Going to be funny here in a few years when President Baron Trump is pinning a medal on some geeky pervert for inventing a flawless sexbot and dealing a crushing blow to human trafficking.
Are we seeing the beginning of the end of Facebook? It could be like IBM and taken them another 50 years to die, but they've been raked through the coals over the last 6 months. With Instagram (I know its facebook owned) and twitter, is the concept of posting on a wall even necessary any more in this day and age of social media? Disclaimer: I have no facebook or instagram account and only lurk on twitter.
Anything like Facebook I would be warry of investing in long term, anyway. Once the public starts getting tired of it, a tipping point can hit very quickly and boom, your entire clientele are gone.
Facebook isn't about writing on a wall anymore. The groups, IM features, and free, direct advertising/contact with companies/individuals/entities is its larger focus now.
I can see the group draw and I guess people use the messenger app instead of text messaging for some reason, but the last, part advertising and contact with companies, people, etc. to me is seemingly be better accommodated via twitter for both consumers and advertisers. I guess my question is will people continue using the platform in the future. I believe daily active users have been declining for the last few quarters, especially among the younger demographic, but I don't have a link handy to verify. I think in its present state Facebook will slowly bleed to death. IBM has been slowly dying for decades, Oracle products blow but they're still around, maybe Facebook will be one of those entities or maybe they'll find another snapchat to copy to re-invigorate their user base.
Some universities have made a push to move to this to reduce hardware costs, by virtually accessing computers capable of using various demanding applications or tools rather than having to maintain many powerful computers all over campus.
Software like PDQ Deploy and just regular group policy manages computers all over any network. Thin clients with a central NAS like storage is cheap enough, and ages better. I don’t think the cost savings is that much better.
Because it looked cool, or what? Isn’t it a ton of work for the help desk guys, having a bunch of little custom settings for everyone who wants to “save to their desktop,” and for the handful of special cases that need more ram and processor allocation than the general pool?
“The cloud” is just a network server offsite. The biggest hinderance to running OS and apps in a virtual server offsite is connection speed and downtime. Run your VMs out of a data center in the north east and Comcast goes down, your entire workforce is down all day. Norris’ loses a switch, he can run patch cable or just put in a new switch, and be back up. Or just use normal desktops as the price isn’t high, and lose nothing.
Maybe, if the other person only works every other month, and pushing updates would slow down... Windows profiles aren’t big enough to need a virtual OS for even hot bunking office space. Our entire night crew works on day crew hardware.
Was just confronted by a captcha that wanted me to select every picture containing a bus. It would not be satisfied until I selected the picture with a Budweiser beer truck ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Maybe there's hope for humanity after all.
Great episode of the JRE with Brian Cox. They talk about a wide range of topics, but the one that intrigues me the most is the idea of meaning in the universe, and what that actually means.
