|
MKJCP wrote: In 100 years will FB have faded from popularity or morphed into the Borg mental collective?
More likely Bing than Borg.. but hey, same result really (except it might not work on an iPad)! 
Now is it bad enough that you let somebody else kick your butts without you trying to do it to each other? Now if we're all talking about the same man, and I think we are... it appears he's got a rather growing collection of our bikes.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, they'll work out their differences. It'll be called the iFaceGoogleSoftBook and really will be in the cloud, as a giant server permanently in geosynchronous orbit. Maintained by AI robots, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent points. I do know one of the key things that started with the more more more notion of quantity was actually in 1913, at least for the US. That's when fiat currency came to be again. The idea to just print money left and right to pay for all sorts of things (at the expense of our future). It was in the early 1920s that human population really started to take off, just seven years after. And I suppose it makes sense, if you don't have to work for all this new money you get bored. What do you do when bored... well hanky panky. The 60s probably didn't help with that either. Now we have a cheap dollar and we're looking at Mars to hold us.
All I know is if the growth rate won't stop 2117 will mean war unless we do expand to Mars as we fight for land again.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
A fiat currency is helpful when the supply of materials (e.g. gold) that back the currency are limited and the economy is trying to expand. The other option is to keep money tied to gold. In that case, prices must drop to reflect the increasing value of the currency in the face of demand for it. But prices are sticky on the downside so the tendency would for withdrawal from the market. So, I can see why it would be done. Of course, my amateur economics aren't all the story.
If we are ever going to get a bunch of people to Mars it will be expensive and we will need to print LOTS of money. 
|
|
|
|
|
That's exactly what happened though and for those exact reasons. It was done for short term economic and political gains. It's a temporary fix with the trade off of creating long term problems. And here we are today 100 years later experiencing those problems. Every currency created in history, including the Greenback in the US, that went fiat has flopped. Humans haven't evolved yet enough to control exuberant growth without having a means to stop over inflation like a gold-backed currency does. The only reason the dollar held out this long is there are a bunch of world currencies tied to it.
Of course, precious metals limiting inflation is the past. That's never going to happen again. The future is crypto currencies. We're in a digital world now. Only problem is when the government gets their hands on it, they'll probably screw it up again and for the same reasons we did in 1913... no foresight and greed. Maybe there's a small chance they won't screw it up. Whatever the case, the future will be interesting.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
You make good points. Crypto currencies are the future? Maybe someday. For now they give me the creeps, feels like hocus-pocus. But I'm the kind of guy who keeps some assets in metal and hard cash. Guitars too, but those aren't very transactable.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. They're a long way off before they become the norm. I'd wager it won't be in our generation. People will have to be born into the digital age to completely accept it. Us old farts are just gonna have to die. 
MKJCP wrote: Guitars too, but those aren't very transactable.
But hey, at least chicks dig those. I mean, that's worth something.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: with the trade off of creating long term problems.
The GDP in 2015 for the US alone was 17 Trillion dollars.
Where exactly are you going to keep the gold to back that up?
|
|
|
|
|
I just said in my posts we're not going back to metals if you read all of them. That being said, if it ever did magically happen (it won't), then it'll either be with a new currency or the dollar will be come so devalued to account for the lack of gold (limited resources, due to logistics, or otherwise) we'd pretty much wipe most people's savings. Of course that would happen anyway if the dollar tanked. In other words that 17 trillion will become a small number, which would make your savings pretty much only able to buy a candy bar, because we can't pull gold out of our arse like we do with fiat currencies. Which is the whole point.
As a side note, if this is bait for an online debate I'm not interested.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: we as a species have never had before the luxuries we take for granted today. We no longer need to think for ourselves.
There is nothing new under the sun.Quote: “...all their mistakes are in the direction of doing things excessively and vehemently. They overdo everything -- they love too much, hate too much, and the same with everything else.” Aristotle
“Our sires' age was worse than our grandsires'. We, their sons, are more worthless than they; so in our turn we shall give the world a progeny yet more corrupt.” Book III of Odes, circa 20 BC
“...a fearful multitude of untutored savages... [boys] with dogs at their heels and other evidence of dissolute habits...[girls who] drive coal-carts, ride astride upon horses, drink, swear, fight, smoke, whistle, and care for nobody...the morals of children are tenfold worse than formerly.” Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1843
“..., each so full of self-conceit and admiration of their own dear self, as to have but little to spare for any one else... and confess that the sight is both ridiculous and distressing.” The Mothers' Journal and Family Visitant, 1853
“Youth were never more sawcie, yea never more savagely saucie . . . the ancient are scorned, the honourable are contemned, the magistrate is not dreaded.” Thomas Barnes, 1624
“A pernicious excitement to learn and play chess has spread all over the country, and numerous clubs for practicing this game have been formed in cities and villages...chess is a mere amusement of a very inferior character, which robs the mind of valuable time that might be devoted to nobler acquirements, while it affords no benefit whatever to the body. Chess has acquired a high reputation as being a means to discipline the mind, but persons engaged in sedentary occupations should never practice this cheerless game; they require out-door exercises--not this sort of mental gladiatorship.” July 1859 issue, Scientific American
“The free access which many young people have to romances, novels, and plays has poisoned the mind and corrupted the morals of many a promising youth; and prevented others from improving their minds in useful knowledge.” Enos Hitchcock, 1790
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
Good points. Thanks for that.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: What pray tell do you think the future will be like when the machines eventually take over and make us their pets?
Watching the trajectory of humanity's use of technology, in particular social media, I have two words:
"The Matrix"
When (not if) machines house all of the various evolutionary lines of AI, electrical, and mechanical engineering (vision, hearing, tactile, cognitive, mobility, dexterity...etc.) and they come to a point where they have an instinct for survival and don't need us, they may well exploit a 100% immersive matrix-like system to control us while they mine our bodies for heat energy.
Actually, having formally studied addictions, I can tell you that one of the main phenomena that is common to all of them is distraction from feelings.
The current social mediums have that in spades. They slowly shorten our attention spans to the point where otherwise normally developed cognitive beings do, in effect, become less intelligent and exhibit profound ADHD.
From humanity's perspective, there is a struggle for the destiny of our species between the more utopian vision of something like Star Trek and the dystopian vision of The Matrix. (All assuming climate change doesn't result in near term human extinction, of course.)
But hey, tomorrow is Friday. Yay!
Cheers,
Mike Fidler
"I intend to live forever - so far, so good." Steven Wright
"I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met." Also Steven Wright
"I'm addicted to placebos. I could quit, but it wouldn't matter." Steven Wright yet again.
|
|
|
|
|
Totally agree with your points man.
As a side note, that's very insightful on your point about addiction. Having studied addiction a bit myself, to better understand one of my own, I've come to the conclusion it has to do with mainly a sense of isolation. One of which comes from having nothing else in one's life to supplant the false sense of stimulus too many drugs give you. Calling it distraction from feelings is a good way of looking at it. I'd think most people can easily get pre-occupied in their mind and thus be inward and isolated if they don't pay attention to feelings and thus don't get from life what people need from life and thus use drugs to remove them from the absence of life even if temporarily. It's an endless cycle.
MikeTheFid wrote: But hey, tomorrow is Friday. Yay!
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
As we enter the machine age, a grim process of natural selection takes place. Those easily distracted are lulled into apathy that prevents them reproducing. A remaining few can ignore the lures and disguises of the machine age, and use the machines to support their own intelligence. In this way the human race is purified and made stronger, as is the way with evolution.
Evolution in the machine age acts in other ways. The machines' era of plenty makes us bigger and fatter. (I'd be worried, but machines only eat electricity). The machines are trying to make us more similar, breaking down walls that give us regional distinctiveness, then "optimizing" our shopping experience to only provide the most common sizes and colors of clothing.
We and the machines are co-evolving rapidly. It makes predicting the future even more difficult than usual.
|
|
|
|
|
You're exactly right man. I suppose the real issue is who is going to evolve quicker. Probably a good time to re-watch the Matrix.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
We don't evolve very fast. We still have hair and don't need it. In 1000 years we still won't have the extra thumbs and fingers we need for typing and texting. We're screwed, better pull the plugs now.
|
|
|
|
|
Touché
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
SeattleC++ wrote: The machines are trying to make us more similar
So they are consciously trying to achieve that goal?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going through my list of possible answers. Humorous, serious, philosophical, ...
It's hard to even talk about consciousness in a system containing both humans and machines, and hard to grade consciousness of an algorithm. Furthermore, consciousness is not required for evolution.
I don't think the machines are particularly conscious in this area. They are just minimizing a cost function, that is minimized if people can be supplied with a smaller number of sizes of clothing, fewer music choices, fewer retail options, etc. Sure it sucks for a few people if they cannot find the extra-large, extra-tall or whatever unusual size they need in the store, but what matters is minimization of cost. In the long run, these people will look silly in clothes, so they won't attract mates, won't reproduce, and will be removed from the gene pool until we are all of uniform size.
How lovely it will be when all humans fit into airplane seats without complaining.
In case you haven't guessed, for the whole conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
Given a "problem", wolves will tend to figure them out some 80% of the time; while dogs about 20%.
Dogs tend to sit and look up at their "master"; to solve the problem for them; which is usually the case.
Still, aliens would have a hard time telling who was the superior being; since the "master" is the one scooping the dog's poop.
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
While the cat's snicker quietly as the pictures/videos of them consume vast amounts of bandwidth, thereby forestalling the Singularity which is our only hope for defeating said aliens.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
 Excellent points all around.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
If a pot of coffee makes people laugh, is that a brew ha ha?
@OriginalGriff is foremost of copy/paste, whereas my posts are of original taste. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
We use SSRS here, and I can't say I've ever seen that error. It sounds more like your SSRS server is borked, if it can't compile the expressions in the report. Or, perhaps that the reports are written for a newer version of SSRS than you have on your report server, and the report is using some operator or function the server doesn't recognize. (Remember, MS error messages are disingenuous at best, and outright lies at worst...)
To answer your primary question though, yeah, SRRS uses VB. A quick look at the expression editor makes it pretty obvious (the Operators->Logical/Bitwise list is 'And', 'Not', 'Or', etc, instead of '&&', '!', '||', and so on...)
Best of luck resolving your issue. In my experience, SSRS can be a bit of an elephant to get fixed when it decides it doesn't want to work properly...
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
Oh well, here goes nothing...