A Quote by Matt Hancock

If technology can remove some of the labour-intensive tasks where the computer can do better than the human eye; that helps. — © Matt Hancock
If technology can remove some of the labour-intensive tasks where the computer can do better than the human eye; that helps.
Traditional agriculture was labour intensive, industrial agriculture is energy intensive, and permaculture-designed systems are information and design intensive.
The computer can do a much better job than the human eye, as it is much more systematic in analysing tissues.
Children want the challenge of difficult tasks - just look how much better they are than their parents on a computer.
Here's what I'm wondering: if, digitally, you can remove red-eye, smooth over wrinkles, make people look thinner, then why don't we have the technology to make me sing better?
One can think of any given axiom system as being like a computer with a certain limited amount of memory or processing power. One could switch to a computer with even more storage, but no matter how large an amount of storage space the computer has, there will still exist some tasks that are beyond its ability.
No matter how long my day has been, I never forget to remove my make-up and slap on some intensive moisturiser before I go to bed.
I am able to compete not because my labour is cheap, but because I can use technology better than others.
Imagine you are writing an email. You are in front of the computer. You are operating the computer, clicking a mouse and typing on a keyboard, but the message will be sent to a human over the internet. So you are working before the computer, but with a human behind the computer.
The beam in our own eye is harder to detect, although - or more accurately because - to detect it, and remove it, is vastly more important on elementary moral grounds, and commonly more important in terms of direct human consequences as well. Intellectuals have historically played a critical function in performing these tasks, and [Ivan] Illich is right to observe that claims to scientific expertise and special knowledge are often used as a device.
I am confident that we can do better than GUIs because the basic problem with them (and with the Linux and Unix interfaces) is that they ask a human being to do things that we know experimentally humans cannot do well. The question I asked myself is, given everything we know about how the human mind works, could we design a computer and computer software so that we can work with the least confusion and greatest efficiency?
I wash my skin with Re-Nutrive Intensive Hydrating Skin Cleanser, no toner, and follow with the range's Re-Nutrive Intensive Age-Renewal and Eye Creme.
You know, the technology was at the right place for us to build this world. The most difficult thing about doing The Croods was no doubt the building of the world. Every single thing in this film is organic. Organic things are tough. Very very labour intensive. And we have no man-made structures. You could argue that everything in this film is really an exterior. Even the interiors of the cave are exteriors. So building this world was the biggest thing of all, and the technology was there to do it.
I have long been alarmed by people's sheeplike acceptance of the term 'computer technology' - it sounds so objective and inexorable - when most computer technology is really a bunch of ideas turned into conventions and packages.
Let me look into a human eye; it is better than to gaze into sea or sky; better than to gaze upon God.
Some people fear that technology will become more engaging than live human interactions. That's silly; technology is already way more interesting than other people.
Charity is a very labour-intensive virtue.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!