about anything other than the bafflingly irrelevant Wonderwall cover. What is that all about?
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
"You'd get whiter skies. People wouldn't have blue skies anymore."
Living in Ireland, the sky is white or grey about half the time. You get over it.
Jaguar laptop APU
For god's sake mod this comment up.
Beat me to it. I think the problem is that
Both posted by soulskill, just 2 weeks apart. Shameful stuff.
in some cases not enough rigor in their tests
That was the problem for me with Kari, Grant and Tory. Sometimes I think they actually failed to test the myth because of some issue with their setup. I wouldn't mind that if they used it to add discussion about what constitutes a real test, or maybe suggest some way that it still could possibly be true. Invariably, they would just claim that this is "totally busted!"
It's just annoying. It's like they don't want you watching the program if your standards are too high. Goddamn it, that's what science is about!
I can't expect them to be as good as Adam and Jamie - they've got a lot of experience in making things happen from working in special effects. Some of their setups are quite ingenious. But watching these other fools pretend to do the same thing is just sad sometimes.
And yeah, as people have been saying, the fluff factor is worse than ever. Those little acted out bits with silly music are horrendous. What a waste of time and effort. Just do the myths. Watching clips on youtube is far better than watching on TV.
Yeah, but without even referencing the theory that's supposedly conjecture.
What lazy idiocy.
It's called "theory" for a reason
Because that's the word that has come to represent the meaning of the word "theory"?
I'm sorry, I can't work out what point you're trying to make.
That's a lot of prototypes.
I really think this should be modded to 5 but I have no points.
Do you ever look back on those bonkers games from the 70s and 80s and wonder how gaming could otherwise have developed over the years?
Nowadays, even the hardware is geared towards 3D, and most games are generally some sort of photorealistic adventure involving humanoids. In the early days of gaming, people didn't know what the trends were gonna be. Was it inevitable that it turn out that way? There are games for the early Atari or Commodore etc. consoles where it's difficult to even figure out what the buttons do. Some games just had a completely different take on what a computer game could be. Many really good ones remain as the classics that defined the genres, but so many ingenious takes on gaming are left only as single examples of a great idea.
It's very easy to tell people not to focus on profit when you've already made yours. I'm also adding my voice to the "Fuck Gates" camp. What he gives away is a small price to pay to when you consider what he's got left over. He manages to lose the reputation he should have for poisoning the technology industry in every way he could get away with for his own benefit, and still keep the vast majority of the profits. What a villain.
Take the functionality, ditch the compatibility. Sounds right.
I think you're wrong. I think it's an oversimplification and over-rationalization to say that there is one combination of ingredients which is optimal, and to be aimed for every time. I never want my food to be uniform; I want it to be varied and imperfect, as that adds to the excitement and interest of eating.
And I know I would much prefer the variation to be down to a cook's whims rather than a process which intentionally introduces a quality-controlled level of randomization.
so can cooking jobs
Only if the cooking is formulaic enough, I'd say. For someone who "can" cook, there's a feedback process of tasting and altering. But maybe you're saying that taste sensors will do this with algorithms good enough to rival any human cook. Maybe. Who knows?
Otherwise, I totally agree. And I do not fear a world with less work in it. Life can be so much better. We will still always need academics, entertainers, experts, customer service people and carers, I believe. Imagine a world where everyone can do what they're interested in. Scarcity and competition will always exist, but I think things are getting better and more interesting.
Whatever the fate of this particular company, it's pretty clear to me that most (or all?) farming jobs can be automated with a combination of current machinery, sensors and some reliable software. I predict a world where several hectares of farmland will be simply monitored by each "farmer". Automatic combine harvesters are already a reality. Drone surveillance is near. Pest control? Can't see why not. A complete automatic milking system which lovingly cares for each cow? Maybe 30 years.
A system where animals to be slaughtered never see a human face? Don't be shocked, it's coming.