The industry loves things like Dubstep because it can be produced on a computer and the "artist" (using this term very loosely) is just an actor and can be replaced if need be. Not that the art of replacing band members in pop groups is a new concept either. Their ultimate goal is to replace the human component forever, that way they dont have to pay them their 10%, beyond this people tend to have opinions that aren't popular, develop drug habits, get old/ugly. Virtual pop stars are the wet dream of the music industry.

Back to sound quality, I've noticed this too, even with voices they seem to be altered to just beyond the range of what the human voice is capable of. My theory always has been that this is done to make the track sound louder and more noticeable (modern music seems more about annoying you into listening/remembering than enticing you) but someone else in this thread pointed out that people have grown used to listening to poorly encoded MP3's and this also makes a lot of sense, people are starting to think that the artefacts you get in bad MP3 files are normal. Add to that the fact that people have also grown used to using poor quality playback devices to listen to their poorly encoded music.

Whilst this is true for a lot manufactured pop, with forms of music that had the artist sing and play as well as write different albums have different sounds. The Colour and the Shape from the Foo Fighters sounds very different from Nothing Left to Lose and the albums were only separated by 2 years and this is very different from Sonic Highways (their latest album).

So yeah, someone who has their music written for them and autotuned will benefit from releasing songs on a staggered timetable, but bands who tour will still need to make whole albums and not just because they only get a few months of studio time between tours.

You're still over complicating it, so let me break it down for you... Its because they can.

Established manufacturers can afford to sell on reputation and charge for extras that lesser known, liked or trusted manufacturers cant. This is why you get more features as standard in a Hyundai I30 than you do in a Toyota Corolla.

Last time I went to a BMW dealership it was an exercise in saying "no".
Bi-xenon headlights - no.
Parking package - no.
Comfort package - no.
ConnectedDrive(TM) - no.
Driver assistant - no and if you mention this or automatic transmissions again I'm walking.

Manufacturers will keep trying to up sell you on features because people keep buying them.

Fixed that for you.

The driver was under the impression that the car had Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB), which is a feature Volvo offers on the XC60 but isn't installed by default. Vovlo's advertising doesn't reflect this obviously, it's hidden in the small print that says something like "optional extras not included". The "self parking" part is a misnomer on the part of the submitter.

However the bigger problem is the mistaken faith they have in AEB systems, that they are 1) infallible, 2) effective. If you watch a video of the XC60's AEB system (Euro NCAP will have a few) they are only effective up to a speed of about 20 KPH, after that all they do is reduce the speed of the impact. Also these tests are done from a steady speed (I.E. not accelerating). I'm sure that mashing the go pedal wont help AEB work.

I firmly believe that AEB is going to make things worse, not better as it gives bad drivers false confidence. People who already dont pay attention to the road will think it's perfectly OK to pay even less attention to the road. We're making already lazy drivers even lazier. AEB will eventually be removed because of this, Volvo is lucky in this case because 1) it was in the Dominican Republic so they can simply buy their way out of trouble and; 2) the feature was not installed on the car. However shortly a dopey Doris in an AEB equipped car will be doing 100 down the motorway and plough into the back someone else's car at 75 because they were busy texting and their excuse will be "but the car was supposed to brake for me". Even though car manufacturers have tried to cover their arse in the fine print, it wont be enough to save them from the ignorance and stupidity of end users.

I accept 1, but 2 is debatable, we need to encourage people to NOT fuck around with gadgets in the car at all.

However vendor locked "infotainment" systems need to die and die a horrible death in a fire. In car nav systems are almost always inferior to third party, updates are difficult and in many cases, expensive. Manufacturers have made a system that is obsolete in 2 years max which cannot be replaced in a vehicle that has a serviceable life of 10+ years. This needs to change.

I cant imagine how bad my current car, a 2002 Nissan Silvia would be if I couldn't swap out the stereo with something that knew what an MP3 was. I'd still be forced to burn music CD's like a Neanderthal. Fortunately it was a standard double DIN with standard Nissan connectors, so putting in a new Alpine head unit was easy. However this wont be the case with most 2012 cars in 2025.

I think you'll find that definitely is the case because the people who approve these billboards will have nothing to do with the Ministry of Transport.

Not sure about the UK but in many countries including Australia most of the billboards are privately owned and only need approval from the council to be put up, after that the owner can advertise what they like and are only bound by the advertising standards code (erm... so no hardcore).

A bigger issue I have are with advertisements on buses. Unlike the billboard owners these guys definitely have a vested interest in road safety yet tend to big bright ads with scantily clad ladies or small text. Its a shame Google Glass didn't take off, I would like adblock+ for real life.

Maybe you're right. Hey, did you see this?. For all we know, the reasonable budgets of a national space program with a Moon mission are a bargain for the new technology this mission might discover, and someday provide to prevent mass population die-offs due to poverty. But I really doubt it and I can't agree. India's space program is a bad idea considering they have such severe national problems. If the US in the 1960's was half as bad as India is today, the Moon missions would probably not have happened, even if Russia's program was putting pressure on US dominating races to every possible technical achievement. First feed your kids, istartedi... THEN you can go to the Moon.

You are clinging to your misconception about what CS is by arguing something entirely new: there are no CS "jobs." You are mistaken, btw. And what we are talking about is not a negligible chunk of change, as outside academia the starting salary of a B.S. computer scientist with zero experience is close to $70-80K these days, while I think you know any software developer graduating with any degree with zero experience won't touch that. Your ignorance of any positions for an actual, bone fide "computer scientist" is not a good foundation to argue from, IMO.

My point really simply was (sorry for the feigned ignorance) that maybe the Clinton Foundation, certainly Slashdot editors, and obviously you, mistakenly believe that the purpose of "Computer Science" in society in practice, is to fill the jobs for software developers. This is absurd on its face, and your academia-vs-real-world strawman does not change this.

Please refrain from limiting computer scientists to the labor of developers. All developers can do is code. Computer scientists have a much larger bag.

I truly believe they have misnamed the subject in question, and couldn't possibly be talking about CS, but perhaps skills, incidentally related, often attributed to CS incorrectly. IT WOULD BE AWESOME if some CS got into lower education. It shouldn't be expensive... no PCs necessary. But symbolic logic corses would be just as useful. Again, I don't think this is their (Clinton Foundation's) intention, but (perhaps slashdot editors) are misusing CS to mean either programming or confident graphic interface operation and document creation, or both. It is maddening the damage Slashdot has done to Computer Science, relegating it to "the stuff you can do with computers," instead of what it is, the science of computating.

Why would a CS grad want to be a software developer? That doesn't make any sense. They should have studied software development and programming. That's like an MD hoping to get a job as a medical tech... a noble profession, but the MD can earn much more, be more fulfilled properly applying their education as a doctor, and the same is true of a CS grad. Their ideal employment will have little to do with coding.

Headline is wrong... should not be "Lack of CS Savvy" but "Lack of COMPUTER Savvy." Once again, Computer Science has been misunderstood and its title abused by those that cannot understand... computer science IS a science... and it has hardly anything to do with computers... the "computer" in computer science is NOT A DIGITAL MACHINE, per se, but one who computes... it is the science of reckoning, not the science of (or application of) advanced programming techniques.

Even then, you've still got weak links in the chain.

Because banks charge per terminal, a lot of smaller chains/franchises use a generic terminals some software sitting on a PC out back so they can have multiple physical terminals presented to the customer but only one software terminal presented to the bank.

PC EFTPOS is one of the more popular ones I've seen in Australia and it is not unusual to see it sitting on the same PC that staff use to check their personal mail and cat videos.

Having installed and serviced POS terminal I've been convinced that cash is orders of magnitude safer despite the risks of losing it or getting mugged (TBH, if you're that clumsy that you'll lose cash, you'll lose your card just as easily).

Are you going to pay for a custom built, fully audited single use OS, or a general purpose OS repurposed to use as a POS terminal.

All the store managers picked the latter as the stores that used the former went out of business because the average punter does not value security (or worse yet, thinks the banks will protect them).

Having dealt with POS terminals, there's a good reason I never use my card at a store.

Erm, the motivation is easy money. The same thing Uber is promising.

I haven't been to Kampala, but I've seen the same thing in SE Asia, in fact it gets worse there. unlicensed taxi drivers tend to form gangs, create turf and fight over their territory. Thailand is a good example. In Bangkok where taxis are regulated they are cheap, easy to find, safe and reliable if you dont feel like using Bangkok's good public transport, a trip from the city centre to BKK airport (35 KM) is a mere 400 baht. In Phuket where there are no taxi regulations taxi and tuk tuk drivers refuse to turn on less than 200 baht. So you'll take the bus then I hear you say, well good luck with that, whenever the government of Phuket gets it in their head to set up a municipal bus service (baht bus) the drivers are stopped, dragged out of their buses and beaten by the taxi mafia.

Dont take my word for it, google "Phuket taxi mafia", "Tuk Tuk mafia" or even just "taxi mafia" (the first google result should be for Phuket).

There are many examples of this, such as what happened when South Africa deregulated their taxi industry.

We have taxi regulations for a good reason, sure I'll be the first to admit they aren't perfect, but having lived in places with the alternative, the worst protectionist policies are better than that.

You need to go and live where there are no taxi regulations before saying anything like that.

I've lived in several of these places. Taxis always ended up in the hands of criminal gangs, territories were enforced and fought over and it was at the point where the government couldn't do anything about it even if they wanted to. Case in point, Phuket's taxi mafia, you may want to note the heavily regulated taxis in Bangkok are a lot cheaper and a lot less violent.