France's unemployement rate seems fine. If this ends up costing jobs, but people have jobs, did it really cost anything? Also, why is having a slightly better job worth a significantly lower quality of life the rest of the time?
Most of the "shutdowns" are purely symbolic affairs (we'll defund the government Friday night, we'll reopen it Monday morning.) As of now, this is tied for the longest shutdown ever. It's an anti-authoritarian scheme - you cannot have the government spend money unless the current crop of Representatives (elected every 2 years) agrees. So all spending expires every 2 years (or more frequently.)
FWIW, it's far dumber than your original post. The Senate passed a "keep the government open" bill that Trump said he would sign. The House was going to pass it and then Trump would sign it, avoiding the issue. (The US government requires both parts of the legislature to agree and the president to sign, or 2/3 of each house to agree and the president doesn't matter ) Then Fox News, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh called the president a wimp. So Trump said he wouldn't sign anymore. Paul Ryan (the leader of the House) refused to let the House vote on it (because then the President would have to veto it). Because Trump really is led around by professional right-wing trolls.
I like your all caps, but there's actually no evidence Google's own ads were ever blocked. Google's ads aren't immune. There's a big fucking difference. That is, Google blocked all their ads that don't line up, all 0%. I
And Google was also involved in talks with the organization in the beginning. The standards group was founded at a pro-advertisers conference (and covered here on/.)
Or show me a single example of an ad served by Google being blocked.
Yes, I'm implying, and stating outright, that this is an anticompetive move by Google. The "acceptable ads" (which are not really determined by a third-party, because they're on that board) specifically exclude the most profitable ad types that Facebook and Amazon use. Sure it's "neutral", but it isn't. It allows what Google has been tuned for.
There are several differences. One is that foodstuffs are a very branded experience already, in ways many things sold on Amazon are not. Coke vs. Pepsi is a real brand war, and store-brand competes in that space. Or Chlorox wipes vs Lysol wipes vs Winn-Dixie wipes. Many things on Amazon just aren't. So, they'll either totally dominate that market or they'll force tons of advertising by companies building brands there (yay, more advertising!)
Another is that Amazon's market share is significantly higher than most purveyors of white goods. Changes in scale are changes in substance.
Yet another is that white labels in stores tend to be evergreen products. Amazon is in a position to move faster on new products with higher R&D costs. That means that smaller companies have less time to recoup their costs, meaning less innovation (assuming that they cannot afford the patent process).
Lastly, there's visibility. It's far easier to see all the options on a store shelf then in a search result. We all know being the #1 Google result is worth a lot more than being #2, and being on the second page is a huge hit. Amazon is not only selling, but is ordering the search results. Meanwhile, at stores, they tend to put the white label good right next to the brand name good, because they're trying to sell it as an alternative. So, little things like say USB cords, fill with a bunch of Amazon Basics offerings of different sizes before you go to the next page. Meanwhile, in stores, there's say a 10oz box of name brand cereal next to a 10oz box of white label, and then there's the 20oz box of name brand next to the 20oz box of white label.
Goalpost shift. I said Google wasn't blocking its own ads (since its ads are going to comply with the behavior it prescribes.) That is, all Google ads are shown. You then went on a tangent about how non-Google ads may also be shown.
That said, maybe it was an accident. A lot of people get "All X are Y" and "Only X are Y" confused.
Committing to a stock transaction takes milliseconds using third party exchanges. Otherwise, everyone would back out of transactions since prices change frequently over the three days you think it takes to finalize. There's no need to have blockchain do it because authoritative third party exchanges do it.
And I didn't say that Wall Street institutions should trust each other. I said double spending the specific reason Bitcoin uses blockchain, probably isn't an issue. Because the amount of time it would take to notice the double spending is small, the liability is large, and the amount of double-spending to liability is a small ratio before you get caught
As for your examples, it's really interesting that you included one scam (Madoff) and two examples of bankruptcy (Lehman, LTCM). Only one of those was a "trust" issue, and that was a fraud. I would imagine you could find better examples, but I guess not
Fun business model that exists: some companies scrap mugshots and arrest records from public databases. Doesn't matter if the charges are later dropped or you're found innocent. Or if they make a mistake they'll link someone else to your name (and say "mug shot not available"") They use SEO to make sure that those are the first responses when people Google your name. For a mere few hundred dollars, they'll remove your data from their system.
I don't know if you think such a model should exist, but I don't think it should. Seems like a legal restriction helps.
Same deal with how wall street was looking at blockchain. You certainly don't need it if you have a trusted relationship, and you probably don't need to prevent double-spending attacks when you have billions in seizable assets and no anonymity.
It's not 4G, it's the fact that the next gen of OTA data specs include setting aside bandwidth for broadcasting of data back to the broadcasters. It's not going to be a generic 4G, it's going to be dedicated frequencies for ads and data collection (and, as a bonus, enjoy the worse video quality OTA!) There won't be monthly fees for the TVs, they'll literally be a bidding war for Sony's data (on you and their other customers) among Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC.
Yes, if they violate Google's "good ad" policy. (Technically 3rd party, but they're on the board.) Odds that Google's ads don't meet their own policy? I mean, sure it sounds neutral. But it's not.
Yes, this is good ads/bad ads as defined by a "third party" that Google sits on the board of. And that info was in the summary, you didn't even need to read the article.
Sometimes, I'm looking for a product to buy. There's a lot of research I have to do to eliminate unsuitable brands, but there are several left. But at that point I'm pretty much asking to be advertised to.
The issue is normally it's a crappy brand I've eliminated that advertises to me.
Not only that, if it blocks Facebook and other competitive ad networks, but not doubleclick/google ads, it seems like that's very much in Google's interest.
English is the (or a) official language of Kenya, Uganda and South Africa, the three countries mentioned in the summary. This is about adding Mandarin (as an elective) in schools, not replacing English.
For an undergraduate degree, maybe (although you also get paid for those 4 years in the military, get nice VA loans, etc.). For a professional degree (law, medicine) you go in after you get the degree. So, unlike with most military service, you're going into the market with 4 years of experience in law/medicine. So, you should find people who are better at factoring in military experience. In addition, you'll probably have done a lot of hands on work faster than in the private sector.
Renting vs. buying is not an automatic decision. If you pay less per month to rent than buy, and stick that money in the stock market, it can easily be worth renting instead of buying.
If it's taxes, then I should get a say in what people study, since they are government employees, and also get a say in what they do afterwards.
Because central economic planning has proven a disaster in the past. The economy works much better if you let people make individual choices - some will make mistakes and some will excel in areas you didn't expect.
You left out "join the military". Boom, there's your undergraduate degree, or your law/medical degree paid for. Sure, it'll take 4 years, but esp. if you have a law/medical degree, you go into the private sector with 4 years of practice under your belt (since those programs are earn the degree, then serve with your skills.)
Not really. With an ISA, you technically don't have a qualified student loan. So graduate, declare bankrupcy, and start with a shit credit score and no need to pay anything back.
That said, this cost actually seems reasonable, 1/6 of your income for two years. So, 1/3 of one year's income. And it caps at 30k (per year? it's unclear). And only if you make more than 50k a year. So, you're flipping burgers? No debt collectors are chasing you.
So, two years of misery to be debt free, that sounds like a reasonable plan. Further, it avoids one of the worst reasons people get trapped in student loan debt - they don't finish school. Heck, because they want to make sure you make money, they'll probably help students avoid some of the shittier for-profit schools too.
Slashdot Mirror
It's no coincidence that they lowered the speed limits to 50mph just after they installed the speed cameras.
50 mph is crazy slow for a highway. Hell, it seems pretty slow for a non-highway rural road (outside towns).
France's unemployement rate seems fine. If this ends up costing jobs, but people have jobs, did it really cost anything? Also, why is having a slightly better job worth a significantly lower quality of life the rest of the time?
Most of the "shutdowns" are purely symbolic affairs (we'll defund the government Friday night, we'll reopen it Monday morning.) As of now, this is tied for the longest shutdown ever. It's an anti-authoritarian scheme - you cannot have the government spend money unless the current crop of Representatives (elected every 2 years) agrees. So all spending expires every 2 years (or more frequently.)
FWIW, it's far dumber than your original post. The Senate passed a "keep the government open" bill that Trump said he would sign. The House was going to pass it and then Trump would sign it, avoiding the issue. (The US government requires both parts of the legislature to agree and the president to sign, or 2/3 of each house to agree and the president doesn't matter ) Then Fox News, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh called the president a wimp. So Trump said he wouldn't sign anymore. Paul Ryan (the leader of the House) refused to let the House vote on it (because then the President would have to veto it). Because Trump really is led around by professional right-wing trolls.
I like your all caps, but there's actually no evidence Google's own ads were ever blocked. Google's ads aren't immune. There's a big fucking difference. That is, Google blocked all their ads that don't line up, all 0%. I
And Google was also involved in talks with the organization in the beginning. The standards group was founded at a pro-advertisers conference (and covered here on /.)
Or show me a single example of an ad served by Google being blocked.
Yes, I'm implying, and stating outright, that this is an anticompetive move by Google. The "acceptable ads" (which are not really determined by a third-party, because they're on that board) specifically exclude the most profitable ad types that Facebook and Amazon use. Sure it's "neutral", but it isn't. It allows what Google has been tuned for.
There are several differences. One is that foodstuffs are a very branded experience already, in ways many things sold on Amazon are not. Coke vs. Pepsi is a real brand war, and store-brand competes in that space. Or Chlorox wipes vs Lysol wipes vs Winn-Dixie wipes. Many things on Amazon just aren't. So, they'll either totally dominate that market or they'll force tons of advertising by companies building brands there (yay, more advertising!)
Another is that Amazon's market share is significantly higher than most purveyors of white goods. Changes in scale are changes in substance.
Yet another is that white labels in stores tend to be evergreen products. Amazon is in a position to move faster on new products with higher R&D costs. That means that smaller companies have less time to recoup their costs, meaning less innovation (assuming that they cannot afford the patent process).
Lastly, there's visibility. It's far easier to see all the options on a store shelf then in a search result. We all know being the #1 Google result is worth a lot more than being #2, and being on the second page is a huge hit. Amazon is not only selling, but is ordering the search results. Meanwhile, at stores, they tend to put the white label good right next to the brand name good, because they're trying to sell it as an alternative. So, little things like say USB cords, fill with a bunch of Amazon Basics offerings of different sizes before you go to the next page. Meanwhile, in stores, there's say a 10oz box of name brand cereal next to a 10oz box of white label, and then there's the 20oz box of name brand next to the 20oz box of white label.
Goalpost shift. I said Google wasn't blocking its own ads (since its ads are going to comply with the behavior it prescribes.) That is, all Google ads are shown. You then went on a tangent about how non-Google ads may also be shown.
That said, maybe it was an accident. A lot of people get "All X are Y" and "Only X are Y" confused.
Committing to a stock transaction takes milliseconds using third party exchanges. Otherwise, everyone would back out of transactions since prices change frequently over the three days you think it takes to finalize. There's no need to have blockchain do it because authoritative third party exchanges do it.
And I didn't say that Wall Street institutions should trust each other. I said double spending the specific reason Bitcoin uses blockchain, probably isn't an issue. Because the amount of time it would take to notice the double spending is small, the liability is large, and the amount of double-spending to liability is a small ratio before you get caught
As for your examples, it's really interesting that you included one scam (Madoff) and two examples of bankruptcy (Lehman, LTCM). Only one of those was a "trust" issue, and that was a fraud. I would imagine you could find better examples, but I guess not
Fun business model that exists: some companies scrap mugshots and arrest records from public databases. Doesn't matter if the charges are later dropped or you're found innocent. Or if they make a mistake they'll link someone else to your name (and say "mug shot not available"") They use SEO to make sure that those are the first responses when people Google your name. For a mere few hundred dollars, they'll remove your data from their system.
I don't know if you think such a model should exist, but I don't think it should. Seems like a legal restriction helps.
Same deal with how wall street was looking at blockchain. You certainly don't need it if you have a trusted relationship, and you probably don't need to prevent double-spending attacks when you have billions in seizable assets and no anonymity.
It's not 4G, it's the fact that the next gen of OTA data specs include setting aside bandwidth for broadcasting of data back to the broadcasters. It's not going to be a generic 4G, it's going to be dedicated frequencies for ads and data collection (and, as a bonus, enjoy the worse video quality OTA!) There won't be monthly fees for the TVs, they'll literally be a bidding war for Sony's data (on you and their other customers) among Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC.
Yes, if they violate Google's "good ad" policy. (Technically 3rd party, but they're on the board.) Odds that Google's ads don't meet their own policy? I mean, sure it sounds neutral. But it's not.
This is your daily reminder that a corrected error does not make something fake news, fake news is a deliberate lie.
Yes, this is good ads/bad ads as defined by a "third party" that Google sits on the board of. And that info was in the summary, you didn't even need to read the article.
Sometimes, I'm looking for a product to buy. There's a lot of research I have to do to eliminate unsuitable brands, but there are several left. But at that point I'm pretty much asking to be advertised to.
The issue is normally it's a crappy brand I've eliminated that advertises to me.
Not only that, if it blocks Facebook and other competitive ad networks, but not doubleclick/google ads, it seems like that's very much in Google's interest.
English is the (or a) official language of Kenya, Uganda and South Africa, the three countries mentioned in the summary. This is about adding Mandarin (as an elective) in schools, not replacing English.
For an undergraduate degree, maybe (although you also get paid for those 4 years in the military, get nice VA loans, etc.). For a professional degree (law, medicine) you go in after you get the degree. So, unlike with most military service, you're going into the market with 4 years of experience in law/medicine. So, you should find people who are better at factoring in military experience. In addition, you'll probably have done a lot of hands on work faster than in the private sector.
Renting vs. buying is not an automatic decision. If you pay less per month to rent than buy, and stick that money in the stock market, it can easily be worth renting instead of buying.
Because central economic planning has proven a disaster in the past. The economy works much better if you let people make individual choices - some will make mistakes and some will excel in areas you didn't expect.
But if you dislike that, go to Cuba, comrade.
You left out "join the military". Boom, there's your undergraduate degree, or your law/medical degree paid for. Sure, it'll take 4 years, but esp. if you have a law/medical degree, you go into the private sector with 4 years of practice under your belt (since those programs are earn the degree, then serve with your skills.)
Not really. With an ISA, you technically don't have a qualified student loan. So graduate, declare bankrupcy, and start with a shit credit score and no need to pay anything back.
That said, this cost actually seems reasonable, 1/6 of your income for two years. So, 1/3 of one year's income. And it caps at 30k (per year? it's unclear). And only if you make more than 50k a year. So, you're flipping burgers? No debt collectors are chasing you.
So, two years of misery to be debt free, that sounds like a reasonable plan. Further, it avoids one of the worst reasons people get trapped in student loan debt - they don't finish school. Heck, because they want to make sure you make money, they'll probably help students avoid some of the shittier for-profit schools too.
Except, amazingly, a RaspPi laptop is more expensive to build than a cheap Windows laptop/Chromebook is too buy.
Do you reinstall the OS, or do you trust the refurbers?
Unless it's the ChromeOS variant of Linux.