Actually, the ideal would be to ban cigarettes and e-cigarettes from people who currently do not smoke, while allowing them for people who do. This would prevent many new people from taking up the habit while avoiding a prohibition like smuggling operation.
Banning a cool version and allowing an uncool version is fairly close to that.
See, your issue is you say "Better that person X uses an e-cigarette than smokes a cigarette". And I'm saying better "N+X, X much less than Z, smoke cigarettes and 0 people smoke e-cigarettes" than "N people smoke cigarettes and Z people use e-cigarettes." They can both be true, but my claim makes sense on a societal level.
(2) Do not permit originators to set "Caller ID" to a number they have not rented (from the provider).
That's not a "rented phone number". By federal law that's my number. I can take it to another provider. It's like owning a static IP, vs. renting one from your ISP. You get to take it with you.
Which is good, because number lockin was a way to keep people from moving to another provider, and caused rates to go higher.
It's not the coding that drives me nuts with automating stuff, it's the testing/QA. You do make sure that all mission critical things you do are tested to make sure the automatic process isn't doing something wrong, right? Ideally with another party (internal or external) acting as QA.
How does it not? E-cigarettes are more dangerous to the users. And teens think they're safe, so the smoking (that we had been eliminating) is coming back.
Pay attention to the flavors he uses (or get him to do it)! Some of them can cause pretty shitty consequences, like popcorn lung. I mean, if he's willing to go to his second or third favorite flavor (assuming he likes a dangerous one), he can avoid some big risk factors.
have the health effects of pot been fully researched by the government?
Depends on what you mean by "fully". The current studies point to it being pretty safe unless you burn it and inhale the smoke. And, the natural study of "all these people who smoke a shitload of pot" seems to show it does not have teh same cancer risk as cigarettes.
Banning e-cigarette sales makes no sense unless you ban the sale of all smoked tobacco products first.
Except cigarettes aren't cool, and most teens won't smoke them. E-Cigarettes are cool and most teens will. So, banning them makes sense. Or raising the limit on them to 30 (so adults can quit tobacco) makes sense.
Hell, the preliminary studies show that one of the flavors (I think Bubble Gum) may cause all kinds of nasty side-effects, which may be worse than cigarettes. And a lot of the cardio problems with cigarettes are due to nicotine itself...
Also, is this just the old school tobacco lobby at work?
Nope, the old school tobacco lobby loves ecigs. And sells the crap out of them. Smoking in teens kept going down and down, and this is a way for them to seem "healthy" and recapture that market.
I'm guessing you don't understand p-values and statistical significance. Setting the limit of publishability to 0.051 would increase the number of papers that passed the test.
Google totally cares. Chrome has allowed them to push for more control over the internet and they like it. For instance, unilaterally rolling out AMP in Chrome made it a new standard. Or Chrome making JS faster, because people were disabling it (and Google's tracking).
Frankly, you're crazy naive. If Google didn't care, it wouldn't have taken a 5 billion dollar fine to get them to do this. They would have done it when they got the eaerlier 1.7 billion dollar fine. How much is Chrome's monopoly in the the EU worth to Google? Between 1.7 billion and 5 billion every few years.
It's not the number of steps, it's the defaulting. Most people don't think about their search engine (or browser). So even one step that's not in their face is too many.
Indeed, prior to Trump shitting on them for 3 years, the EU was our ally in international conflicts (e.g. the Iranian sanctions, dealing with Russia, etc.) They easily could have bought into a Western Countries vs. China war (based on spying, IP protection, environmental and labor rights, etc.). But Trump cannot coordinate that. Hell, the TPP, whatever you thought of it, was in large part a unified way of containing China.
But Trump doesn't understand how teams work, so instead he's holding up China buying soybeans as a victory while losing at, well, everything that isn't selling agricultural output. Which, to be clear, isn't a win: it's what they were already doing. This is just them announcing the same policy as the past decade as "due to Trump's brilliance".
And while there's very little evidence that Gates ever made such a statement, the fact that Windows XP was similarly handicapped at the ~3.5GB boundary suggests a recurring theme of disregard for the rate of hardware advancement.
The ~3.5GB boundary was because of a technical limitation. 32-bit machines can address memory up to 4GB. XP couldn't handle virtual memory space (initially at least, maybe after one of the service packs). And some of that 4GB space was reserved for drivers.
They could have handled the issue through several ways, but those all imposed costs on people with under 4GB of space. There are reasons why that business decision was made.
Yeah, it's about $18 million. The question is how often is the fine assessed? If it's daily, that adds up quick (just over 1.5 billion a year). If it's one-time, I doubt it registers.
I mean, the better analogy is that they aren't starting the swimming events immediately after the marathon (and with the same participants). Because if they did Omar McLeod would be done with all of them (and possibly win the medals) before Michael Phelps got in the water.
Anti-monopoly laws prevent you from using your dominance in one area (e.g. search) no matter how obtained, from dominating another (e.g. comparison shopping.)
It doesn't sound like there's much new tech to develop, just some dispatch software
The only example of the boring company we have, in LA, is behind schedule, and unable to deliver as promised so far. I would worry about it if I was in Las Vegas. The South Australia battery was a large run of something that had been in production (batteries) for quite a while, and by Tesla specifically in addition to generally in the world.
I think your company/customer vs employer/employee relationship is bullshit, becuae I don't see the difference. How is it different for A to sell labor to B, from B selling a service (powered by A's labor) to C. Where A is the employee, B is the company/employer and C is the customer. Like, seriously, name one way the relationship between A and B is different from the relationship between B and C.
If I was on the board, I would insist on some timely delivery/end performance guarantees from Musk. Maybe backed by some kind of bond/at risk money. After all, Musk has a history of aggressive timeline announcements. While it may be ok to overstate how fast and how far things will go when developing a new technology, this is something they'll be relying on.
So, you didn't vote? I mean, you may as well have written "I wish for puppies for all" in a bottle and tossed it in an ocean.
Grown ups choose among the options they have, and not choosing is not choosing.
And if you could not see a huge difference between the two major party candidates, you're insane . You can like one or the other, but they are very different. And by "you can like one or the other," I'm not implying they were equal. There was a clear correct choice.
That's stupid. Look, if everyone else is willing to join me in doing things to prevent global warming, I am too. But I'm not going to deprive myself if the world is on fire anyway. See also, I'm willing to pay higher taxes, but only if everyone else does.
In the system currently enacted, I am the printer, and thus the attack surface has been cut in half.
That doesn't make sense. You can read the printed ticket, so there's no attack vector possible. Whereas people can and have filled out paper ballots incorrectly and thought they had filled them out properly, so the vote didn't count.
Having a defined printer with voter-checkable output is the best way to generate a paper ballot.
Selling votes is a criminal act and those soliciting vote buying leave themselves highly exposed to whistle blowing. I don't find it that concerning.
Do you have any concerns about current voting methods?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the ideal would be to ban cigarettes and e-cigarettes from people who currently do not smoke, while allowing them for people who do. This would prevent many new people from taking up the habit while avoiding a prohibition like smuggling operation.
Banning a cool version and allowing an uncool version is fairly close to that.
See, your issue is you say "Better that person X uses an e-cigarette than smokes a cigarette". And I'm saying better "N+X, X much less than Z, smoke cigarettes and 0 people smoke e-cigarettes" than "N people smoke cigarettes and Z people use e-cigarettes." They can both be true, but my claim makes sense on a societal level.
That's not a "rented phone number". By federal law that's my number. I can take it to another provider. It's like owning a static IP, vs. renting one from your ISP. You get to take it with you.
Which is good, because number lockin was a way to keep people from moving to another provider, and caused rates to go higher.
Is that the CCD reflecting or the IR filter? And does the same apply to IR sensitive cameras?
It's not the coding that drives me nuts with automating stuff, it's the testing/QA. You do make sure that all mission critical things you do are tested to make sure the automatic process isn't doing something wrong, right? Ideally with another party (internal or external) acting as QA.
How does it not? E-cigarettes are more dangerous to the users. And teens think they're safe, so the smoking (that we had been eliminating) is coming back.
Pay attention to the flavors he uses (or get him to do it)! Some of them can cause pretty shitty consequences, like popcorn lung. I mean, if he's willing to go to his second or third favorite flavor (assuming he likes a dangerous one), he can avoid some big risk factors.
Depends on what you mean by "fully". The current studies point to it being pretty safe unless you burn it and inhale the smoke. And, the natural study of "all these people who smoke a shitload of pot" seems to show it does not have teh same cancer risk as cigarettes.
Except cigarettes aren't cool, and most teens won't smoke them. E-Cigarettes are cool and most teens will. So, banning them makes sense. Or raising the limit on them to 30 (so adults can quit tobacco) makes sense.
Hell, the preliminary studies show that one of the flavors (I think Bubble Gum) may cause all kinds of nasty side-effects, which may be worse than cigarettes. And a lot of the cardio problems with cigarettes are due to nicotine itself...
Nope, the old school tobacco lobby loves ecigs. And sells the crap out of them. Smoking in teens kept going down and down, and this is a way for them to seem "healthy" and recapture that market.
I'm guessing you don't understand p-values and statistical significance. Setting the limit of publishability to 0.051 would increase the number of papers that passed the test.
Google totally cares. Chrome has allowed them to push for more control over the internet and they like it. For instance, unilaterally rolling out AMP in Chrome made it a new standard. Or Chrome making JS faster, because people were disabling it (and Google's tracking).
Frankly, you're crazy naive. If Google didn't care, it wouldn't have taken a 5 billion dollar fine to get them to do this. They would have done it when they got the eaerlier 1.7 billion dollar fine. How much is Chrome's monopoly in the the EU worth to Google? Between 1.7 billion and 5 billion every few years.
It's not the number of steps, it's the defaulting. Most people don't think about their search engine (or browser). So even one step that's not in their face is too many.
Indeed, prior to Trump shitting on them for 3 years, the EU was our ally in international conflicts (e.g. the Iranian sanctions, dealing with Russia, etc.) They easily could have bought into a Western Countries vs. China war (based on spying, IP protection, environmental and labor rights, etc.). But Trump cannot coordinate that. Hell, the TPP, whatever you thought of it, was in large part a unified way of containing China.
But Trump doesn't understand how teams work, so instead he's holding up China buying soybeans as a victory while losing at, well, everything that isn't selling agricultural output. Which, to be clear, isn't a win: it's what they were already doing. This is just them announcing the same policy as the past decade as "due to Trump's brilliance".
The ~3.5GB boundary was because of a technical limitation. 32-bit machines can address memory up to 4GB. XP couldn't handle virtual memory space (initially at least, maybe after one of the service packs). And some of that 4GB space was reserved for drivers.
They could have handled the issue through several ways, but those all imposed costs on people with under 4GB of space. There are reasons why that business decision was made.
Yeah, it's about $18 million. The question is how often is the fine assessed? If it's daily, that adds up quick (just over 1.5 billion a year). If it's one-time, I doubt it registers.
I mean, the better analogy is that they aren't starting the swimming events immediately after the marathon (and with the same participants). Because if they did Omar McLeod would be done with all of them (and possibly win the medals) before Michael Phelps got in the water.
Anti-monopoly laws prevent you from using your dominance in one area (e.g. search) no matter how obtained, from dominating another (e.g. comparison shopping.)
Why would that excite you. I don't know why people get so excited by slack, can you sell me?
The only example of the boring company we have, in LA, is behind schedule, and unable to deliver as promised so far. I would worry about it if I was in Las Vegas. The South Australia battery was a large run of something that had been in production (batteries) for quite a while, and by Tesla specifically in addition to generally in the world .
I think your company/customer vs employer/employee relationship is bullshit, becuae I don't see the difference. How is it different for A to sell labor to B, from B selling a service (powered by A's labor) to C. Where A is the employee, B is the company/employer and C is the customer. Like, seriously, name one way the relationship between A and B is different from the relationship between B and C.
If I was on the board, I would insist on some timely delivery/end performance guarantees from Musk. Maybe backed by some kind of bond/at risk money. After all, Musk has a history of aggressive timeline announcements. While it may be ok to overstate how fast and how far things will go when developing a new technology, this is something they'll be relying on.
Oh, I'm all in favor of changing voting laws to make it so voting for a 3rd party isn't a worthless. But it is now.
Oh, it's not a good system. But it is the system that exists.
So, you didn't vote? I mean, you may as well have written "I wish for puppies for all" in a bottle and tossed it in an ocean.
Grown ups choose among the options they have, and not choosing is not choosing.
And if you could not see a huge difference between the two major party candidates, you're insane . You can like one or the other, but they are very different. And by "you can like one or the other," I'm not implying they were equal. There was a clear correct choice.
That's stupid. Look, if everyone else is willing to join me in doing things to prevent global warming, I am too. But I'm not going to deprive myself if the world is on fire anyway. See also, I'm willing to pay higher taxes, but only if everyone else does.
That doesn't make sense. You can read the printed ticket, so there's no attack vector possible. Whereas people can and have filled out paper ballots incorrectly and thought they had filled them out properly, so the vote didn't count.
Having a defined printer with voter-checkable output is the best way to generate a paper ballot.
Do you have any concerns about current voting methods?