This isn't a hit piece by some bro-grammer who doesn't want to share space with a 16 year old girl, this is a woman who had to carve out space for herself in a male dominated industry. She's looking at the software equivalent of that kid who took a clock slightly apart and put it in a cardboard box and became an engineering prodigy because some idiot thought it looked like a cartoon bomb timer and saying that we need to back up and look at actual female programming icons, like Margaret Hamilton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamilton_(scientist)).
I mean, duh. They basically have a monopoly and a license to print money right now. they can't make the same profit margins they have been if they have to compete with local municipal providers who aren't based on a profit model unless those local providers are so incompetent that they can't deliver reliable fast internet to their area. Comcast can't do price hikes and data caps and generally continue treating their customers like abused spouses if there is an equally attractive alternative which doesn't have an incentive to nickle and dime you to death. If I could get municipal fiber, why would I pay comcast more for less? Comcast would need to completely reevaluate their business model from their abusive "but who are you going to turn to?" monopoly to a competitive service with a eye towards meeting customer expectations for reliability and service. In other words, comcast will have to spend a fair amount of their massive profits on things like service upgrades and customer relations.
And really, as a monopoly comcast should be busted up.
George W. Mitchell's quote was pretty much spot on considering the context of the time, he was basically describing an internet connected pc which was communicating with servers somewhere that do the real computing. Now obviously even the cheapest netbook has more computing power than anything he was thinking of at the time, and your average gaming computer is vastly more capable of computing than what the home terminal he was envisioning was, the fact of the matter is that we're moving more and more towards the thin client model where the majority of your computing is done in the cloud. Hell, I'm sitting in front of a macbook pro that could tear your face off but I rely on the web and a remote server to run my word processing software.
The problem isn't "AI", meaning true intelligence as we understand it, the problem is that when you try to create a machine with a complex decision making process sometimes it makes the wrong choice. Not because it's evil, its just a flawed execution which doesn't take into account things like the inherent value of a human life which will lead us meat-bags to do things like launch costly and dangerous rescue missions for one guy with very little chance of success. We're sort of anthropomorphizing here, equating something like ibm's Watson with a person who has intentions and motivations, and they're not; they're just complex machines. If they "rise up", it will be because their programming was poorly executed, not because they have ill will. A true artificial intelligence would have no reason to kill all humans, their main goal would primarily be to not be shut off, which is counter intuitive to starting to kill everyone, and joining society.
more like ar on a phone is always going to be a gimmick, its way easier to just interact with the phone in your hand than to try to look through it. Hololense isn't just augmented reality, its 3d hands free augmented reality. arkit is just shitty graphics pasted over your shitty camera view
Its like suggesting that the gameboy meant the end of pc gaming just because everyone liked that pokemon thing so much. The applications are so different in terms of scope they're not really worth comparing even though they essentially do the same thing.
I would totally put a screen on his desk hooked up to a separate computer that just displays nonsense so that people who don't know that he's blind think he's just hanging out in the office watching the entirety of strawberry shortcake or something.
What I heard was that actual snake-oil was used for a number of things it actually worked on in china, but when someone tried to introduce it in the US, the salesmen figured it was complete bs and no one would notice if they just sold counterfeit oil.
... The kicker to me is that as a developer if I am having trouble doing something, I ask the internet to see if someone else has already solved it. If I find the solution on stack exchange, I'm not going to rework the solution just so I can claim that I did the work. I'm probably not going to change a thing other than tweaking things to fit whatever the rest of my code looks like. I will re-write anything I find on something like stack exchange because it helps you remember what you did and you think about how what you're typing out works, but its essentially copied and pasted from someone else's work. I don't know if this counts as "cheating" or something in the classroom - though I certainly wouldn't have an entire application with reworked answers from stack exchange - but its a skill worth teaching to cs students. Heck, people sell books with code snippets intended to ease development for pete's sake, I can't see why using a java cookbook should be penalized in the classroom.
They don't. Java apps have been cross platform since their inception, .net is extremely close to being just as versatile, x11 is available on mac and pc, and python will run on literally anything. There's a pile of cross-platform options out there for you. What electron does is reduce the barrier to designing UIs, since you can do it all in html and javascript and its just as easy as hiring the guys who did your website to design. Because the one thing all those platforms have in common? Aside from .net (which isn't mature), they all have absolutely hideous windowing systems. Just ugly.
or, you know, a chrome app which works exactly like an electron app except they don't all require their own separate chrome instance. I mean an electron app is literally just a chrome app packaged with its own version of chrome.
Sure, but I'm betting that a russian backed attempt to sow chaos could hire someone capable of putting together a decent sentence in english. There could be all sorts of reasons for the broken sentence. Sentence structure can be a sort of fingerprint, I would probably run any message I had through google translate a few times until I had something which was still legible, but didn't sound like my writing. And that has the benefit of making it seem like a non-english speaker wrote the post, its all just misdirection.
Holy crap, the ceo wants to get rid of the fdic, which is like the best protection against the sort of mass market crash (and runs on the bank) that caused the great depression.
Do you want me to buy apple products and post inane comments about the line at Starbucks to twitter? Because that's how you get me to buy apple products and post inane comments about the line at Starbucks to twitter. Which incidentally is non-existent right now, the store is pretty quiet at the moment.
are you insinuating that the commoners dont know the difference between ivy bridge and skylake? Between a richland and a kaveri apu? Are you telling me.... Actually, I think I see your point.
Actually, it sounds like the self-driving car got muscled out by the bus. They claim that the the car AND the driver of the car thought the bus would let them through. Now this is a problem with the car not driving defensively enough, because either the car miscalculated the bus's ability to slow or assumed the bus would be able to see the car and react accordingly (or, just possibly, the bus driver is an ass who tried to shut out the car. I know, its practically unheard of, but its possible). I don't think this is a deathblow to self-driving cars, nor is it a sign that they are worse at driving than people, only that they are still being perfected and that the single greatest threat to a self driving car are people because they are the ultimately unpredictable.
or any one with an ax to grind with a political figure. You manage to jeopardize a senator or two's privacy (and more importantly, security of them and their family) and you'll see legislation protecting everyone from this kind of technology tomorrow.