First, you my friend are going to have a mighty rough ride if you are thinking about competing against the new generation of software people coming down the pipe.
I do not know what advantage you think you have, but asking such basic and simple questions although not a crime, suggests you should not be the one owning the shop.
Hopefully you recognize that and put someone else in control because learning on the fly with investor money is a sure fire recipe for disaster. Unless you are funding the shop yourself.
The people I work with, never went to college. They are a new generation built upon Internet access. The are debt free. Free thinkers and horrifically skilled and on their second startup by the tender age of 23.
They are debt free, confident and not scared of failure.
More than a match for any CS program anywhere in the world. I would ask one of these young choppers to run the place.
That is if you can get enough respect from one of them by simply dangling your paper degrees in front of their faces to be the one they call boss.
Good luck, you are going to need it.
Nothing would make me happier.
From an open source perspective Nvidia is far worse than Samsung with regards to hardware openness.
I mean, I have been very careful over the years to not buy phones, tablets, video cards that are associated with Nvidia in my private computing and professional computing experience.
I urge everyone here to do the same and put your dollars privately in those situations professional consulting can sway your customers opinion towards companies that have open hardware. Even companies who are not open fully, like AMD, but much more so than Nvidia.
Building a great operating system with source code requires open hardware.
At least most studies show it is more shatterproof glass than scratch resistant, which is Gorilla’s forte it seems.
That's too bad, I was about to complain about Corning worrying about drop tests when scratches are a far bigger problem for most people. It's easy enough not to drop your phone, it's difficult to avoid scratches from everyday wear without resorting to crappy screen protectors and the like.
I blame ethics in game journalism. Because bitches, man....
#1 is a killer for most American cities. When you look at ones built in the last 50 years they are just not designed for getting around in any way but the car. Even when you look at cities built before the car they often have been destroyed by parking minimums in the zoning code that lead to huge parking craters and significant distances between points of interest. If you need a car for two peak travel time trips every day you might as well have your own.
When we fix it so that most people can commute to work without a car again then there are many models of ownership that might make sense. But self-driving cars are a red herring. They don't address the space inefficiency of cars both when moving and when parked. They won't work on streets anytime soon (as opposed to roads which are significantly easier to navigate). And they don't address the peak demand problem.
If you address #1, #2 would be easy enough to solve. Like many who don't use my car for getting to work I don't give a whit about #3 anymore plus you could do a lot of customization via profiles stored in your car rental account. #4 is what I mostly use my car for these days, it is a peak proplem, I use my car disproportionately on the same holidays everyone else does. But I don't leave the city on every holiday. I could see a zipcar type service keeping up with that kind of peak and not everyone is hauling stuff. Other countries have luxury busses for liesure travel, if car ownership weren't so high here I'm sure we would too.
Imagination is not optional for intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to build mental models and manipulate them.
I like this thought. Not quite sure what counts as imagination though. Does the ability of a chess algorithm to model hypothetical future board positions count?
My experience - writing a very simple rubik cube solver as an undergraduate project - I rejected the two simple solutions for a trivial case (requires 1 turn to solve). So it turned the opposite face, then turned the first face, then turned the opposite face back. This had the appearance of a creative solution even though the algorithm was dumb.
But what he had was a user requirements list. He didn't have a working implementation. He had "computer must be able to respond like a human to questions asked", so we have software that fits those requirements. But it's not obvious that it's intelligent. Personally I think computer chess shows more signs of intelligence. It requires imagination, prediction and abstraction. These seem much more important than ability to communicate with a human.
How long will it be before "scientists" say exactly the opposite again?
I've lived long enough to see everything become unhealthy and then healthy and then unhealthy again. And it's always based "on science".
The fact is, everything will kill you. That's why I only eat bacon, chocolate ice cream and bourbon whiskey. I may start smoking again, just to be ahead of the curve.
So, you're telling me the $300 I paid to the Journal of Experimental Onanism to publish my findings was a waste of money?
Damn. I've already printed up my CV and that paper is at the top of my list of publications. I suppose I should have been suspicious when I saw that the editors that were assigned to peer review my paper were Jack Meihoff and Richard Gazinya.
Yeah, what's up with that? I usually see at least a half-dozen JEs from you ever week. They're my excuse for drinking early.
$450 million is nothing to Apple. They find that much under the cushions on the sofas in the Apple lounge. They spend more than that every week on KY and poppers.