What does "earned" mean in this context? If a hunter kills a deer, and 5 hunters all drove the deer to him, how much did the killer "earn"? What if there's only one deer in the entire forest, already claimed as owned, but unkilled by somebody.
It's human nature to want the best meat and to get fed first regardless.
And, in historic fact, the leader of the tribe probably gets the choice pieces off the top, before the hunter and his family. But beyond that, hunter-gatherer is practically synonymous with a "gift economy", far closer to communism than capitalism.
Also, regardless of whether they were legally at fault, could the AI have avoided the accident/mitigated the damage? I don't really care if I'm not legally responsible for the head on collision I had at 60mph, if it could have been avoided by a lane change. I don't even care if the lane change was improper and illegal, unless it also causes an accident.
I know they won against Seattle. In my example, they had to use only 19 of their cheating methods (all successfully), since one was already uncovered earlier.
Testing your cheating before the Superbowl seems smart. They may retroactively take away your victory, but they cannot re-play the Superbowl. So if you get caught cheating in the Superbowl, you may end up having to give the rings back. But if you get caught cheating in the playoffs, who would they declare the victor? The other team in the Superbowl? The team you cheated against? Replay the thing? Logistically, they'll just fine you, maybe slap an asterisk next to the win... but probably not.
It would be super confusing to the defense if the Patriots used smoke grenades! And that's why they're banned.
Look, you want a balance between offense and defense. If the rules are making it too hard on the defense, you modify them. Just like when the uprights were on the goal line, it made it too hard on the offense to be in a scoring position and not run into them.
Well, if that's the case, I don't see a reason not to take it down. It really doesn't add much to a conversation, and clearly causes a lot of pain. There's no good reason, other than being a dick, to leave it up.
Also because politeness is usually reciprocated. If an officer is polite to me, I'll be polite to him. And that helps sort me from the crazies he has to deal with.
You asked why commercial and non-commercial use is handled differently (in the US). I used a taxi driver as my example, but the same applies if you're hauling big rigs across the US or delivering pizzas door to door.. In fact, none of my verbiage pertains to picking up or having passengers at all. You could replace it with "chulapa delivery guy" and it changes nothing. You're on the road a lot longer, and often exposed to more dangers.
And I doubt your current insurance covers, let's say, driving nuclear waste in your backseat from a power plant to a dump site. Which is a commercial use.
Heck, a lot of people even questioned if you read your policy correctly.
It's against the law to drive without insurance. Most insurance has limits on things it will cover. Therefore, it is illegal to drive while doing things that insurance will not cover. The fact that the circumstances of these are based on a private contract makes it hard to enforce, but does not change the legality.
What the hell would be the difference for me or my car for what I use it regarding my liability towards anyone I (might) harm?
Because a professional taxi driver is on the road for 8+ hours a day, not just 1 or 2, So they have more risk. They also tend to spend a large amount of Friday and Saturday nights in the bar districts, which seems intuitively like a place loaded with inebriated pedestrians and other drivers - both risk factors.
Would it surprise you to know that the city you live in also affects car insurance rates? At least in the US...
No one gives a shit about most laws, until they are affected by the negative consequences that those laws were designed to prevent. Wait until an Uber driver smacks into your car, and his insurance refuses to cover commercial activity. Depending on your uninsured motorist coverage, you could be okay. Except, cities without well regulated mandatory insurance for cars tend to have insurance death spirals, so good luck having that 3 years from now.
If you want to call laws outdated and out of place, you have to understand why they were created and how to prevent those same issues from coming about when you repeal the law.
They totally enforce the laws to some degree. Hundreds of people get ticketed for violating the laws.
But you're talking about the process. I'm talking about the desirability. I think the laws are, in general, good for America. There's a reason they were put in place. And while they may have been captured by industry, the harms they were put in place to avoid are still out there. So my question is: Why would we want to change the law. Or, the question I was asking and you ducked was: In what way can you change the law and still avoid those harms?
most people likely to consume their services would rather have them operating just as they are than otherwise
Until their Uber driver hits someone litigous on the street. Then all of a sudden the driver and the rider (as the "employer of an independent contractor" ) are getting sued.
There's a reason the laws built up the way they did. You want to fix them, you have my blessing. But, for the love of many things, demonstrate that your fixes also solve the problem that the law was designed to solve, or tell me why it's not a problem.
There are times when it seems like I'm prepurchasing to get a discount. For cases where they're not inventing with my money, that seems reasonable. Or for artists, who are creating something non-commercial, etc.
But when I'm sponsoring engineering, I tend to agree with you.
I suppose it comes down to if I'm assuming risk of completion, or not.
There is a real difference between announcing numbers at 4pm and 5pm. In one case, trading immediately reacts and there is a crash because of momentum traders. At 5pm, the markets are closed, and the crash is anticipated. Therefore, there is less automated collapse.
Why Wall St. guys get paid so much to let computers do their work for them, I have no idea.
If next year's Big Mac only costs $0.90, then why risk investing it?
To get more moeny, duh. I mean, you're right that the mattress now offers an effective 10% or whatever, but that just means banks offering 3% are really offering 13. 13 is greater than 10.
Well, the goal should be to improve the lives of their students, not to make money. Many not-for-profit schools lose money per student, and are subsidized by alumni.
Some high schools give out both diplomas and certificates of attendance. Everyone gets to walk during graduation, etc. It seems to be an adequate compromise.
The thing some people NEVER watch ESPN. Not everyone likes sports. It's not fair to charge me for access to things I have no desire to see.
We have purchases in bundles all the time. Buffets make you pay for all the foods; Gym memberships make you pay for all the machines; even Citizenship is a "yes/no" with tons of consequences. I disagree on face with your statement about how it's unfair.
That said, I personally do not want to pay for ESPN. I too want an option not to buy it. But that seems to be a secondary consideration. This is about allowing ESPN subscribers to only subscribe for the months that their favorite sport is on, as opposed to ESPN's current granularity of "annual". I think it's pretty obvious that there is some benefit to avoiding an "a la carte" menu when it comes to specific shows/games. But that's a different argument.
it enables channel drift, where a channel devoted to say Sci-Fi, slowly shifts away from science fiction to garbage. Why? Because people get the channel that don't want Sci-Fi.
That's an excellent point. Also, in that case, because too many assholes now say "it's cool to like SciFi" but hate SciFi and instead love B movies.
Well, this is more "if you allow football fans to switch ESPN off outside of football season, we'll have to make all the money off him in, what, 6 months. So it'll look to double his monthly fee to see games. Which may cause him to turn it off.
Whereas, an annual membership to something that includes football feels different, even if you only happen to use it for football and only 1/2 the time.
I think it's a real concern for ESPN, and something that will make people's lives worse... but the later only because people are not rational. It doesn't make it less real though.
They chase everybody else, late to the game: mp3 players, search, cloud services, online email, smartphones, etc
They made a search engine before Google, a smartphone before Apple and online email before I think anyone else (96).
They've been horribly mismanged, but incredibly innovative at the technical level. But they tend to not put marketing muscle behind it, and leave industries to other companies as opposed to aggressively pursuing them.
Slashdot Mirror
What does "earned" mean in this context? If a hunter kills a deer, and 5 hunters all drove the deer to him, how much did the killer "earn"? What if there's only one deer in the entire forest, already claimed as owned, but unkilled by somebody.
It's human nature to want the best meat and to get fed first regardless.
And, in historic fact, the leader of the tribe probably gets the choice pieces off the top, before the hunter and his family. But beyond that, hunter-gatherer is practically synonymous with a "gift economy", far closer to communism than capitalism.
Is there even a conceptual way that something like Tor could be run that would prevent it from being detected.
Also, regardless of whether they were legally at fault, could the AI have avoided the accident/mitigated the damage? I don't really care if I'm not legally responsible for the head on collision I had at 60mph, if it could have been avoided by a lane change. I don't even care if the lane change was improper and illegal, unless it also causes an accident.
I know they won against Seattle. In my example, they had to use only 19 of their cheating methods (all successfully), since one was already uncovered earlier.
Testing your cheating before the Superbowl seems smart. They may retroactively take away your victory, but they cannot re-play the Superbowl. So if you get caught cheating in the Superbowl, you may end up having to give the rings back. But if you get caught cheating in the playoffs, who would they declare the victor? The other team in the Superbowl? The team you cheated against? Replay the thing? Logistically, they'll just fine you, maybe slap an asterisk next to the win... but probably not.
It would be super confusing to the defense if the Patriots used smoke grenades! And that's why they're banned.
Look, you want a balance between offense and defense. If the rules are making it too hard on the defense, you modify them. Just like when the uprights were on the goal line, it made it too hard on the offense to be in a scoring position and not run into them.
An RFID chip. Found in the ring. But you can also tape it to the outside of the machine, and it should work.
Well, if that's the case, I don't see a reason not to take it down. It really doesn't add much to a conversation, and clearly causes a lot of pain. There's no good reason, other than being a dick, to leave it up.
The robes, which are probably only used within the sorority house during rituals.
Also because politeness is usually reciprocated. If an officer is polite to me, I'll be polite to him. And that helps sort me from the crazies he has to deal with.
Or maybe they cheat 20 different ways, and they only got caught on one. Maybe they really suck when they stop cheating entirely.
You asked why commercial and non-commercial use is handled differently (in the US). I used a taxi driver as my example, but the same applies if you're hauling big rigs across the US or delivering pizzas door to door.. In fact, none of my verbiage pertains to picking up or having passengers at all. You could replace it with "chulapa delivery guy" and it changes nothing. You're on the road a lot longer, and often exposed to more dangers.
And I doubt your current insurance covers, let's say, driving nuclear waste in your backseat from a power plant to a dump site. Which is a commercial use.
Heck, a lot of people even questioned if you read your policy correctly.
It's against the law to drive without insurance. Most insurance has limits on things it will cover. Therefore, it is illegal to drive while doing things that insurance will not cover. The fact that the circumstances of these are based on a private contract makes it hard to enforce, but does not change the legality.
Because a professional taxi driver is on the road for 8+ hours a day, not just 1 or 2, So they have more risk. They also tend to spend a large amount of Friday and Saturday nights in the bar districts, which seems intuitively like a place loaded with inebriated pedestrians and other drivers - both risk factors.
Would it surprise you to know that the city you live in also affects car insurance rates? At least in the US...
No one gives a shit about most laws, until they are affected by the negative consequences that those laws were designed to prevent. Wait until an Uber driver smacks into your car, and his insurance refuses to cover commercial activity. Depending on your uninsured motorist coverage, you could be okay. Except, cities without well regulated mandatory insurance for cars tend to have insurance death spirals, so good luck having that 3 years from now.
If you want to call laws outdated and out of place, you have to understand why they were created and how to prevent those same issues from coming about when you repeal the law.
They totally enforce the laws to some degree. Hundreds of people get ticketed for violating the laws.
But you're talking about the process. I'm talking about the desirability. I think the laws are, in general, good for America. There's a reason they were put in place. And while they may have been captured by industry, the harms they were put in place to avoid are still out there. So my question is: Why would we want to change the law. Or, the question I was asking and you ducked was: In what way can you change the law and still avoid those harms?
Until their Uber driver hits someone litigous on the street. Then all of a sudden the driver and the rider (as the "employer of an independent contractor" ) are getting sued.
There's a reason the laws built up the way they did. You want to fix them, you have my blessing. But, for the love of many things, demonstrate that your fixes also solve the problem that the law was designed to solve, or tell me why it's not a problem.
There are times when it seems like I'm prepurchasing to get a discount. For cases where they're not inventing with my money, that seems reasonable. Or for artists, who are creating something non-commercial, etc.
But when I'm sponsoring engineering, I tend to agree with you.
I suppose it comes down to if I'm assuming risk of completion, or not.
There is a real difference between announcing numbers at 4pm and 5pm. In one case, trading immediately reacts and there is a crash because of momentum traders. At 5pm, the markets are closed, and the crash is anticipated. Therefore, there is less automated collapse.
Why Wall St. guys get paid so much to let computers do their work for them, I have no idea.
To get more moeny, duh. I mean, you're right that the mattress now offers an effective 10% or whatever, but that just means banks offering 3% are really offering 13. 13 is greater than 10.
It pretty much is a thinly-traded penny stock.
Well, the goal should be to improve the lives of their students, not to make money. Many not-for-profit schools lose money per student, and are subsidized by alumni.
Some high schools give out both diplomas and certificates of attendance. Everyone gets to walk during graduation, etc. It seems to be an adequate compromise.
We have purchases in bundles all the time. Buffets make you pay for all the foods; Gym memberships make you pay for all the machines; even Citizenship is a "yes/no" with tons of consequences. I disagree on face with your statement about how it's unfair.
That said, I personally do not want to pay for ESPN. I too want an option not to buy it. But that seems to be a secondary consideration. This is about allowing ESPN subscribers to only subscribe for the months that their favorite sport is on, as opposed to ESPN's current granularity of "annual". I think it's pretty obvious that there is some benefit to avoiding an "a la carte" menu when it comes to specific shows/games. But that's a different argument.
That's an excellent point. Also, in that case, because too many assholes now say "it's cool to like SciFi" but hate SciFi and instead love B movies.
Well, this is more "if you allow football fans to switch ESPN off outside of football season, we'll have to make all the money off him in, what, 6 months. So it'll look to double his monthly fee to see games. Which may cause him to turn it off.
Whereas, an annual membership to something that includes football feels different, even if you only happen to use it for football and only 1/2 the time.
I think it's a real concern for ESPN, and something that will make people's lives worse... but the later only because people are not rational. It doesn't make it less real though.
They made a search engine before Google, a smartphone before Apple and online email before I think anyone else (96).
They've been horribly mismanged, but incredibly innovative at the technical level. But they tend to not put marketing muscle behind it, and leave industries to other companies as opposed to aggressively pursuing them.