Central Park is "publicly available," but that doesn't mean you have the right to cut down the trees in it and sell them for lumber. The AI companies are selling lumber and when you ask them where they got it, they shrug and say "publicly available sources."
It's confusing because of non-unique names, but I haven't been able to find a CV, bio, or publication list... nothing to confirm that he is at NASA, was at NASA, or that he's the top electrostatics expert at NASA.
If the Future "Fund" didn't have a endowment--an endowment in the form of cash "fiat" money--or at least a portfolio of conservative assets denominated in "fiat" money--then it was always a shaky reed. If they were gambling on their research funding coming from promise of future cash flow, from investment activity based on FTT play money, then they need to be big boys and accept their gambling losses for what they are.
...not that there's any bright-line definition. But 1401's were considered "small computers" and the main use I knew for them was as satellite computers--auxiliary equipment used together with real "mainframes." For example, an IBM 7090 might perform input and output only to magnetic tape. The tapes were then mounted on the tape drive of a 1401, which read the tape and printed the contents on a line printer.
I read a fascinating book, "Seeking the Cure: A History of Medicine in America," by Ira Rutkow, that answered some questions I'd always had about appendectomies.
If someone asked you to fill in the blank quickly in the sentence "The surgeon performed an _________" you would probably say "appendectomy." Yet it isn't such a terribly common operation today. Why is it the ur-operation, the one always used for purposes of hypothetical illustration? Why appendectomies?
According to Rutkow, It was a confluence of events. I hadn't realized that abdominal surgery had once been a medical taboo, with a nearly 100% mortality rate. Antisepsis ("Listerism") and anesthesia made it safe. It had once been extremely difficult to diagnose. I hadn't really thought of centrifuges, microscopes and blood counts as being a breakthrough in modern technology, but of course they were, part of the medical technology revolution that emerged from World War I. And they made it possible to diagnose appendicitis reliably. And there was one influential surgeon who promoted the idea that it was a surgeon's disease, that appendicitis "belonged to" the surgeon. Hospitals and surgeons found appendectomies to be lucrative, and they became almost a fad; Rutkow cites a hospital in which 1/5th of all operations performed were appendectomies.
In 2010, Nancy Gohring reported in Infoworld, Ballmer bets Microsoft's future on the cloud.. "'Seventy percent of the 40,000 people who work on software at Microsoft are in some way working in the cloud,' CEO Steve Ballmer said Thursday at the University of Washington. 'A year from now, that will be 90 percent,' he said.... 'Our inspiration, our vision
I think there was similar rhetoric years earlier than that.
The Microsoft "Kin" phones lacked features normally implemented locally on phones, and Microsoft said that was going to be fine because modern-day young phone users were comfortable with relying on the cloud....
That sounds like what he discussed with Putin:
"Putin & I discussed forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit so that election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded."
Donald Trump, July 9th, 2017
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FrealDonald...
The next day he said tweeted "The fact that President Putin and I discussed a Cyber Security unit doesn't mean I think it can happen. It can't..." But maybe it can. Perhaps Putin's role in it is one of the "Details [that] are still being worked out, but officials say they expect a decision and announcement in the coming weeks."
Indeed. I used to like checking the Christian Science Monitor, hasn't been a major news source for a couple of decades but often has interesting items others miss or an interesting slant on something... and it's now using a desktop monitor to display less information than you could display on a cellphone screen.
I used to be able to scan headlines of about thirty or forty stories at a glance on my 1600x900 monitor. Now I can only see five. I'm interested in reading news, not complaining, and I've tried to figure out how to work around this, but I can't. The layout and sizing is such that if I use "reduced" magnification, by the time I get eight or nine stories onto the page the text is too small to read.
For heaven's sake! It's just a skin. With all the things they let you customize in Google News, why can't they give me a choice of information-dense and information-sparse presentations?
We can defeat gravity. The problem is the paperwork involved.
