Well, they've been working to replace Foxconn workers with robots. Presumably, once enough of the line is automated, they'll rip it out of china and move it to somewhere cheaper
Also, yeah it sucks, but what's the pragmatic solution. Financially well-off parents means better childhood health and better education, almost certainly leading to a better qualified future candidate. All other things being equal.
who does the best work. If you don't think
this is true, ask yourself whether you'd rather have a semi-competent pilot flying your airliner
because the airline was forced to accept hiring quotas, or whether you'd rather have the
very best pilot available controlling the airliner on which you are a passenger.
Competent is fine by me. I don't care if they are Charles Lindburgh reincarnated or just some guy who can keep it, metaphorically, between the lines. In fact, I'd rather the pilot was cheaper and the savings passed on to me. (Which also seems to be what the airlines have done)
Now, unqualified/incompetent is a different matter. But, not the best does not imply unqualified.
"Doability" isn't. How long you look at the post is. So, FB figured out your preferred use of their service is to look at small pictures of attractive women.
Are you proposing that all of physics is untestable because we don't know how to test it inside of a black hole?
Yes. I'm saying the the total set of all physics is currently (and likely to remain) untestable. Which isn't to say that science cannot handle it. We use principles like Occum's Razor to say that if it is the best description of what we can observe, then we assume (pending further disproving) it is true.
Which works out great. I mean, "truth" is a nebulous concept. One can construct a universal coordinate system that treats the earth as the unmoving center, and has the sun moving around it in strange shapes. And, in fact, that's the coordinate system we use through most of our daily life (folks at NASA, SpaceX, etc. excluded). But we recognize when it becomes more convenient to have a different truth. Also, similar to how I've never concerned myself (outside of class) with relativity, but GPS engineers had to.
Heck, even relativity wasn't testable when postulated. It took like 40 years to conceive of a test.
So I suppose my entire point was against the unreasonable goal of testability for all facts.
Neither is an assertion about the absolute limit on speed in the universe(really: devise a test for that).
An absolute speed limit is as testable as anything in physics, and it's tested all the time in linear accelerators.
Really? Then you have empirical evidence disproving my "Things can totally go faster than light in a vacuum once you cross the event horizon of a black hole" theory?
Sure, but it's no different than most other physical evidence, in that it's dependent upon the trustworthiness of the person presenting the information
It's totally different. You normally cannot decide to just start leaving someone else's DNA and fingerprints behind as you commit a crime. You normally have to clean up using imperfect physical/chemical processes.
It's not that anyone thinks it happened in this case. It's not that the end result of this case is bad. What people are reacting to is the possibility for abuse of the precedent in the future.
Re:Maybe the author needs to get out more
on
Amazon's eBook Math
·
· Score: 1
No dude, your books are not so incredible that people will buy them no matter what the price. There may be a few people who are like that, but most aren't. Price matters in entertainment.
Per hour, books are pretty cheap. The idea that I'm going to devote, what, 10 (randomly chosen) hours of my life to something I'm not going to pay some premium for quality is crazy.
Premiums differ. Hell, descriptions of quality differ.
. With the ebook you get a... license to read the book but only in the format you purchased your license for.
This applies equally to physical books.
With a real book, you own a copy. Full stop. You can resell it. You can loan it. You cannot make more copies (except under fair use)... maybe an archival/backup (Check your local laws). But it's your property.
Copyright covers the rights to reproduce a work. Not to control what happens once a work has been (legally) reproduced and sold.
With digital copies, some asshole convinced some judge that to be used it has to be copied from memory to RAM, so digital works come wrapped in a license that allows just that.
You know what these people are going to do, right? For cancellation, you gotta have a brick wall they can't navigate around.
That's just a ton of excuses. If you really want to have fun:
Them: "WHY DO YOU WANT TO CANCEL?"
You: The Martians will kill my parents if I don't
Them: "We will give you 3 months free service just to keep you as a customer."
You: Good lord, they're already dead. The Martians are resurrecting them just to kill them.
Them: "Are you dissatisfied with our service?"
You: MOTHERFUCKING MARTIANS MAN!
Or you could refuse to discuss it and just cancel the fucking account. It's been a while since I cancelled Comcast. They were dicks, but they can really only keep you on the phone if you let them.
I think it's probably a good idea to do this to your code even if you don't play on widely distributing it. It can help identify errors in your coding style/skillset. And you know what they say about a stitch in time...
Why are the tools being run remotely, as opposed to, for instance, being all nicely packaged into an image I can download and boot from locally. I understand the benefits of keeping statistics as code improves, etc. but it seems that a "paranoid developer" mode would fit nicely with the mission of improving code security. Esp. since those developers tend to do a lot more NIH of basic parts.
Additionally, and more relevantly, some of my work is done on a laptop as I move around, and being able to do some Q/A work when away from the Internet would be useful.
You mean, I did not bother to provide evidence for either one of those in this case. But you didn't provide contrarian evidence either. What I said was, this case has a correct answer. Unlike your example of education, internet service has objective measures of success - uptime, bandwidth, latency, peering. All the upstream connections were provided by members of the duopoly, so those features are identical. But the last mile would have been cheaper, according to all the research provided..
Of course, you're a savvy voter who makes good choices. You would never be convinced to vote against your own interests. You would not dismiss out of hand government services, when the private sector could supply those same services and turn a profit. No, not you.
As for anti-union ranting, it's true that unions impose higher costs. But that doesn't really impact anything. If I'm paying less money, why do I care that the money I do pay goes to a random union employee instead of a shareholder. Hell, I'd rather the money went to an employee.
That's a government-run utility. Nobody cared because they didn't have to. I can't vote them out, they can't get fired, and I can't get service from anyone else.
As opposed to private utilities like Comcast that care? And why can't you vote them out? At least you have some choice there. I pity the person at the mercy of monopolistic private utilites.
everyone is assuming that the voters were coerced
Everyone is assumng teh voters were tricked. Because there is a right answer. And they did not arrive at it.
Here's a point I haven't seen anyone raise. When your ISP is managed by the same government that manages the police department, where do you think your right to privacy winds up? In the hands of someone who likely belongs to the same union that the police clerical staff belong to, and are probably on the same bowling team. And their paychecks come from the same mayor's office.
Wow, that is stupid. First, they would be in different unions. Second, there is no way that evidence gained like that could be used in trial. The consequences of misusing that data are so great it would never happen.
Bluetooth keyboards have a lot of issues... Security is of course worse, possibly extremely bad if the implementation on the keyboard is flawed. EM interference means that it is less reliable (I find myself rebooting the keyboard fairly frequently.) But most important, when set to achieve low-latency, bluetooth gets pretty power-hungry.
Now, I wonder if any phone lets the USB port run in host mode? Anyone know which phones let you do that?
It's pretty insulting to the democratic process to accuse the winners of being "[expletive deleted] sheeple" when you don't agree with a result.
Why wouldn't I insult the democratic process? The only inherent value to it is that it tends to screw up slightly less, slightly slower, and slightly less impactfully other forms of government. It screws up plenty often. This is one such case.
For instance, democracies suck when voting on a question of fact. If something is better and cheaper when supplied by the government, why shouldn't the government supply it?
at the same time if you are cashing in more than you are contributing, so sorry, you don't get to vote yourself largesse either directly or indirectly.
How long do the bailouts for Wall St. prevent finance-employeed individuals from voting? How far down the corporate chain do you go before oil-company employees can vote? What about all the guys who only pay 15%...do they lose the vote... after all they benefit from subsidies on investing?
Yeah, I'm going to ignore your anti-military trolling. Let's just leave it as we think each other are wrong. On the offchance you were not trolling, and were confused:
Look, you may not like people in the military (no clue why), but to say they deserve what they get is naive and stupid. Historically and currently, joining the military has been one of the most sure ways for intelligent, motivated people born into poor circumstances to raise themselves up the ladder of success.
Given the relative abundance of rich entrepreneurs vs rich veterans, I think a citation may be needed there.
That's a shitty comparison. Most entrepreneurs start off fairly wealthy, and only get moreso. Besides, I specifically called out people born into poor circumstances. So, I'd like a citation on poor people who use entrepreneurship to get rich; America has terrible class mobility.
Colin Powell was born in Harlem to two immigrants. Bill Gates was born to a partner in a white-shoe law firm and a board member of the United Way, IBM and others. Bill Gates got further; Colin Powell came farther.
According to your philosophy, why would you feel sorry for factory workers, construction workers, or truck drivers? Shouldn't they have researched the rates of workman's comp claims, compared it to all their alternatives, decided what the risk level was likely to be and ensured that they were paid a risk premium as compensation based on their self-assessed danger quotient?
Look, you may not like people in the military (no clue why), but to say they deserve what they get is naive and stupid. Historically and currently, joining the military has been one of the most sure ways for intelligent, motivated people born into poor circumstances to raise themselves up the ladder of success.
Why did they "have" to start taking drugs in the first place? If you take drugs and get addicted, that's your responsibility. Not anyone else's.
Well, some of them were under 18 at the time. As a society, we've decided you cannot really be held responsible for many of your actions when under 18. So it certainly is difficult to condemn teenagers to a lifetime of addiction because you were too cheap and on too high a moral horse to help them out.
But beyond that, in many cases, such as with student loans, we hold that society has not just a right to protect you from others, but to help enable you to improve yourself. Certainly, that seems cheaper to society than trying to punish people in prison for something they may wish they could give up.
Lastly, while you may wish that everyone was solely responsible for their actions, and their actions solely affected them, neither is ever the case. It's a good bumper sticker philosophy, but it falls apart once you start asking questions.
If you take drugs and get addicted, that's your responsibility. Not anyone else's.
Think so? I can introduce you to some former surgery patients and war veterans among others who were introduced to opiates to control pain by their physicians for very real pain problems and as a result were unable to avoid addiction
The ADA claims there are zero cases of that.
They do so by separating dependency with addiction, by specifying that addiction requires a pleasureable aspect. So. You can be dependent on insulin, but probably not addicted. Morphine could be either depending on your situation.
How much of that is linguistic bullshittery to avoid feeling bad for hooking people on pills, I do not know.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they've been working to replace Foxconn workers with robots. Presumably, once enough of the line is automated, they'll rip it out of china and move it to somewhere cheaper
Most student loans will cover unpaid internships.
Also, yeah it sucks, but what's the pragmatic solution. Financially well-off parents means better childhood health and better education, almost certainly leading to a better qualified future candidate. All other things being equal.
Competent is fine by me. I don't care if they are Charles Lindburgh reincarnated or just some guy who can keep it, metaphorically, between the lines. In fact, I'd rather the pilot was cheaper and the savings passed on to me. (Which also seems to be what the airlines have done)
Now, unqualified/incompetent is a different matter. But, not the best does not imply unqualified.
"Doability" isn't. How long you look at the post is. So, FB figured out your preferred use of their service is to look at small pictures of attractive women.
Ethically: Because someone read Kant.
Financially: Because it will likely lead to a longer lived network, that makes more money over 90+ years, but less money in the first decade.
Please. It seems logical, but I'd like to see some data.
Yes. I'm saying the the total set of all physics is currently (and likely to remain) untestable. Which isn't to say that science cannot handle it. We use principles like Occum's Razor to say that if it is the best description of what we can observe, then we assume (pending further disproving) it is true.
Which works out great. I mean, "truth" is a nebulous concept. One can construct a universal coordinate system that treats the earth as the unmoving center, and has the sun moving around it in strange shapes. And, in fact, that's the coordinate system we use through most of our daily life (folks at NASA, SpaceX, etc. excluded). But we recognize when it becomes more convenient to have a different truth. Also, similar to how I've never concerned myself (outside of class) with relativity, but GPS engineers had to.
Heck, even relativity wasn't testable when postulated. It took like 40 years to conceive of a test.
So I suppose my entire point was against the unreasonable goal of testability for all facts.
Really? Then you have empirical evidence disproving my "Things can totally go faster than light in a vacuum once you cross the event horizon of a black hole" theory?
It's totally different. You normally cannot decide to just start leaving someone else's DNA and fingerprints behind as you commit a crime. You normally have to clean up using imperfect physical/chemical processes.
It's not that anyone thinks it happened in this case. It's not that the end result of this case is bad. What people are reacting to is the possibility for abuse of the precedent in the future.
Per hour, books are pretty cheap. The idea that I'm going to devote, what, 10 (randomly chosen) hours of my life to something I'm not going to pay some premium for quality is crazy.
Premiums differ. Hell, descriptions of quality differ.
With a real book, you own a copy. Full stop. You can resell it. You can loan it. You cannot make more copies (except under fair use)... maybe an archival/backup (Check your local laws). But it's your property.
Copyright covers the rights to reproduce a work. Not to control what happens once a work has been (legally) reproduced and sold.
With digital copies, some asshole convinced some judge that to be used it has to be copied from memory to RAM, so digital works come wrapped in a license that allows just that.
Mandatory disclaimer: IANAL
Do you have a good source for obscure plumbing adapters? The best I've seen have been crazy expensive off amazon.
Also, looking for obscure plastic adapters to run small (3/16-5/16) hoses for projects.
It is. Did I mention I live in America?
That's just a ton of excuses. If you really want to have fun:
Them: "WHY DO YOU WANT TO CANCEL?"
You: The Martians will kill my parents if I don't
Them: "We will give you 3 months free service just to keep you as a customer."
You: Good lord, they're already dead. The Martians are resurrecting them just to kill them.
Them: "Are you dissatisfied with our service?"
You: MOTHERFUCKING MARTIANS MAN!
Or you could refuse to discuss it and just cancel the fucking account. It's been a while since I cancelled Comcast. They were dicks, but they can really only keep you on the phone if you let them.
I think it's probably a good idea to do this to your code even if you don't play on widely distributing it. It can help identify errors in your coding style/skillset. And you know what they say about a stitch in time...
Why are the tools being run remotely, as opposed to, for instance, being all nicely packaged into an image I can download and boot from locally. I understand the benefits of keeping statistics as code improves, etc. but it seems that a "paranoid developer" mode would fit nicely with the mission of improving code security. Esp. since those developers tend to do a lot more NIH of basic parts.
Additionally, and more relevantly, some of my work is done on a laptop as I move around, and being able to do some Q/A work when away from the Internet would be useful.
You mean, I did not bother to provide evidence for either one of those in this case. But you didn't provide contrarian evidence either. What I said was, this case has a correct answer. Unlike your example of education, internet service has objective measures of success - uptime, bandwidth, latency, peering. All the upstream connections were provided by members of the duopoly, so those features are identical. But the last mile would have been cheaper, according to all the research provided..
Of course, you're a savvy voter who makes good choices. You would never be convinced to vote against your own interests. You would not dismiss out of hand government services, when the private sector could supply those same services and turn a profit. No, not you.
As for anti-union ranting, it's true that unions impose higher costs. But that doesn't really impact anything. If I'm paying less money, why do I care that the money I do pay goes to a random union employee instead of a shareholder. Hell, I'd rather the money went to an employee.
As opposed to private utilities like Comcast that care? And why can't you vote them out? At least you have some choice there. I pity the person at the mercy of monopolistic private utilites.
Everyone is assumng teh voters were tricked. Because there is a right answer. And they did not arrive at it.
Wow, that is stupid. First, they would be in different unions. Second, there is no way that evidence gained like that could be used in trial. The consequences of misusing that data are so great it would never happen.
Bluetooth keyboards have a lot of issues... Security is of course worse, possibly extremely bad if the implementation on the keyboard is flawed. EM interference means that it is less reliable (I find myself rebooting the keyboard fairly frequently.) But most important, when set to achieve low-latency, bluetooth gets pretty power-hungry.
Now, I wonder if any phone lets the USB port run in host mode? Anyone know which phones let you do that?
Why wouldn't I insult the democratic process? The only inherent value to it is that it tends to screw up slightly less, slightly slower, and slightly less impactfully other forms of government. It screws up plenty often. This is one such case.
For instance, democracies suck when voting on a question of fact. If something is better and cheaper when supplied by the government, why shouldn't the government supply it?
How long do the bailouts for Wall St. prevent finance-employeed individuals from voting? How far down the corporate chain do you go before oil-company employees can vote? What about all the guys who only pay 15%...do they lose the vote... after all they benefit from subsidies on investing?
Yeah, I'm going to ignore your anti-military trolling. Let's just leave it as we think each other are wrong. On the offchance you were not trolling, and were confused:
That's a shitty comparison. Most entrepreneurs start off fairly wealthy, and only get moreso. Besides, I specifically called out people born into poor circumstances. So, I'd like a citation on poor people who use entrepreneurship to get rich; America has terrible class mobility.
Colin Powell was born in Harlem to two immigrants. Bill Gates was born to a partner in a white-shoe law firm and a board member of the United Way, IBM and others. Bill Gates got further; Colin Powell came farther.
Some wars are good. Some wars are bad.
Soldiers dying (intelligent or not) is always sad.
According to your philosophy, why would you feel sorry for factory workers, construction workers, or truck drivers? Shouldn't they have researched the rates of workman's comp claims, compared it to all their alternatives, decided what the risk level was likely to be and ensured that they were paid a risk premium as compensation based on their self-assessed danger quotient?
Look, you may not like people in the military (no clue why), but to say they deserve what they get is naive and stupid. Historically and currently, joining the military has been one of the most sure ways for intelligent, motivated people born into poor circumstances to raise themselves up the ladder of success.
Well, some of them were under 18 at the time. As a society, we've decided you cannot really be held responsible for many of your actions when under 18. So it certainly is difficult to condemn teenagers to a lifetime of addiction because you were too cheap and on too high a moral horse to help them out.
But beyond that, in many cases, such as with student loans, we hold that society has not just a right to protect you from others, but to help enable you to improve yourself. Certainly, that seems cheaper to society than trying to punish people in prison for something they may wish they could give up.
Lastly, while you may wish that everyone was solely responsible for their actions, and their actions solely affected them, neither is ever the case. It's a good bumper sticker philosophy, but it falls apart once you start asking questions.
The ADA claims there are zero cases of that.
They do so by separating dependency with addiction, by specifying that addiction requires a pleasureable aspect. So. You can be dependent on insulin, but probably not addicted. Morphine could be either depending on your situation.
How much of that is linguistic bullshittery to avoid feeling bad for hooking people on pills, I do not know.