It never is, and never will be if all goes well. Wouldn't you rather be honest about what you (don't) know than work on stupid old data, like "cloved hooves are bad to eat"??
We continuously learn more, and the "flip flops" are the result of continuously better understandings. Your life expectancy has increased as a result, and this continues to improve each and every year.
There is a tremendous amount of ignorance and stupidity the world over. People get ideas from random sources, make their choices, and are very prone to making the mistake of believing everything they think. So we have people who *still* swear by Laetrile as a cure for cancer, or Scientology as a cure for arthritis caused by grumpy souls stuck in their elbows.
However, science offers a way out of the maze: the idea that ideas are only as valuable as they can be *validated* by peer review and experimentation. Validating ideas is painful, costly, and time consuming, so it takes *time* to find all the stupids and work them out, one by one. Combine that with the often significant economic interests in the ideas being cross-checked, and you can see it often takes even more time and expense to get the word out.
The change of tune that you point out is perhaps the single biggest strength of science, not some evidence of *ahem* irrational design.
This whole concept of "drive by porning" is nothing more than fear, uncertainty, and doubt spread by the "think of the children" namby-pambies who want to block adult sites from anyone accessing them on the internet.
Really? I guess some people are too young to remember WhiteHouse.com.
Or a can of beans?
I mean, it's a header to tell you what's inside the packet. How is a label on a can not telling you what's inside the can?
There's lots that you are missing.
The issue isn't the input data, it's the processing method. The processing method mentioned here as "revolutionary" is just about exactly the method that Raymond Kurzweil posited: a hierarchy of "nodules" that pattern match on a cascading network of pattern matches....
We're living with a modern-day Turing. Do we give him ample credit?
If anything, the digital revolution obviates the need for tedious, drudgerous work. In the 1960s that was George Jetson speak! Poor George had to work an entire hour per day! But now that we've adopted far-right, archaic ideology and let the super-wealthy get all the spoils of the digital revolution, suddenly "eliminating drudgery" means "eliminating jobs".
The digital revoluion is set to disemploy up to 50% of Americans over the next 2 decades. It's going to get lots worse before it gets better. That is, unless you are a software engineer.
I'm a lifelong business owner, and this guy is calling it exactly, giving good advice, and all you can do is complain about autoplay? Just be decent and don't complain about cubicle life, OK?
Unfortunately though, many do not. Said propaganda has been working too well; and the other problem is that most people do not have the psychological strength to avoid caving into it, even if they can see that it is factually false.
And they are massively negative and destructive for Linux and its community if not repelled decisively.
Sadly, they are not going to be repelled. Reddit's main Linux sub is almost completely supportive of systemd. Say anything against it whatsoever, and you will be trolled and downvoted into oblivion.
On the other hand, I don't completely agree with you at this point, about systemd being entirely devoid of technical merit, or at least not in the minds of some. While I don't like the idea of it myself, I've encountered several people who've looked at it and think that many of its' features are worth keeping, but that the overall design is bad and needs to be re-worked.
In other words, it's given us some good features, but they will probably need to be re-incorporated into another project, with a better overall design.
Apparently, there is a C-64 emulator written in Javascript? (I don't know enough to try it)
On the other hand, I've recently been playing Sim City 2000, an ancient DOS game in a DOS Box, provided for free by EA....
Everyone knows that the military airplane became obsolete once radar was invented. (Sarcasm?)
The SR-71 was shot at too many times to count. Never once shot out of the sky. RADAR? Sure, they may have known she was there, and wasn't nothing to be done about it, as nothing could catch it.
The only reason why we parked the SR-71 is that satellites could do the same thing, cheaper, 24x7.
I would like to know about how smoking pot compares to smoking tobacco.
I don't *want* fancy electronics my car that doesn't adhere to some standard interface.
I want music to adhere to a standard interface, EG: RCA connectors. I don't expect navigation in the dash - I'm perfectly happy using my phone. I'd be good with it playing through the soundsystem via a standard interface, EG: bluetooth.
If you take care of them, cars last a long time. I'm *still* driving a 2001 Chrysler convertible, and it not only has a CD player, but also a cassette tape! I can't imagine using CDs or tapes - all my music is in my phone. The car only has 120k miles, I'll probably get another half decade out of it, at least. (And yes, I'm aware that the Chrysler convertibles have a bad reputation; emphasis on take care of them )
I want my car to be a car, and not try to include technology with a life cycle of 3-5 years. I don't *want* my car to have a built in cellular wifi, because the cellular network will likely be upgraded well before the car dies, making the feature worthless at best, but more likely a security or reliability concern. I don't *want* my car to have built-in navigation, as whatever system it has will be hopelessly obsolete long before I'm ready to turn in the drivetrain.
Instead, I propose that cars can have an in-dash screen that may (or may not) have it's own "smarts" but is also usable as a simple screen via something like HDMI with touch feedback so that later, I can use some new whiz bang thingie that hasn't been invented yet.
Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz
