't really see their motive for doing this. If the companies are profiting from it, cable will see their profits skyrocket and begin to increase the pricing for airtime. This could go on and on in an endless loop, but television would very quickly become too expensive to watch and dropping profits would force it to end... |
What is this "T.V. Remote" you speak of? And why would anyone want one? I cut the cord 5 years ago and never looked back. If i pull up a show on hulu, i can mute the sound on the commercials and browse reddit in another tab. A simple timer lets me know when my show is back.
Welcome to what i call demand consumption. Supply will never interfere with my content consumption again. I demand to watch a show, then i go watch it. Frankly, the supply side model is woefully incompatible for the interwebz. Everything on the internet is demand side economics. The masses demand a product and a short time later somebody makes it. Prime example Etsy, there are a tons of sellers on there, it is a logistical impossibility for them to advertise to the population on the whole. How do they make money without advertising? They make things that people demand they make. Connecting consumers with producers. Hence demand now drives supply. You want an app to do something you can't find? Contact the myriad of freelance developers and it will appear shortly. Consumers are connecting directly with producers now, more efficiently than ever before. As the efficiency of that relationship rises, the more demand will drive the market, not supply. Learn how the internet works, don't try and force it to be something that it will never be. |
For six decades Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) has been the only Australian intelligence agency authorised to routinely collect intelligence on Australians but a specific legislative framework was created to protect people's rights. This legislation would undermine the safeguards whilst authorising the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) and Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) to monitor Australian communications. It's completely disproportionate in its implications for hard-won privacy rights when measured agaist unspecified threats with no precedent around the globe. How would you like all your phonecalls to be recorded and saved for 2 years? That it is being quietly pushed through should alarm us all. We need a robust discussion in our society about these matters because it's much harder to undo a dysfunctional system than carefully structure it correctly. Make your voice heard. “Interested persons and organisations” can make submissions to the inquiry, with a deadline of Aug. 6. Now get this: the people proposing an overhaul of your online privacy say:
"In order to facilitate electronic publishing of submissions, the Committee would prefer them to be emailed to [email protected] or sent on disk or CD-ROM to the Committee Secretariat in Microsoft Word® or Portable Document Format (PDF)."
Really? I must purchase some fresh floppies tomorrow.
** |
This is an argument as old as LiveJournal, where people complained that following someone in your feed required them being considered a "friend" on the profile page. |
Law student here. One exception to at-will employment is being a government employee. As a government employee you are protected by the Fifth and Fourteen Amendments (either applying to whichever level of government you work in, federal vs state respectively). Because of this, government employers need a legitimate performance-related reason to fire you, or some other egregious thing. |
from another post by Extada:
Law student here. One exception to at-will employment is being a government employee. As a government employee you are protected by the Fifth and Fourteen Amendments (either applying to whichever level of government you work in, federal vs state respectively). Because of this, government employers need a legitimate performance-related reason to fire you, or some other egregious thing. |
Because it gives you a full computer from something that's $20 and can fit in your pocket. Aside from the keyboard, everything else you'd need a lot of people will be carrying when traveling regardless, so they don't really count. |
Devils Advocate:
But shouldn't inventors profit from their ideas, even if they don't have the funds or ability to produce what they've invented?
ie.
You invent an amazing whirly-gig. You spend the $60k or there abouts to patent the whirly-gig. You realize you've spent your last dime on getting your patent setup.. and you can't actually build your whirly-gig.
You then license your patent to a patent Troll (or Non Producing Entity) because big companies have a track record of stealing great ideas (patents or not) and running off with them.((and ripping off anyone involved(see the dude who invented the motorized wind shield wiper system))
So the patent troll agrees to pay you royalties/license fees for your patent. Other companies are then required to go to the patent holding entity, license your technology for their products.. The intial license fee, is usually pretty small.. and occasionally, they have to sue people who've tried to build products along similar lines as your idea from several years previous.
You've put in the legwork, you spent your life savings designing your idea, you've laid the foundation for generations to come to innovate further.. and through a NPE, or group such as Intellectual Ventures, you've secured at least some monetary reward for your genius. |
According to the law he's not doing ANYTHING wrong. It also is making him rich.
Change the laws, stop blaming the players, the whole idea that we can have a broken patent system as long as everyone will be nice is ridiculous. The purpose of business is to disrupt and make or take over existing markets. In other words, business is always trying to not be nice to make a buck.
Also the idea that 'the courts will figure this out' is just as wrong. |
Sometimes you have to kick someone's ass. When they are using money and power to push you around and you can't defend yourself in a legal way: It's time to get primal and kick someone's ass. Seriously. Get five of your closest (and biggest) friends, hop a plane, find them, and kick their ass for about 20 mins. Don't let them know who you are - don't say anything - just partake in the ass kicking.
You see, if everyone does this, these types of people would be getting their asses kicked all the time. They would have to stop being complete douche-bags because nobody wants their ass kicked over and over. Getting your ass kicked sucks. |
I am not speaking to the hardware specifically, but "beats" in computing is simply branding for sound-cards and sound-circuitry. Once you get to the DAC level there is little variation in the portible audio market and 9 times out of 10 if you want something outside of the scope of "the same quality as [fill in any MP3 device manufactured in the last 10 years]" you need to seek out specialized MP3/digital players that are specifically engineered to break away from the standard 20/20,000k and the 320bps digital to analog fidelity.
But then you also have to defer to the source material...blah, blah, blah... |
I agree with most everything there. Most drivers cant just drop the phone if needed. I do. I do support the hands-free kits though.
You cant outlaw stupidity. Laws like the ability to sue if you slip in a place of business are ridiculous unless it's due to clear and obtuse negligence. People should be responsible for their ability to stay upright. If they are unable and it leads to injury that's their own fault. I think a similar concept applies to talking and driving. Granted you're behind something that is very lethal. Maybe with the new tec behind self driving cars that is starting to come out, licensing can become more restrictive. Maybe people will have to pass a real skill test. Power cables were largely standardized, maybe automakers will get smart and start standardizing hands free systems in all cars, like airbags are.
Laws that circumvent personal accountability, I feel, are disastrous to society. Let people ruin themselves. Don't save them from their own bad choices. |
Yeah, especially considering how famous that quote is. That's like the entire |
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT
>In the unlikely event that users' aggregate demand exceeds the available capacity of the network and creates acute congestion, Google Fiber will employ various techniques to ensure that subscribers continue to have a positive experience. In times of acute congestion, Google Fiber Internet service bandwidth will be fairly allocated among subscribers without regard to the subscribers’ online activities or the protocols or applications that the subscribers are using. While acute congestion is occurring, subscribers will still be able to use the lawful content, services, and applications of their choice, but this fair sharing of bandwidth may result in slower download and upload speeds and slower response times from websites and Internet-based applications and services. Google Fiber will not engage in deep packet inspection (where the content of the data packet is inspected beyond its IP, TCP, and UDP headers) or drop specific types of end-user Internet traffic except as described herein to preserve the integrity of the network and protect against negative effects of Internet threats.
>Google Fiber does not prevent or impede the use of any other product or service that its subscribers choose to access over their Google Fiber Internet service as long as the use of that product or service does not violate the service terms and conditions. Google Fiber also does not favor or inhibit any applications or classes of applications except as described herein.
[Source]( |
You're worried about privacy when getting Google's internet service? It's an internet service, what do you think they are going to gather that some other shitbrick ISP wouldn't? You don't have to instal any software to use the internet service that collects private information.
Google is good about collecting information, but the information they collect is almost always anonymous. If privacy is a concern you would already have all the tools you need to be anonymous (VPN, private browsing modes and other bullshit), but someone always has to play the devil's advocate huh? |
Before I was l33t at the internet, I had a distant "friend" register a domain for me on my behalf and host some files. Of course he used Godaddy. Fast forward to renewal time, the "friend" couldn't be reached. Godaddy would not let me renew the domain because I technically wasn't the owner. That's understandable. They told me to just let the domain expire and it would go back into the available pool of domains after a certain period of time and then I could purchase it.
I checked the WHOIS and domain every single day for about 2-3 weeks with no change, until 1 day I noticed that some squatter now owned my domain name. Godaddy could not or would not explain to me how this person was able to get my domain when it was not even back into the available pool, essentially it was unlocked/transferred. He wanted to charge me $1,000 to get it back. The name wasn't worth it and neither was all the trouble with Godaddy. Never again! |
Past GoDaddy employee here, maybe I can explain some of this. Based on the story, there's no way for me to know exactly what happened but here's some info to know.
When a domain expires, after 5 days the nameservers are migrated to GD's parked servers rendering the domain unusable. From this time up until about 5 years ago you had about 45-60 days to renew the domain before redemption.
However, they changed it 5 years ago to 30 days before putting it up on the auction block (whatever their crappy ebay wannabe thing is). This was a VERY shady practice which enabled them to continue to "charge $80 to get it out of redemption" for that extra 30-45 days and basically make $70 profit. In reality it does not go into redemption until I believe the 75 day mark (unless this changed more recently). But there is a real redemption period although now it's much more difficult to tell whether a GD domain is actually in real redemption or in fake GD redemption from outside the company (internal tools allow the reps to tell the difference easily).
However, on the flip side of this, why are you letting your domain go for more than 30 days past the expiration? There are literally 5+ emails that get sent out about expiration before the domain expires. There's really no excuse to let it get this far.
Next thing, domains cannot be transferred within 30 days of expiration or 60 days after registration (a domain transfer also counts as a registration in regards to the 60 day limit). This is a registry rule (Verisign) and has nothing to do with GD. It just so happens that the vast majority of people suddenly decide to transfer their domain right before expiration and imagine that they can't. I don't know what the reasons for this are, doesn't really make sense but don't blame GoDaddy for this, blame Verisign. |
This is amazing technology, imminent and innovative. Scanning the front page today, it suddenly appeared as if the rate of "game-changing" breakthroughs and applications of technological progress is accelerating. I am breathless in presence of the scope of humanity's capability and speechless when I see it rapidly entering production.
I know this is called a singularity, because it shares a trait with the cosmological one: an event horizon which can't be understood from the current perspective. I do not know what lies beyond it, but I am ready to set sail. |
When the tonight show was comprised of Johnny Carson & Ed McMahon and Johnny (or special guest) would have a quick comeback, funny jab, or a good punchline, Ed McMahon would sometimes blurt out "Heyo!" or "Hiyo!". |
What, you don't mean before you've had time to mount a Facebook petition ? Surely not ? Elected lawmakers making laws without seeking permission of the hivemind ? |
the supreme court said it is fine (Quill Corp. v. North Dakota)
A bit sparse on your summary. Quill Corp v. North Dakota is important to this Senate legislation but not in the way you seem to suggest. The relevant part of [the Supreme Court ruling]( reads as follows...
> This aspect of our decision is made easier by the fact that the underlying issue is not only one that Congress may be better qualified to resolve, but also one that Congress has the ultimate power to resolve. No matter how we evaluate the burdens that use taxes impose on interstate commerce, Congress remains free to disagree with our conclusions . See Prudential Insurance Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U.S. 408 (1946). Indeed, in recent years, Congress has considered legislation that would "overrule" the Bellas Hess rule. Its decision not to take action in this direction may, of course, have been dictated by respect for our holding in Bellas Hess that the Due Process Clause prohibits States from imposing such taxes, but today we have put that problem to rest. Accordingly, Congress is now free to decide whether, when, and to what extent the States may burden interstate mail-order concerns with a duty to collect use taxes . |
This is pretty much the theme of everyone who sees the issue with the relationship between corporate America and regulations. Progressives love to push in new regulations, thinking it will chain the corporations down from getting too big and powerful, but it often has the opposite effect. A big company has the money for multiple departments that handle legal issues, inspections, permits, certifications, and sifting through the (literally) millions of pages of the U.S. regulations and tax code. Hell, they even have the resources to find any loopholes and work-arounds in the system that can be exploited. Do you think any kind of small business has that kind of time, money, and manpower to handle all this? Some can get by, but at a much bigger hit on economic efficiency. Every new legislation that piles on the paperwork and regulations further puts the biggest guys ahead, they will always be more capable of efficiently handling the load. |
If it was legal, there wouldn't be a ongoing court case on it's constitutionality wouldn't be classified.
>San Francisco - A federal judge today rejected the U.S. government's latest attempt to dismiss the Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF's) long-running challenge to the government's illegal dragnet surveillance programs. Today's ruling means the allegations at the heart of the Jewel case move forward under the supervision of a public federal court.
...
>Filed in 2008, Jewel v. NSA is aimed at ending the NSA's dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it. Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA. The case is supported by declarations from three NSA whistleblowers along with a mountain of other evidence. The recent blockbuster revelations about the extent of the NSA spying on telecommunications and Internet activities also bolster EFF's case. |
you're now talking out of your ass...
Every bitcoin transaction has always been, and will forever be traceable. You can track each of the bitcoins paid indefinitely. Identifying the person that's doing the transactions is a different story altogether... same with the bills, considering that physical bills that are acquired this way aren't exactly used by the people who perpetrated the crime, in person, at locations that actually have the ability to track serial numbers on currency. |
I apologise for slipping into the terminology there. "Fiat" currency is the term used for money that's issued and controlled to some degree by a government, like dollars or pounds. Bitcoiners use the word to describe "real" currencies like this as it's quite convenient, and a lot of them are a bit libertarian and against the idea of monetary policy being controlled in this way. I certainly agree with them to a certain extent, but I personally think there's a middle ground between the suggested "crypto-anarchy" they seem to want, and the law and order that we for the most part expect as a society.
The |
The way it was explained to me is btc is based of an encryption. As this encryption is cracked it gets more complicated and harder to crack. The increased complexity happens in leaps, with each increase relating to a single btc being mined. |
He's right. For me, when talking about AAPL's stock price became common conversation among people who don't typically buy individual stocks (or really, shouldn't) I felt it was time to get out. That was ~800. I could have waited a little more but still I took profits and can now buy the same stock for ~$300 less. |
This guy knows.
The fact that a pharmaceutical company get's free research on you doesn't mean that any of us will ever see drugs that are a damn dollar cheaper. It just means they are going to make more money.
There is a reason that insulin costs $100 bucks a bottle over the counter, and $5 bucks for a hospital to buy (which they then charge 50 bucks a dose for), or that it's cheaper to get cancer drugs online from Canadian pharmacies than American ones, and it doesn't have dick to do with the Canadians volunteering for more medical research. The pharmaceutical companies are gluttons, and there is no way they are going to shoot that golden calf just because things get easier for them. They patent entire chemical structural families just so no one else can do research and they can get exclusive rights to random your health against you for 20 years, there is no good will in them, only profit margin.
Even other than privacy, there is this little thing called 'ethics' involved. There is a reason you can't expose a 2 year to a white rabbit and then blow something up in his ear over and over to scare him just to see if he gets scared of the bunny any more. Did putting little Albert through hell help people? Yeah, it did, it formed the basis for behavioral psychology, which lead to cognitive behavioral psychology, which is probably the most widely used form of psychological therapy in use today. Millions of people have learned to cope with crippling depression, PTSD, aggressive disorders, quit cutting themselves, etc. But ya know, it was still an unethical thing to do to that kid.
There is a reason you can't walk down the street and pop someone in the head with a hammer to use them as a test subject to study brain damage. Hell, maybe every man, woman, and child in the country should just all give ourselves pancreatic cancer. Surely with that kinda data, they'd have that cure knocked out in a week. |
What a travesty that someone so educated should produce such a piece of click bait.
The classic trolley problem serves no purpose, it has no answer and therefor isn't usable to construct policy.
This problem is not even exclusive to software drivers, so its even less useful to discuss as a human would make an equally incorrect answer if substituted in.
This entire article avoids the obvious ethical issues with holding an entity responsible to a lose-lose it was forced into. The car weather operated by a human or software, would either avoid the issue or be forced into it. Should the latter happen, its responsibility is absolved, and the question itself irrelevant. Should the former happen, its still irrelevant as there were obvious mistakes made before. You address the root of a problem, not its symptoms. |
I think that just means the bank doesn't have to fix it, in other words if the other person runs off with your money they don't have to reimburse you for their error. At that point you may only have the option of going to court.
It's funny because I had a situation similar to this in my profession. Someone was sending in a payoff payment on their loan and transposed two digits of their account number on the check. This check was for about 15k, and the account it went to had a MUCH smaller balance. So our system just automatically closed the account since it was now paid in full (auto loan) and wrote a refund check for the difference. Since the difference was such a large amount it had to be approved by a manager, and since the funds were sent by money order and not a regular personal check, we had no way of knowing where the money was coming from and couldn't tell that the customer made a mistake on their account number.
The refund check went out for about 12k, the recipient cashed the check immediately. The original customer calls us and wants to know where his title is because he sent us a payoff check. We do some research and confirm we applied it to the number on the cashier's check -- which he transposed. We attempted to contact the customer who basically ran off with this guy's money to no avail, from what I heard the situation ended up in civil court. Personally, I thought it should have ended up in criminal court, that opportunistic douchebag knew that he wasn't owed that much money but decided to take advantage of an unfortunate situation. |
I think this might actually be a disgruntled employee/developer for Apple. If you look closely on the eBay images, you'll see a picture for the SN and other Devoper Info. There are very strategically placed blackouts of certain identifying information for the phone. Why would Joe Schmoe think of blacking out only parts of the SN and other info? Why would he not black out the whole thing if he was worried about someone stealing the info? It appears the information not blacked out is common-place characters most, if not all, prototypes are filed with, with the blacked out information uniquely identityfing the specific phone to a specific user or developer it was assigned to.
Also, the shipping process for the iPhone is very automated. Phones are assembled in China in a factory with hardly any human interaction in that assembly process. From there, once the correct number of units are assembled, they are packaged and shipped to Company X, a third-party distributor of the product. From Company X, they are shipped to individual customers who pre-ordered the phone. You're telling me a phone used in either the Cupertino HQ or other nearby location was somehow randomly scooped up, packaged, and shipped to Beverly Hills, CA of all places in the world? Not Cleveland, not Seattle, not Atlanta, not New York, not Toronto, not Houston, but Beverly Hills?! That's a scant 344 miles away. I don't buy this was a random shipping error. The process is too clean, and it isn't like Apple is a careless company either. They've obviously done things with a degree of caution and control. You don't buy a headphone company (a crappy quality one, at that) for 4.7 billion without having a good chunk of your ducks in a row. |
That is not always a smart idea. Banking situations are (usually) different. For example when i was still a financially irresponsible idiot of a teenager there was a mistaken infusion of i believe about $200 in my checking. I withdrew it and spent it immediately. Two days later, my account was -$200 because it wasnt my money to spend in the first place; it was just some sort of clerical error that, because of my irresponsible reaction, worked against q
me in the long run. |
depends on where you are, you're experience, the workload, the hours and what the worker supply/demand is. etc |
a fool and his money is easily parted. Honestly I wish I actually did this because it requires so little technical know-how yet makes bank. He is going to easily keep most of it in profits, as $60 device, with a $18 board and 2 free software, openWRT and Tor. tada. |
While my internet is a far cry from 1G.... In Arkansas where i live, I pulled a speedtest from speedtest.net on my " Elite Speed U-VERSE" internet and got a whopping 2.68Mbps..... When i called ATT about it, I was told that 3 Mbps was the fastest i could get.
I called Suddenlink ( wife knows a regional manager ) and was promised 50Mbps , with speeds to be increased to 300 within 3 months at no extra charge. I said do it.
Pulled a speedtest again, and got a 52.31Mbps on Suddenlink.... |
You shouldn't be excited because the only advantages of their product is that it is cheaper and more efficient than the competition, and neither claim can be verified (and shouldn't be asserted) until they actually make a solar panel. If they had actually manufactured something testable, they wouldn't be using a stock image
Incidentally, the particle accelerator images are of machines at [Phoenix Nuclear Labs]( in Wisconsin, which is presumably why they keep talking about "going to Wisconsin" and "manufactured in the US". At least one of these images is straight from [their website]( -- they didn't even take the photos themselves. These machines are available for rent, so I assume the purpose of the $250 000 is to purchase time on those machines. However they never say what they will accomplish with the money -- a serious red flag.
Other problems: they are on IndieGoGo, whereas if they had any potential at all they would have real investors (remember Solar Roadways?). Their whole website is focused at looking good superficially, which might work for someone considering contributing $5 but wouldn't fool a serious investor. Even still it is shoddily made, extremely sparse on information (and even punctuation; half of the periods on the website are in a single ellipsis), and has a page ("Market Size") devoted to irrelevant numbers that look good. They say "With as low as a 10% market share" but don't mention that the currently leading company has 5.8% market share. The only information on the website is in the intro video which even has an extra character whose purpose is to distract the viewer.
Their team has only 6 people, which would be rather small for a purely research team in this field, and is extremely inadequate for manufacturing. Only 2 of the team members are scientists, and 3 are professional entrepreneurs. |
I think you might took an important factor too early out of equation. That factor is human greed. We won't evolve past ourselves with greed being as omnipresent as it is now. No matter the automation of things, people will always find a way to abuse each other in order to have more. Examples of that behaviour run across the history of humanity; technological prowess almost always meant a way for one to take a higher position in the food chain. Our world of ideals crumbles in confrontation with current state of poverty, power abuse, wealth discrepancies etc |
The way I think of it is that people are overblowing the scale of which robotics and software will replace low-task human jobs. It's because according to them all low skilled jobs will be replaced and those people will become unemployed. A very large amount of the population works with low-skill jobs, then a very large population has very little to no income meaning they cannot even buy your products. What's the point of getting robots and software to replace people if no one will have enough income to even use your services.
So |
I'm all for technology advancing and removing jobs. This allows families to spend more time together in a self sustaining environment. It's a vision a colleague and I have been working towards.
My father worked the mines until the day it took his life.
Stole him from his only son and it stole him from his wife.
And I swore upon his grave, someday I would make things right.
So I learned how to bend steel. I learned how to make it move,
and I watched as it withstood all the hell we put men through.
With hands of iron, there's not a task we couldn't do.
They've waited so long for this day,
Someone to take the death away,
No son would ever have to say,
"My father worked into his grave." |
The scenario has changed a bit. We no longer have the economic system of the 19th century. Then the poor were needed to produce in still such limited quantities that "capitalists" could afford not to care about them. There were plenty poor people to work for them and none were real customers.
In our consumer society everybody is a consumer, including the poor. Our society is a race to get people to consume as much as they are prepared to do. If all that goes away, why produce at all? It's nice to be able to produce millions of products at no labor cost, but for who are we doing this if no-one but the owners of such facilities can afford their own products? We have to get all Henry Ford about our society. Give the people money to consume because only through the flowing of money will we be able to continue this standard of living. |
or should we really start to adapt to/build a society where people don't "work" but does other things (kind of Star Trek-Esque)?
That society won't exist, because our society is too inextricably bound to the idea of work as a purpose for (and means of) living. The idea of a guaranteed minimum income or social provisions for all is nice, but will never take off, particularly in the U.S. where the idea of "makers vs. takers" reigns supreme, and people who don't have jobs are considered subhuman.
I'm not too confident about 'Murica in the future. For all intents and purposes, it's 2015 and we still have a whopping chunk of the population that believes the earth was created poof in half a fortnight, that the California drought is a punishment from God for all those slutty gay people in Hollywood, and that humans coexisted with dinosaurs and even trained them as pets. People fear science just as much as they did in the medieval era, and it's not a partisan thing either: for every young-earth creationist that wants to crucify homosexuals and votes Republican, there's an equivalent "natural earth" Democrat who believes that giving your dog the rabies vaccination will lead to puppy autism.
Mind you, this isn't everybody, but it's enough people to create a cause for concern. The problem, ultimately, lies in the fact that we give too much deference to religion. We blocked embryonic stem cell research because illiterate politicians view cells as babies. We could be well on our way to curing cancer, were it not for the idiots who equate cutting-edge research to infant sacrifice. The whole idea of "makers vs. takers" overlaps with a Biblical verse often cited by the same politicians who make this argument, "he who does not work shall not eat." We give parents the right to withdraw their children from public schooling and teach them nonsense in the home if some part of the curriculum conflicts with their "deeply-held faith." In many cases that's because they still, ninety years after the Scopes trial, believe that the idea of evolution is downright blasphemy and want to teach their children about the miracle of creation and how God snapped his fingers and human life appears out of nowhere. Inevitably, this has a lot to do with the belief that learning about sex will corrupt their children morally; better to believe in miracles rather than the messy realities of procreation and how we really got here (hint: there is some sex involved, and there is nothing "evil" about it).
Countries that give deference to idiots and let them govern with carte blanche will not be countries that participate effectively in the society you described. I have not seen much of Star Trek but it sounds like there is a plot about robots doing menial work, and hologram replicators replacing the need for commerce and economic strife. That's all well and good, but ultimately it's fiction and will always remain that way. I have no idea what is going to happen to Europe, but America will never get away from its committed notion that there is a life beyond work. They will never invest in anything innovative and new as long as carte blanche is given to the private sector to create things that benefit its own bottom line first and foremost (if not solely), and no consideration is given to the "common good." We have passed the point where the idea of government investing in projects is a viable option, because of the same idiots in congress who believe that the Articles of Confederation was a good idea that wasn't given a chance. |
This is a real concern... to an extent. In certain poor areas, revolutions are already underway because there isn't enough work due to increases in efficiency.
The hypothetical chains below your comment pose scenarios where the military is fully automated, and political and legal structures (presumably) evolve with it to accommodate those who control automated structures. I want to spend a few minutes tearing down those inane hypotheticals with a few simple observations.
(1) In an automated economy, non-automation gains value as a way to control people. In other words, from an economic perspective, to keep people in line, companies and governments will choose not to automate since the ultimate costs of limited automation are less than the collateral costs of full automation.
(2) Controlling infrastructure right now is nearly impossible for any major, developed countries. Agencies, construction, oversight, and control of projects and resources is widely distributed and multiple organizations have fingers in every pie. When people suggest that a monolithic, automated oligarchy will arise and suppress the "underclass" it is ridiculous. The division of control and the competition for resources will not allow it.
(3) We're talking about machines trying to suppress human work. So, the major institutional players will need to be able to handle insurgents who are incredibly technologically savvy (i.e., "hackers") and who can turn the machines against them. They also need to be able to design routines for the machines that people can't take advantage of. If a "War bot" is designed to not fire on people wearing transponders for the military, then rebels will spoof transponders or find ways to suppress/confuse those signals so that the bots automatically target anything. Look at the Target data breach: automated systems are incredibly vulnerable because they interact with other automated systems, and a system is only as strong as its weakest link.
(4) Any "doomsday" scenario presupposes that political elites won't adjust to hamper automation or make it less lucrative.
(5) Show me the power: without adequate power sources, machines will not be able to run. Military hardware, even factory hardware, is power intensive, and suffers from unique problems (like line loss) that humans don't really suffer from.
(6) Innovation: at least for a while, computers are unlikely to have "strokes of genius" outside the parameters of their original programming. AI just isn't there yet. Automation is still primarily useful only for "rote" tasks.
(7) Economics: People ignore the fact that non or partial automation is economically lucrative once the collateral costs of full automation exceed the collateral costs of partial automation. If the cost of violence and suppression is greater than the cost of simply not automating, then people won't automate.
(8) As a corollary to #7, infrastructure costs will be enormous to automate on a large scale. You want to dig out mountains in India, transport it to the sea, move it across the ocean, unload it in Europe it, process it, ship it to consumers in the US, and then move the income back overseas? Great. First you have to build power, communications, roads, vehicles, robots, find insurers, build utilities, build facilities, and so forth. Is the cost of human labor really greater than the cost of robots doing it? Oh, don't forget development costs for all this technology. Oh, don't forget the costs of any human resistance to this. I could list costs left and right.
(9) We have our automated work force, now maintenance. Where will we get heavy metals to maintain these computers? Where will be get oil of sufficient grade to be used as lubricants? Synthesize it all? Great, more start-up costs. |
You'll only ever replace scientists and engineers when we have advanced self thinking AI
Though I suspect that engineers and scientists will eventually become software engineers themselves with sufficient AI. Physics has already seen this transformation, since most physicists code up their own simulations (mostly in Python). |
Programmers cannot be replaced without some sort of completely unpredictable breakthrough that changes everything we know about AI. You can't write a general program-writing program, it's just not possible. Meta-programming is extremely useful, but it's also limited in its scope of usefulness. By asking for a "programming program" you are asking for an "everything program," which just isn't possible.
The best you could hope for is generating programs of a certain very narrow type, and even then you'll still have a programmer doing the majority of the work, and it will not be the ideal solution. For example, a POS system could be genericized (by a programmer) to a high enough degree that a salesman could fiddle with input parameters to meet the customers' needs and output a something that they can put on their boxes, but nobody is going to love it because it's too generic and every place is different. Everybody is going to complain about certain aspects of it (which aspects they complain about will vary from customer to customer), and likely come up with workarounds for things that they can't really do with that system but want to. And some portion of those customers will then look for someone to make a custom solution built specifically for them, which will require an actual human programmer. |
There will still be engineers and doctors too, but those are already an exception, remember we're talking about jobs that computers can replace, which are generally low paying too, like assembly workers, accountants, secretaries, toll collectors, things that are just a matter of keeping things in order or performing a physical motion,
It's also been mentioned elsewhere in this thread that wages will have to increase because the market still requires consumers to have money to spend on products. If nobody can afford to buy the iPhone 20, then there will be no reason to make robots and software to manufacture and support them.
I suppose in a "utopia" everyone would just get a paycheck by default and nobody would have to work unless they wanted to, and the vast majority of people would work to pursue intellectual curiosity, personal desire (I want to invent a device that does X), or hone their talents by playing games and making art. Those who contribute to society more than others by being inventors, doctors, scientists, artists, athletes, etc. might profit by doing something that other people are actually willing to pay them for because no robot can do it. |
The end of the chain leads to human demand
This is certainly true. But if the leaders of the most powerful economic entities (governments, corporations, large non-profits) believe otherwise could they not create a stable sub-optimal economic system?
I believe that the people at the top of these economic entities have falsely assumed that growing stock prices means a healthy economy. If the core focus of major economic entities becomes stock price, then other things such as employment rates and per capita income that actually show successful economies can conveniently be ignored.
This is why despite crappy employment rates and a very low minimum wage the U.S. economy can still somehow be growing. We're suppose to be out of the recession now, but we still haven't reached pre-recession employment rates. |
He forgot about whether or not the environment can endure this process. This is a good write up and all, but you have to think about geological changes along with it. We still need trees and oxygen and sunlight in order to survive. If we can mass manufacture those 3 elements, humanity will be almost immortal, except for diseases. Onto that topic, we will have to learn as much as we can about the human body as quick as possible so that we can counter every disease we come in contact with. Don't forget geographic catastrophe either. We will need a way to detect tectonic plate shifts 10x quicker, and be able to build things that will keep them from shifting. If that is not a probable solution, we will need to figure out a way to make every standing structure earthquake-proof. There are over 50 other problems I can go into, but I'm going to leave it at that. |
The thing is, the jobs that humans have a comparative advantage for are not what most people are employed in. The video is using the example of driving. A restaurant or store is basically a fancy vending machine. Most people perform such manual labor jobs. Only a relative few are poets or scientists or engineers, and only a few need to be.
The field of programming may expand in response to more things to program, but it won't expand enough. A small team might write the program that runs on a thousand different factory-bots, that small team replacing the thousands of people that could've worked there instead. I imagine similar things would happen in other fields of engineering and science, and there can probably be a relative few who can succeed in areas such as the arts, because only a few can have the spotlight. Everyone else is left jobless. |
I've never thought of reddit as an elitest collective, and the fact this comment is currently 500+ karma is... kinda awesome, don't ya think? |
Assuming there's an infinite range of safe tasks in response to any development and that humans have unlimited cognitive capacity to infinitely compete with devices exponentially growing in both power and ease-of-use while decreasing in absolute cost, sure. That can keep working in a straight line forever. Our brains are omnipotent and will always remain superior to technology unconstrained by biological, chemical or even traditional physical limitations. |
Automation doesn't need to replace all the jobs to be highly disruptive.
In American law it's already happening. The grunt work of document review that used to be done by highly paid new lawyers is now mainly done by software. Human lawyers get paid about $12/hr to double check the software's results.
There are less lawyer jobs and a lot of what remains is much lower paying. This has filtered down to college students and law school enrollments are collapsing. Lots of commentators believe that a significant number of law schools in the US will close in the near future.
Google is developing self driving cars. There are something like 3 million US jobs that are primarily driving. If self driving cars replace any significant portion of those jobs, 100s of thousands will be unemployed causing the remaining transportation jobs to pay less.
To put this in perspective, the auto manufacturing industry, including parts suppliers, that the government decided we had to bailout is only about 1.8M jobs.
Put another way, computers will take things off our hands, but it isn't like the average cab driver will be able to jump into some more cerebral job when he is replaced by a self-driving car or car-share services. |
True. Also as far as the iPod Apple got a huge market share and people were too vested in the environment to get out if they wanted to. Truthfully most did not care about DRM, they could import their CDs, burn new CDs. Also if you couldn't give your friend a song, screw it, they can spend the massive amount of $.99.
iPhone in the US you were locked into a 2yr agreement if you wanted out you needed to pay and ETF or buy a new phone outright. plus Apple was releasing every year and AT&T would let you upgrade early, so why get out? It took years for Android to catch up, MS was on a reputation down slide as the big evil company, Blackberry innovated in the wrong areas for long term market share. |
Would you please refrain from speaking out of your ass, for two reasons:
1) The actual amount of research and development is completely irrelevant the point that is being made. 10 million, 100 million, doesn't matter - the point does not change.
2) According to Kuerig over the last 5 years has had 16.94 BILLION in sales revenue. Assuming an EIGHT digit range (10,000,000) that would mean the company spends LESS THAN .06% of revenue on developing new products.
You could bet your fucking mortgage payment that a company who is trying to expand is spending more than .06% of revenue on R&D costs. |
Who buys a Keurig anyway?
Simple coffee maker, pick your favorite coffee, make coffee, enjoy. When did this become too inconvenient?
Keurig owners deserve the headache for falling for such a thing. |
Teaching by rote is a lot cheaper and easier than teaching critical or creative thinking. Many developing countries have more of a mass production paradigm to running their schools.
This makes a lot of sense when the majority of your population struggles with literacy. Especially when your country's economy is based around primary (resource) or secondary (manufacturing) industries. Sure having a more innovative workforce is nice and all but why reinvent the wheel?
Aside from a few choice sectors where a country may benefit from being part of the cutting edge, developing economies can mostly get by with the majority of their workforce simply understanding and applying already discovered principles and processes. Chinese companies for example need only improve slightly on an already existing product and they will beat out the competition on cost alone.
I simplify the issue quite a bit, but in post industrial societies, we no longer have low costs of living and low living wages to help us compete on cost of manpower alone. Learning by rote doesn't produce innovators and entrepreneurs needed to keep our economies relevant in the global scale. Since we can't compete on labour prices and emulating products alone, we need to claim every first mover advantage we can get.
We gripe about the education system in North America all the time but our teachers are relatively well trained and skilled compared to even a generation ago. Its very difficult to teach someone to learn to think for themselves as opposed to memorising information.
Our biggest risk is that we don't do this well enough. Sometimes our education system falls back on lazy rote teaching or our students fail to be properly motivated to care about the "why?" behind something. This erodes this the advantages a post industrial economy needs to stay relevant in the changing world. |
I'm so confused about nuclear energy so take this as a grain of salt.. And please comment to clear things up for me
So when I think of nuclear plants I think of The Simpsons, the 1970s (?) disasters in the US, and semi recently the Fukushima in Japan
I wrote a case study on the Fukushima incident because it affected blue fin tuna and how with their migration patterns all over the world, the California coast started seeing higher levels of radiation a few months afterwards. (Sorry for the run on sentence and the following)
Anyway, my case study was looking at the propaganda of radiation levels. I had to find "alternative media" sources that proved what was getting into "mainstream media" wasn't accurate. (Mainstream media like CNN would downplay radiation levels/ assure that everything was fine/ problem was getting taken care of and fixed)
So my focus on my paper was on radiation exclusively. But during my research I was curious about nuclear power plants, and did a tiny bit of side research. From what I remember, nuclear energy didn't seem to harmful to the environment and plants were relatively easy to stabilize. The Fukushima disaster happened because of an earthquake.
I remember something about the steam they give off being an environmental issue, but it's steam from water. So I was kind of confused about that.
But from what I gathered, it seems like nuclear energy would be a great alternative.. As long as the plants weren't built on fault lines |
Also of interest, Paraguay has been 100% renewable for some years now, thanks to the enormous generating capacity of their shared hydro project with Brazil, the Itaipu Dam in the world!
The problem in Paraguay, which Costa Rica doesn't suffer as much from, is power distribution. Paraguay is often subject to rolling blackouts because of grid mismanagement, but it's still an incredible system. |
Pura vida, mae! I spent the summer in CR a few years back, and it was hands down the best time of my life and very eye-opening. I stayed with a family in San Luis de Monteverde, a town of about 400 people. Coming from a large American city to a farming community in a country like CR was life-changing.
When you basically take money out of the equation by living off of the land, the focus becomes solely on friends and family. This leads to incredibly humble, sincere, and all-around kind people.
Also, few things are better than waking up to homemade empanadas. And the coffee. Oh man, the coffee. And fresh milk. And the mangos and pineapples... I'm drooling now.
And prostitution is legal, if you're into that sort of thing. |
We're a capitalist society. Create an economically enticing alternate energy source that's viable on a national scale in the US or Europe and everyone will flock to it. That includes big energy companies knee-deep in fossil fuels right now. Yes, they love the fossil fuels, but they are companies with investors. If there's a cheaper, abundant energy source with similar reliability for a modern country that doesn't even need to be imported, you can bet they'd be the first to try and monopolize it. Especially given the -- rightfully earned -- horrible public image fossil fuels retains. |
I work in IT/systems administration at a major university. We have a 2.5 person team (one person is only part time, he rotates departments) and we are responsible for all IT/desktop support AND server stuff AND programming.
The department we support isn't huge huge, but it's about 150 people in a complex server environment (it's a university and I'm in an engineering dept; "users" who are sending in help tickets for "my computer isn't working" are also professors who are literally running their own mail and web servers from their Linux desktop computers.)
My pay grade is one level above entry, and my official title is "Systems Administrator/Desktop Support." I sit at my computer with one monitor with a bunch of terminal windows open logged in as root to a bunch of our critical servers (our network was originally set up back in the 80s and has been upgraded willy nilly with no plan for consolidation or organization), another monitor with our ticket system open, and a third monitor that switches between a Windows VM and email. And a phone sits next to me where I take desktop support calls too.
It's a management problem, I know. My manager realizes this. But we don't have the budget to either hire more help or do a massive consolidation project. But honestly my job probably exists due to this lack of organization and general university bureaucracy so I can't really complain.
Edit: Some people are telling me to quit. It's my first job out of college; I'm grateful to even have a job right now. Plus, even though I'm being underpaid for the type of work I'm doing, I'm making significantly more than almost every other recent grad I know (many of whom are doing food service, etc. I was lucky to get a job in my field that's giving me tons of experience (mostly out of necessity since I needed to quickly learn tons of different systems since we don't even use a standard distro throughout the department or on our servers)). Anyways this probably just sounds like I have Stockholm syndrome, but I don't. I do plan to leave in another 1-1.5 years (so a total of 2.5-3 years there) which is long enough that future employers wont question why I left so soon. I feel like quitting a sysadmin job after only a year and a half just because of a complex server environment and being "overworked" (not really even, I rarely stay late or anything) wouldn't look good to future employers. (Plus I've passed all performance reviews with flying colors and my supervisor along with pretty much every department member I've helped from professor to admin staff likes me, and I haven't accidentally blown up any servers yet) |
Embedded Motion projects set to animation millions+ when rendered in FCS will produce render errors. When played back the render error becomes corrupt and crashes. Our test system of the FCS seems to have solved this.
For now we use pro res 444 in Motion and down sample to prores422, it works, renders faster and looks better but requires us to transcode from DVCPro HD when ingesting the footage. Or we could export our Motion projects and import them as clips, but that's pretty tedious.
Our average conference has a few hundred hours of footage and Final Cut handles it without issue. I would guess that your problems have more to do with the types of files you are using, mpg and vob's aren't supported and I'm surprised they play at all. Typically we will use Compressor to convert web files to a broadcast codec before we edit or we try to obtain broadcast quality footage.
As for layers, I've had projects that had over a hundred layers (including nests) and while I agree that render times are terrible it gives a respectable composite if set to YUV high precession. |
This is a repost from the Science sub, where I didn't get much love. I hate it when movies and books use unrealistic technology or physics as much as any geek, but need some help from the true thinkers of Reddit.
>
>I'm working on my first Sci-Fi novel and love researching reasonable explanations for some pretty sweet shit.
Hollywood movies engaging in rather obvious "goofiness" that have to do with current or slightly-enhanced technology (the most ridiculous of which is the fast "key-smashing" that they qualify as "typing" -- or the ridiculous "hackers", etc.) is one thing.
But "Sci-Fi" (actually "Fantasy") like Star Trek and just about ALL of the rest of the ilk seem to be able to get away with just about anything, as long as they use enough techno-babble (aka "unobtainium" and "dilitium crystals" and "reversing the polarity") -- at least as long as the rest of the story is enticing and interesting (which these days doesn't seem all that difficult -- just like really bad pr0n, really bad sci-fi seems to find an "fandom" somehow.)
If you look at the most successful sci-fi -- most of the tech is just "assumed" within the story, rather than explained. (Which makes sense from a story/character perspective -- I mean when you & a friend hop in your car and start it up do YOU:
talk about how turning the key moves a switch which completes a circuit, sending an electrical current to a starter motor on a ring gear which is hooked up to and rotates the engine crankshaft, which is hooked in turn to a camshaft that closes/opens valves and triggers a sensor which feeds a signal back to a computer that then instructs the correct fuel injectors and sends current to a spark-plug which creates an explosion... ad nauseum
OR do you have them talk about what they are doing, where they are going and utterly IGNORE the stuff that's going on with the machinery (beyond saying "he started the car and began driving").
So the thing is that when you are writing about unproven "future tech" -- you're much more likely to write a piece of *crap* if you waste too much time and text focusing on the hows/whys of this non-existent tech.
At the same time, I share your sentiments and generally prefer sci-fi that doesn't push too many "BS" things at me (especially when they try to "explain" it and F it all up).
I tend to prefer the early Arthur C. Clarke sci-fi as a good example of "extrapolated hard technology" (especially books like "Songs of Distant Earth" -- where there is no such thing as "faster than light" travel).
Another good writer (but one who DOES engage in quite a bit of "unobtainium" type stuff) would be Vernor Vinge -- his book "Peace War" has as a central point of the story the invention of a "Bobble" but the REST of the "tech" in the book is plausible and possible, and likewise with his more recent book "Rainbow's End" -- in both of them there is plenty of "tech", but it is all just extrapolations of current electronics, software, etc. -- just several generations further down Moore's law than we have yet traveled (though we're getting awful close in many areas).
So I'd say if you want to write something that people will want to READ -- don't waste too darn much time on explaining the "hover" you'll just be making yourself look foolish AND boring your readers -- instead focus on what happens as a result of the tech, and/or how the story develops from there. |
Depends how you look at it; the BBC is 75% funded by license, ie: legally enforced subscription that everyone who possesses a TV must pay.
It's a public service and a state broadcaster; if by comparison any Government decided unilaterally to dump HTML and PDF and instead mandate that all Gov't documents were published in a locked format where only Gov't approved browser software could access it, there would be uproar. |
You would need to unplug it or switch it off for a year to save as much energy as it takes to have one-and-a-half baths.
And what about unplugging them AND have one-and-a-half less baths?
> For example, participants estimated that line-drying clothes saves more energy than changing the washer’s settings (the reverse is true)
Why the ... they can't line-dry clothes AND change the washer's settings???
> o long as people lack easy access to accurate information about relative effectiveness, they may continue to believe they are doing their part to reduce energy use when they engage in low-effort, low-impact actions instead of focusing on changes that would make a bigger difference.
Because that's psychology. If you know you are doing your part (as little as it is), you already have a positive feedback, and maybe later you will make bigger changes in the positive direction.
Sorry, but this article is bullshit. |
While I raged a little bit at first, I changed my mind after calming down. Can you imagine the shitty publicity they would get (especially now) if they changed the policy? "Facebook is advocating that your children should use marijuana." Stupid parents would start raging; social conservatives would start raging. Companies currently advertising on Facebook might stop doing so. |
I understand that this is alarming in general, but the idea of an internet kill switch is pretty dumb. The internet is not wholely withing the US governments control for starters. TOR is an obvious and simple solution to work around any sort of blocking. A more advanced computer user has access to even more options such as ssh tunneling.
I know a few people in countries with heavy internet filters and its pretty much common knowledge how to get around them in at least one way or another (usually proxy websites).
Another issue with the whole "kill switch" idea, is that the internet really doesnt rely on any one central system that could be killed, and the really important ones are responible for traffic thats not just in the US. Even during the recent torrent domain take downs, the sites where back up in a matter of hours, and other sites made note of the incedent and took steps to prevent against it happening to them. |
This argument is absurd. By your logic, if I can convince a bank employee to give me a bunch of money under the table, then I’ve done nothing wrong. The employee might get in trouble, but not me, because I had her permission and, therefore implicitly, the banks permission.
No, this is not permission. It's called having an inside man.
Any reasonable person knows there are channels that you need go through in order to access a company’s private network (channels that don’t involve signoff from the CEO – that’s a ridiculous straw man argument). As a former high-level executive in Cisco’s engineering department, it’s completely unreasonable to believe that he didn’t know that what he was doing was wrong.
Motive, or intent, also matters here because it can turn an otherwise minor misstep into a serious crime. The article is sketchy on the details, but he appears to have been accessing their network to gather private documents or information that he could use against Cisco in some way, quite possibly for his own profit.
None of this makes Cisco’s legal response any less asinine, but I wasn’t defending them at all. I was simply pointing out that Mr. Adekeye apparently wasn’t an entirely innocent victim. In illegally accessing their network, whatever his motive, he seems to have handed them the gun they used to shoot him in the foot. |
The distinction the judge is making is, first and foremost, that the various John Does were improperly joined, being that their actions were not coordinated and originated in different jurisdictions, and therefore each John Doe should have been the subject of a separate action. The fact that they were improperly joined in order to cut costs for the prosecution, and that the prosecution was sending out letters offering to 'settle' for amounts that were far above and beyond the actual value of the product in question, suggests that they were looking to profit from the civil/criminal penalties imposed on infringers. Now the fact that a prosecutor makes money from a defendant's infringement is not in and of itself a bad thing ... but I think what the judge was implying that they made that work specifically so it would be pirated and so they could then prosecute the pirates -- and, therefore, that their actions were inequitable, tantamount to some specie of barristry, or something to that effect. |
Related:
> Doing a PhD in Psychology and Neuroscience. … To make this work they had to hack apart the poor cat's brain whilst it was completely unconscious, hook up nearly 200 individual cells directly with electrodes and then run an incredibly long set of tests to work out what patterns of light each cell responded to at what point on the retina before they could make these very rough images.
The cat never would have lived again and by the time it was hooked up to all this was practically a slab of meat. This is simply representing the automatic electrical responses created in low level brain regions triggered as a result of light hitting different parts of the retina. It can't be used to see what an individual or organism is imagining, thinking, dreaming or anything else, just what light is hitting the retina. |
One day, far from today, all the huddled masses of the third world will be making nikes and iPhones and toaster ovens. There will be nowhere else for Gap sweatshops to come in and nab and fence in outlier mountain people and others left behind by time to make cheaper jeans. And people who work modern jobs and live in a modern world will be needing shoes, and cell phones and toaster ovens. The problem is how we get there, and this positive outcome of globalization can't happen without continued consumption by the people (Americans) who's jobs are being forfeited to low wage foreigners in the name of efficiency. Mass production requires mass consumption. I think giant multinationals should be forced to cool it on their noble quest to make the world a more equal place. We shouldn't stop trade but we should slow the transition so that it doesn't just grind to a halt. |
Let me toss you a couple counteracting points.
First, the moral point of SHOULD . Think of culture. The cultural history of this world is spawned from art, especially performance art, being spread and shared. In the past, people could go to plays, steal the ideas and reenact the plays. In the recent past, people could bootleg tapes and albums. Absolutely, the last Metallica cd is a far cry from a cure for cancer, but this last decade has created a paywall for those who wish to absorb culture at all.
The idea of copyright is to breed innovation, ingenuity, and add more works of art to our culture. Yet now, it's being used to suppress culture, in a way that doesn't seem to make the artist money.
This idea, the idea that whoever originates and releases an innovation to the wild should have full control of how it's used, is very new and really weird.
> |
Actually, I think they just might--but not in the ways many of us think. The people who are suing the government could be playing nicely into its hands.
By setting a stronger precedent that "data" is the intellectual property of its owner or creator (in this case, the average person who stores information on a file sharing site), the government could then turn around with much more ammunition to go after so-called pirates who "steal" intellectual property for personal use. |
You make no sense.
Making information free is still making information free, whether you profit monetarily from doing so or not. If you believe that making information free is a just cause in and of itself, then you probably don't care one way or the other if someone furthering the cause personally benefits by doing so. Just like Robin Hood was still giving money to the poor, regardless of the fact that he garnered great popular fame from it — no one begrudged him that fame and subsequent power, because they liked that he helped the poor.
And the 1% is not a problem because they're the 1%; it's what any given member of it does with that position that's the problem. You seem to be under the impression that anyone rich must necessarily also be evil, or at least that that's the thinking of anyone who talks about the 1%. T'ain't so. |
Thanks for the well thought out reply. It's given me a lot to think about. I'm not sure if I agree or not (I'll have to think about that more), but I think I understand the pro-piracy viewpoint (or at least your version of it) much better. (WARNING: a lot of what follows is just me working through an idea, trying to break the issue down a formal-ish ethical argument)
One thing that does bother me is the idea that just because something is unlimited it SHOULD be freely available to the public. The second any information is digitized, it becomes freely duplicatable, thus potentially unlimited. This includes "public" things that are easily and freely obtainable like websites, images, youtube videos, etc. The things that make up the bulk of the actual knowledge online and are meant to be unlimited. It also includes "restricted" (not easily obtainable) things like e-mail, financial data, and medical records. While something is restricted, it is essentially limited because either it is simply not copied or there is a formal agreement of some kind to not copy it. It doesn't truly become unlimited until people actually start copying it outside the restricted zone. I think most people would agree that most of restricted data ought to be restricted and that most of the public data ought to be public.
Information can move from the restricted category to the public (and truly unlimited) category if someone makes it public, but not vice versa (or at least it is not feasible to do so). It doesn't matter who makes it public, because once it is public, it generally stays public. If the "owner" or whoever has legitimate control of some restricted data chooses to make it public, then it's fine. But if some restricted data is made public by a third party, then whether it's right or not is more a matter of whether or not the data SHOULD be public.
If the data is actual knowledge that the world can benefit from, I would argue that it should be made public (example: videos of soldiers gunning down unarmed civilians, unprovoked). If the data could potentially cause harm than good by its publication (example: private bank information), then its being made public is ethically wrong.
Pirated data (let's use music, as an example) falls under the umbrella of restricted data that has been made public by a third party against the "owner"'s wishes. It started out in some limited, restricted medium that was not in the "public" part of the internet, be it on a CD, a record, or a legally purchased mp3 (with an agreement that it would not be shared, ie limited). Then, a pirate ripped it, converted it, or just copy/pasted it somewhere and made it public. Whether what that pirate did (and piracy in general) is ethically right or wrong boils down to whether or not that data is actual knowledge that benefits the world and whether it does more harm than good.
This should be universally true. If we accept the above, then whether piracy is legal or not, the act of piracy is ethically right if it benefits the world and wrong if it doesn't. The legality of piracy does affect how much harm/good piracy causes. If piracy is legalized, then the "owner" is the one making the data available and less harm is done than if the "owner" is expecting to turn a profit by the restricted distribution of their work. There is also the potential harm of potential lost profits that would come with changing how an entire industry works (as I see it, it's a gamble).
The dilemma as I see it is whether or not music counts as actual knowledge that can world can benefit the world. If it's real knowledge, then I agree that access to it is a human right. If it's not actual knowledge, and it's just some entertaining jingles and moving pictures, then likely harms the artists by not letting them control when/how/if their restricted data becomes public.
Another thing to consider is that no matter what, like you say, piracy is going to happen. It's just a fact of life. Because of this, anyone who really wants free (as in beer) access to the information. Anyone who wants the data enough to pay for it does. Those who don't want it enough to pay for it are still able to get it relatively easily if they really want it. That the information is, in fact, already public does lessen the potential harm done to the world by keeping the information totally restricted.
That's where my thinking is stalled. Does piracy cause more good than harm or vice versa? At this point, it probably comes down to personal opinion. |
Save your breath, this is reddit.
The file analogy is terrible, you are implying that the files have been destroyed. Someone used a better analogy of your car being used as a getaway for a robbery. The FEDs have the right to take it, chalk it for fingerprints and evidence. The stuff you had in the car, well that stays too. (Hell even better would be the feds seize a friend's laptop and you left your files on there)
They might want to sue them for the inconvenience but fact of the matter is that was always a risk, you should keep a backup. To me this is just another "fight the man" thread where redditors lash out without thinking about the consequences. |
What bothers me about this model is the 'public funding' aspect. I don't like most of the digital media that is produced, as I suspect is true for most people. Thus, I don't want my taxes to be hiked up to pay for Ke$ha to make music or Infinity Ward to make games I dislike. I'd prefer to select the goods/services I like and reward them exclusively with my dollars without also being forced to pay for every artist, no matter how banal their work, because of this acknowledgement of their work as a public good.
Just imagine how much you would have to raise income taxation to pay every producer of digital media via public funds. It would cripple people's ability to spend money how they choose, since the government will forcibly take it and decide for them. That is far more oppressive than any restriction on piracy. As it stands, people can't tolerate higher taxes for more important public goods, like social safety nets, universal health care, education funding, or federal debt management. What honestly makes you think they have an appetite for a substantial increase in the cut of their income that the federal government takes to fund production of goods they don't want/like?
Let's not forget how simple this system would be to game or corrupt. Do you honestly think you could create a download-counting metric that I couldn't inflate to make my piece of shit media look like it's enjoyed by the masses, thus creating a larger share for myself? This would be double easy if I have any contacts within the federal government.
If you actually respect free markets as much as you claim, the idea of a central planner for all fiscal decisions about digital media should be repugnant to you.
Additionally, that strategy only works if every developed country in the world agreed to do this and contribute to a sort of multinational pot to redistribute from. If only the USA did this, for instance, then what about piracy in the UK?
One of two things will happen:
The artists wouldn't see a dime from those pirated copies without the offset of sales (since we established that selling the good will not work if the market settles on $0).
The UK downloads would by subsidized by USA taxpayer funds.
I'm not ok with either plan.
Additionally, I can use a private VPN to make my IP appear to be from any country in the world, thus skirting your public contribution system. If the download came from Russia, for example, then the US government shouldn't chip in that download's share to the author of the work. Yet, there were loads of Americans who used a VPN to appear to be in Russia when they connected to Steam to get the Skyrim preorder preload to unlock a few hours earlier. Imagine a country forcing all of their citizens through an ip spoofing gateway when downloading from a local producer to appear to be from another country, thus spreading that country's contributions thin and effectively stealing that country's tax payer money and filling the coffers of a national star in that country (who may conveniently be a member of that country's federal government). Even if the offending country isn't part of a global redistribution system, they can just plant someone in a contributing country and do the same thing. That person who created some sort of media then simply donates their proceeds to their home country.
Also, who decides how to weight the different media? Video games and music aren't competing, and have drastically different production costs. Are video games worth 3x as much or 6x? or 15x? The USSR had thousands of people devoted to all sorts of algorithms to try to come up with acceptable prices for all of their goods, which would have been settled automatically by a true free market. Letting some government body decide how much each download is worth as a percentage of some media war chest gathered from tax money would inevitably have the same price-determination problems of a socialist economy. |
I'm not saying its better, just that I use it much more. If you asked me advice on whether you should buy a nice $500 laptop or an iPad (assuming you had no other computer) I'd suggest you go with the laptop every time. If you're able to have both then the iPad is way more handy, especially for casual Internet use. They're small, portable, instantly on and off and extremely easy to use. The screen is big enough that you aren't squinting and the touchscreen is much easier than a trackpad, touchpad or a mouse. Overall it's just convenient, user friendly and very easy to use. |
The first generation of I-phone was severely lacking. Even though every phone on the market had 3G internet, the i-phone did not. For web and internet, it was too slow to be considered usable. Also, Apple did not allow for any applications to be installed. At that time, the software that was on the phone when you got it was, presumably, all the software you would ever have. There was no app store and apple locked the platform. The first jail breaks were met with counter-measures in software updates.
I remember having a windows mobile phone at that time. As crappy as winmo was, it was much more useful than an I-phone.... (Can you believe that winmo was once better than an I-phone, seems impossible to think of now). I could download applications for it, I had 3G internet, it cost me hundreds less. |
Dude, modern life entails paying for convenience, so we can get more fun stuff into the short lives we live.
I don't want to have to assemble or even maintain my own car, or build my house. Similarly, I don't want to have to spend first hours learning, then many extra seconds every time I do some common task. I don't want to have to change my own oil, or even know where the spark plugs are - that's why I have a Japanese car with a road-side assistance plan. Apple is just like that, but for the first time, they've applied it to a general purpose computer - Sony et al made specific technology accessible to mums and dads; apple have made general internetting and a bit of content creation available to your grandmother; that's what's different this time and why the geeks are freeking out.
Taking a picture and SMSing it was a fucking nightmare in Symbian, but I was happy that I could install a web browser in the background... to waste my battery. No-one I knew with a Nokia ever used most of the features, because they were cumbersome, unreliable, and generally troublesome because they interfered with each other. And the phone was complete and utter shit that complained about memory full even after a factory reset. Which didn't erase some photos. -_- And this was Nokia's best effort, that they continued to push for years after iOS debuted. Apple caught the big players with their pants down.
With the iPhone I know it's going to be simple enough that even my mother in law can actually use the features without wasting a chunk of my life and hers explaining the million freaking taps and clicks that other "flexible" phones require you to do.
As a consequence, the iPhone actually encouraged more features to use the advanced features of their smart phone (even SMS was more popular): web, e-mail, apps, you name it - they all only took off once the iPhone made it APPEALING to people who didn't want to waste time nerding out.
Next time you buy clothes, be thankful for the convenience you're paying for, in not having to know how to make them yourself. |
I think the fact that it's Java based and not compiled from Objective C might be at play, but I'm not 100% entirely sure.
That's not quite right. Android itself is written primarily in C/C++ with Java being used in only a few places (I believe just the UI, but I may be mistaken). The API for developing Android apps in written in Java the programming language, but they're not run in Java the runtime environment. Google developed a custom runtime for Android devices called Dalvik, which is specifically designed for mobile devices. The API contains most of the same API from the Java SE plus additional Android-specific libraries, but when you compile this code, it compiles for Dalvik, not the Java runtime.
On the Apple side, the API for developers is done mostly in Objective-C. Objective-C also executes within a runtime, however. The reason why Java is generally considered slower than C/C++ is because Java compiles into bytecode to be interpreted by a runtime, rather than compiling into a binary that runs right against the hardware (or at least a lower level of the OS). So since Objective-C code on the iPhone runs in a runtime just like the Java code on Android does, that doesn't necessairly make it "slower".
There are a few reason though why Android overall may not give you as smooth an experience as iOS does:
The Objective-C runtime only has to be designed to run on a very specific set of devices (current iPhones). Dalvik needs to be abstract enough that it can run on a multitude of devices. This makes it hard for Dalvik to squeeze as much performance out of the hardware.
Objective-C does have excellent support for including C/C++ code and libraries, which do compile directly the hardware. You can write C/C++ code to run on Android using the NDK (native development kit) but it's not quite as simple as it is to do as it is on the iPhone.
Edit: As gte910h pointed out, C/C++ code in iOS is still compiled to bytecode and run in the runtime, and not against the hardware as I said. That makes this point not as important, though I do believe there are still some performance increases to be had using lower level code.
Objective-C allows you (or, in the case of iOS, forces you) to do explicit memory management. This means allocating and deallocating space for every variable you declare. In the Java language, there's no mechanism for explicit memory management - this must be done by the runtime using a process called "garbage collection". This (arguably) makes code simpler but the very nature of garbage collection makes it slow and resource-consuming. |
Exactly. The reasons listed above are still valid for me and are the reason why I didn't invest in a tablet yet.
I have to use iOS/Android tablets for work (we develop web apps that are used on tablets) and I still consider typing on them pretty inconvenient, and reading is so much tiring compared to an e-reader.
The only advantage is to browse internet while I'm on the couch or in bed, but I'm already spending too much time in front of a computer otherwise, so I'm trying to cut on that anyway. |
If you look at HTC's products, they were similar to the original iPhone except HTC had been making them for ages.
Apple has since sued HTC several times which I find hilarious since I've personally used their products before the iPhone came out - and tbh the original iPhone wasn't that great. Today with the app store and Siri and stuff its a whole different story and I haven't used HTC in a while so I can't judge (Android app store is pretty decent tho).
My phone when the iPhone actually came out was a Sony Ericsson which sported a 5 megapixel camera. Much better than Apple's 2 megs and it had a decent music player and games. Granted the internet sucked but back then I didn't use data or wifi on my phone. |
Sorry, I went to bed and came back to like 15 comments.. Lol
I'd like to first say, I didn't say it sucks. I'm actually a huge windows phone 7 proponent. I've always said if someone took my iPhone away and said I could never have another one, I'd have a windows phone.
Now, I think they have a great deal of potential, but keep over hyping their devices beyond what they are really good for.
First, in every training I went to for the phone, everyone was losing their fucking mind over it having a "Carl Zeiss lens" but in practice it's a terrible fucking camera. I'm not big into photography, and not familiar with Carl Zeiss but if I were him, I would be ashamed to put my name on this camera.
Second, it released with a huge data connectivity problem, that was acknowledged by Nokia and, to their credit, they gave everyone a $100 credit on their bill for it, and released a "fix" for it. I say that as such because the fix doesn't work 100% and I still have customers every day coming in saying their data doesn't work, to which I have no fix.
Third, and this one isn't so much the phone as WP7 but the app store is shit. It's really hard to make a transition for anyone from android or iPhone or even blackberry to wp7 because their are so few apps, and the apps they have tend to cost money or be terrible quality.
Fourth, the goddamn thing locks up all the time. It's so uncommon of a WP7. I tell do many customers a day, when talking about windows phones, "it just works, we never have issues with them from customers like we do with every other phone. No lock-ups, no freezing, no weird errors that we have to google, they just work" but this one, however, doesn't fit that criteria, it locks up and blank screens constantly. My demo that was given to me my Nokia (all the emps got one free) has turned off charging and just won't turn back on twice now. One of my co workers has has the same issue. The phone has a "hard reset" feature similar to iPhones "home and power button" hold trick, that forces the phone to reset, but with the lumia, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
I could keep writing for a while because this really upset me. I'm a huge windows phone person but the lumia was a big let down. I know this hasn't happened to everyone, and some will say "I've never had any of those problems!" but a lot of people are, and I know this because I help them every day at work. |
Well, the signs represent the way they tried to pass acta: "acta because fuck you". They tried to pass it over the heads of the people, esp. K. De Gucht, for whom I am deeply embarrased as someone from belgium. |
This has nothing to do with patents and more to do with, as you note, cost of building a chip fab for brand new entries. On the other hand, Intel is still advancing the performance of their chips. Sure clock rates are not increasing very rapidly, but that is a function of the physical limitations of the materials and processes used to build the chips. Also, Intel is competing against many people in the chip market, AMD in the high-end consumer market, AMD and every ARM based chip fab in the tablet/ultra portable space. In the server market they are still competing against IBM's PowerPC chips and there is some talk of bringing ARM based chips into the server market. All of these groups are making advancements in their chip performance, it's just that the gain appears to slow as the systems get more complex and the physical limits of the materials are reached. |
Ummm, Apple didn't do this to help the families affected by Sandy - they did this for goodwill and positive publicity.
If they were really interested in helping people, they wouldn't have gone to the press and sent out notices to thousands upon thousands of people, telling them how philanthropic Apple was. They would have done it in secret, and only later would word have leaked out. |
You clearly don't understand just how bad Microsoft is losing market share. The Surface was a massive failure and they had to cancel half of their original orders. Windows 8 is a massive failure and hated by anyone with more than a passing knowlege of technology. Windows mobile is the worst failure of all and has failed to obtain any sort of market share. |
No. No I don't. What do you people expect? For someone to have an answer that does the entire job? How does that make sense, when the very issues we are trying to fix have slowly developed over the course of two centuries with millions of compounding factors? When you hear about Martin Luther King, do you truly believe that he single handedly spearheaded the perfect campaign and was the sole person responsible for minority rights? Or do you realize that this was something that was fought for for decades with many different people in different types of battles? He could have done all he wanted, but without people in power to listen, without people behind him for support, without people spreading the word, etc his efforts would have been meaningless
We must all play our role. For some of us, it is showing that what the government claims is not always the truth. For some of us, it is working within the system to influence policy (private or public). For others, it is raising awareness (protests, rallies). And so on. Every role to fill would fail on it's own, but if we fill them all and are diligent we might actually succeed. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.