Re: Original battery factory would supposedly have provided 3000 jobs...
And the whole setup controlled by an AI. No unreliable human staff. So cheap. What could possibly go wrong?
1047 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Jan 2008
I would agree with you, except that 'status' doesn't imply 'slavery'.
And yet our technological efforts are largely about replicating a slave based economy, albeit where people are replaced by things.
Yet at the same time our 'capitalist' economies constantly end up impoverishing, and reducing to effective slave status, increasing proportion of populations, whilst enriching a tiny proportion of societies (effectively the 'slave owners').
'Status' undoubtedly plays a role, but that aspect of human culture doesn't really describe the process of reducing others to utter vulnerability and powerlessness
some of us (money grubbers, the terminally narcissistic, and a bunch of other sociopaths), have never got over not living in a culture based on human slavery, and are constantly seeking to re-establish such.
It's all about power, dominance (and money, obviously). It may also be about a profound sense of insecurity.
I'm with you on this—that inkjets are a sucker's bet, especially for domestic users.
The text pint quality IS inferior, blocked jets are a probability if not an inevitability, and the cost and wastage of ink are both criminal.
Sure, they thrash a laser ptr. in photo printout, but unless you're regularly needing photo quality prints you're better off using a print shop, who will generally do a far more consistently good job.
I have an Epson inkjet, but 95% of my printing needs (I work from home) are covered by a mono laser ptr. By all means buy an inkjet, but for heaven's sake do due diligence beforehand and know exactly why that's the best option for you.
BTW - my router blocks the Epson from phoning home. I really don't need any of that kind of crap going on. :-)
Yes, we're talking about a 'big problem', and big problems usually require big, and costly, solutions. But if the problem really is a big one then the cost is usually deemed to be worth paying.
We're talking international cooperation here. Always easy to establish and maintain!
'Stable', 'Testing', 'Unstable', but add one for to be used by anyone deploying software as a commercial service, or at a 'critical infrastructure' level, e.g. 'ISO_Registered'.
IOW, establish a level of software 'authenticity' that meets certain required 'paid for' standards. And make sure that some of that 'paid for' goes back to the original developer/s, although they would not be responsible for maintaining the software at 'ISO' level (or whatever it's called).
There's certainly no 'free' solution to this problem, and no solution that's going to be anywhere near perfect, but there will be some solution that covers most of the bases most of the time to a level that provides for transparent and 'trustworthy' software, from top to bottom of the stack, where that level of assurance and traceability is needed.
'Nice in theory, in practice ...'
Governments don't generally run major infrastructure technologies 'in house', and if they do it usually isn't for long and often in times of national crisis.
'In practice' it's up to 'the Government' to have the spine to face down the money grubbers. Sometimes it happens, often it doesn't - witness England's privatised water supplies/treatment scandal.
IT supply is just another venue for the same old story: greed vs. 'public service'.
The 'Govt' doesn't NEED to do any of this kind of stuff, it's a massive distraction and waste of limited resources.
The 'Govt' holds the purse strings, and if the people doling out the loot on our behalf know their stuff and have an ethical spine and a visionary outlook (a big ask, I know, but it does happen) the 'Govt' can drive a very creative hard bargain that benefits both the national wellbeing as well as the corporate bottom line.
The problem is, too often the people with the talent and will to drive said bargain get shafted by our oh so shortsighted and often compromised 'politicians', who put the 'national wellbeing' relatively low on their list of priorities.
And look where we all are (well, where most of us are).
ditch the pork barrel, publish the specification, and run a global competition over several years to come up with a champion design, sell the film and distribution rights, have some serious racing with serious prize money, and the winner/s get the contact.
There would still be change out of $4.6B.
... even allowed to happen? It's not as though people are hand coding the web/cloud presence from scratch. In which case the responsibility is all theirs.
Instead they are relying on a pre-formed 'service', which, in principle, should ensure that obvious security protocols are rigorously enforced, and known security risks are thoroughly mitigated against. Otherwise, what's the point of even using the supposed 'service'—it's just snake oil.
As my 'religious' choices (for, against, indifferent) are actual choices, not impositions of genetics, or cultural imperitives, I get to consider them every day, rather than assuming there is 'nothing to see here', on the basis that I have it all worked out and I know everything there is to know about that aspect of 'life'.
Arrogance and ignorance are powerful drivers of the problems we cause—ourselves, each other, and the planet—with or without any 'religious' components.
And there's our problem: not with 'religion', but with cheap, ignorant assertions, probably made as a teenager and clung to 'religiously' ever since, not because the position is educated and thought through, but because it suits the holder's prejudice, and allows them to justify themselves, even if at they expense of others.
Riddle me this, thumb-downers: tell us what the word 'religion' means to you.
Then we'll compare your chosen definition with the plethora of understandings that exist outside your head/s, and see where your idea fits, and if it provides a worthy and helpful generalisation, or merely expresses ignorance and prejudice.
That's all well and good, but doesn't really deal with the underlying issue: running software which has, as it's primary feature as mentioned above, 'to pull results out of its digital arse'?
I mean, fine. The emperor is entitled to parade down the street in all his presumed finery, but to anyone willing to watch the spectacle with a critical mind the emperor is still buck naked. Fine indeed. :-P
Seriously? Wow, I hope you make excellent use of those saved seconds.
Actually, it would be nice to have the option to simply incorporate biometric login, etc. It'll probably come in due course.
But it's absence as a serious reason for eschewing using Linux? Wow, but then it takes all sorts.
You may find the 'Cards' view of some help. Not sure if it's fully completed as planned yet:
---
In this example we’ll show you the main Thunderbird window with “the Supernova look.” That’s when the Vertical layout is activated in Thunderbird 115, along with the new “Cards” view.
Card view (one of the cards is highlighted in red, see #11), is a multi-line, non-column alternative view of the message list. Currently there is a two line “card” for each message in the Message List Pane (our plan is to eventually expand this to 3 or 4 customizable lines). The first line has the sender’s display name and time, and the second line displays the subject.
---
IMAGE: https://blog.thunderbird.net/files/2023/07/115-cards-window.png
Of course, shouldn't you/we all take that view, and carry it out—to care for others as a matter of principle? But that says nothing about the supposed, and real, predisposition of human beings to violence.
At a genetic level (and probably any level), to seek to categorise and define human beings according to some arbitrary threshold of 'predisposition' is both nonsensical and wicked.
Whether any of us are more, or less, likely to behave violently through genetic inheritance and/or environmental factors, we all have agency—are capable of choice, and awareness of the consequences of our actions. We are responsible beings (excepting those who are too ill/damaged to sensibly be regarded as being capable of taking responsibility).
Are you therefore prepared to argue that some people have no capacity for violent behaviour?
Obviously that is statistical bollocks, we could never be certain of anyone being incapable of violence towards others. Therefore, in practice, we must consider ALL human beings as having some degree of predisposition to violent behaviour. Where do you plan on drawing the line, presumably you would place yourself outside the 'violent' side.
Alternatively, after you have pre-emptively executed everyone else, don't forget to top yourself, thereby proving the rule and obviating the risk. Parthenogenesis is a thing you know—it wouldn't do to take any chances.
Isn't that the old mainframe model—everything else is just a dumb terminal. Everything old is new again.
I'm afraid I'm not qualified to answer your challenge though. My personal setup is accessible wherever, but I don't have an IP phone setup, and I don't support a workforce of tens, let alone hundreds.
Maybe others can supply an honest answer at an institutional level.
True, but only up to a point. In my, anecdotal, experience most people will quite happily sit down and get on with Mint/MX Linux/... as long as no one makes a big deal about 'CHANGE!!!'.
With a very little amount of initial handholding, and the odd bit of help and encouragement along the way, the people in my experience, with little to zero IT confidence, have all just got on with it, but this is all in private life.
Big institutions with their sub-cultures, paranoia, cynicism, and general disillusionment generally find 'CHANGE!!!' exactly that—something to be distrusted and avoided at all costs.
Agreed, so long as you are doing a straight 'click through', say 'Yes' to everything install, but anyone unfamiliar with the concept and practicalities of partitioning is likely to lose heart at that point. Straightforward if you've done it before, or just know what you are doing, not so much fun otherwise.
.pub = tears of rage. Not only could nothing else open/edit the file, but neither could your earlier version/s, when the boss sent it through saying "Hey, I've just drawn this up, but I need you to add the current details—it's due out in an hour?" I'll tell you what I think of MSPub: FOAD already!
It wouldn't have been so bad if it wasn't for the fact that it was the goto DTP software for endless numbers of office drones, plus your grandparents.
Like all tools, especially new ones, it takes a while to learn to use it well, and it takes a while to refine the tool to make it as focussed and functional as it can be.
With coding, the AI needs to be built explicitly for coding, maybe even confined to a single language, so that the amount of rancid mashup code is minimised, maybe even recognised and excluded.
Microsoft unashamedly states that Firefox is not a supported browser for Teams.
There's a workaround for that particular bit of nasty self-serving bullshit behaviour, but in general MS can FOAD for all the use they are in actually allowing people to do what they need/want with the kit they own—I think it's called 'general purpose computing'.
'I don’t think it’s whining when people are offering constructive suggestions that would promote the wider adoption of Linux'
Who says this is the primary goal of 'Linux'? Where is that goal written in stone?
Yeah, okay 'wider adoption', 'the [fabled] Year of the Linux Desktop', yadda, yadda, yadda, matters to some people, but I always understood that the primary and essential principle embodied by 'Linux' (and FLOSS in general) is 'freedom'.
In which case the 'number of desktops'—good, bad, and indifferent—is simply an expression of that freedom. We might not appreciate that plethora of choice, but then others may not appreciate our particular interest/obsession. Hopefully we all appreciate the freedom to pursue/indulge the aspects of freedom that Linux/FLOSS enable.
There's always a whiner.
Standing on a plain: it's too flat.
Standing on a mountain top: it's too mountainous.
Amidst hills and valley plains: there's too much variety.
Oh woe is us: some people live by only ever mooning over what they haven't got, and deriding what they have.
The point is that calling 'free' a 'market' is misleading, at best it's an edge case, and that's straining to force it into the 'market' category.
'Free' doesn't float on the stock market, doesn't incur tax, and has no meaningful legal obligations attached to it.
'Free' is massively important to the world as an antidote and counter-culture the 'the market'. 'Free software' is indeed a tiny aspect of 'free', for most people 'free' is what people do to look after each other - there is no profit motive, no need or expectation of a reciprocal benefit.
The fact that some agents do make money off the back of 'free' (Mozilla) doesn't mean that 'free' belongs, of itself, to 'the market. The two can, and do, co-exist, but they are not the same.
YMMV - Firefox works fine for me, so my anecdotal evidence neutralises yours.
Meanwhile there are very good philosophical, ethical, and practical reasons for retaining a web browser that is not beholden to the self-serving machinations and asshattery of global corporates.
Because a 'market' implies a forum for trade, i.e. a benefit passing between people, a benefit that can then be traded on in other contacts of kind/money.
Where something is simply 'given away' that isn't happening, the item/app/... could just as easily be sitting in a warehouse, or rotting. There is no 'market', because, by definition, there is no tradeable value being exchanged. If there were I could go next door and get a better deal, or haggle over the price, but as the price is zero none of that applies - there is no market.
Yeah, me leaving my old sofa, TV, and random object d'art outside my front door for anyone to take away does not constitute a 'market', even if Joe, over the road, and Mary, next door, are doing the same.
Likewise, me releasing my treasured app for random public download, in exchange for nothing, does not constitute a 'market' in any sensible definition of the term. Nor, does software released by corporate entities in exchange for nothing alter the nonsense of calling such access a 'market'.
Failing any realistic ability to prosecute responsible individuals, it would seem fair to assert 'collective responsibility' to all those 'responsible' executives above a certain grade and fine them (say up to 50% of their assets, or more) in proportion to their level of responsibility in the PO. They may have had nothing directly to do with the fsck-up and consequent persecution, but that is irrelevant in the context of 'institutional' culture and responsibility: you all benefit when things go well, so you should all bear the pain when the institution has behaved badly.
'Lloyds of London' used to operate on this principle: Lloyds 'names' benefited royally when their ships came in, and could literally lose everything, including the shirts off their backs, if the cargo was lost and they had to pay what was owing. That all stopped when the Govt. decided to take notice of the whining that ensued after some very shabby treatment of 'names' by scummy agents operating under Lloyds name back in the eighties (I think it was).
Whatever the rights and wrongs in that situation, there is something to be said for allowing people to actually personally take the hit when the organization that rewards them royally for warming a particular seat causes needless mayhem to other people's lives.
... come up with a distro labelled 'Windows', with a compatibility layer sandwiched in, and finally leave behind the wreckage of the last twenty years.
No one need know; payment for upgrades/subscriptions can continue as normal.
On second thoughts, bin all the above—the shambling zombie is much more entertaining.
Yeah, the bandwagon is both wide and long on this one—plenty of room for all the chancers, PR-droids, and money grubbers to climb onboard to boost their lies and honeytraps.
Like most (ahem) tools, generative 'AI' has it's uses, and within a limited envelope of 'usefulness' can be very useful indeed. Outside that envelope: utter unreliable drivel.
Of course, it'll take a while, and a few deaths and other tragedies, before we all settle down and let the tool have its sensible place.