It's not objectivity. After all, middle school history is still a lot of date memorizations. And science too. ?The problem is a lot of teachers struggled with math specifically. And so did a lot of parents. Hell, compare the social reactions you get from "I am illiterate" and "I never understood algebra"
So, you read the article and quoted it here. Except #4 doesn't happen automatically (the optical reader tabulates, checked against a human count of the paper ballots). And the whole system is made by one company.
I'll bet 100 dogecoins that you didn't read the article. Cause the system uses printed paper ballots (retained for security/verification), fed into a scanner.
The DARPA system also uses paper ballots as an intermediary (prints the ballots, then inset into scanner for tabulation.) If you're personally delivering it, the only advantage a "vote by mail" ballot has over this system is that someone else can fill it out for you/observe your vote. Which is only an advantage if you're selling your vote
The Department of Defense does a lot of things that are designed to promote democracy, under the theory that democratic countries just don't declare war on one another (or at least, are far less likely.) Notably, they were (are?) heavily involved in TOR.
Also, current voting machines are a clear threat to the US,and their job is to deal with those threats.
I mean, I would go for the actually legally determined example from 2018, not the rumor from 1960, personally. You know, the one in North Carolina that was so bad they are re-running the election.
It's not "research". They ran a simulation and reported the results. Which isn't interesting because the simulation was stupid.
p>They assumed a fucking circular orbit (because the extra 1 parameter for an ellipse was too damn much). Which is something that Kepler disproved in the 1600s (and became an immortal name because of it.)
Also, this assumes planets are co-planar (they aren't)
Also, it's meaningless. When people talk about "our closest neighbor", they mean the one easiest to get to. So we want to know the closest point of approach, not "average". Making up a useless measure and publishing it isn't science.
Robocalls LIE about their number. They use random numbers in the same area code as you (often) to encourage you to pick up. They do NOT own these numbers.
What you're advocating would be punching a random person named "Frank X" cause two days ago someone hit you in the dark and yelled "I'm Frank X". Not the most reliable source of information there.
I stopped getting robocalls partway through the Obama administration, and started getting them after Trump took office. It may be coincidence, but it's easy for me to think it's related.
Oh, I think US antitrust law can do something about it. I just think it's a lot more subtle how that works than "Breakup Company X". And that makes it a bad slogan to get elected.
The question "why aren't candidates running on X" can usually be answered as one of "they don't want to do X", "the voters don't want X" or "X is too complex for 30 second spots". I think this is the last.
Both Butler and Dahan (former executives with LensCrafters) acknowledged what most consumers have long suspected: that the prices we pay for eyewear in no way reflect the actual cost of making frames and lenses.
Absent people who took no or a single econ class, why would anyone assume there is a relationship between cost to produce something and the cost we have to pay? Hell, Apple/Google get 30% of all app payments for credit card processing and hosting a static website. Corporate profits in general are at record highs.
And Luxottica is particularly horrible. They bought Oakley by refusing to stock them (they own LensCrafters, Pearl Vision, Sunglass Hut, Walmart Optical, Target Optical, and more). Then, when the stock cratered, they bought the company, started stocking it, and raked in the bucks.
The article is making it sound sad that she only had 4 months left on her degree. That probably caused Tufts to have to act sooner. Expelling her is probably significantly easier than revoking her degree if issued. If she was a first year, they probably could have taken more time.
But now, if she is later exonerated, they can let her back in for her last set of classes a year late.
To be somewhat fair, it's reasonable to expect an ever slowing rollout of service (outside disrupting technology). That's because obviously the easiest ones will be done first.
That's not the full cause for the slowdown, of course. But it shouldn't be dismissed.
Of course the Amazon site would communicate using computers with the Amazon warehouse. In fact, they already do. The difference is the API would be open and JacksAwesomeEcommerceSite.com could also communicate with the Amazon warehouse via the same APIs and if it offered a better shopping experience could compete with Amazon.com. Or WalMart could bid against the Amazon warehouse to fulfill an order from Amazon.com.
As you point out (right after you ask) this is straightforward regulation of interstate commerce from a constitutional point of view. Amazon may not be a monopoly (although I think an excellent case could be made that it is), but that's just a question of whether a new law needs to be passed or its a regulatory executive branch action under the current antitrust law.
The WTO is not symmetric, and for some reason China still benefits from many exceptions to the rules allowing "developing nations" to protect their local companies. The WTO isn't just concerned with material goods anymore, poking their noses into flows of capital, services and intellectual property.
Non-citizens on US soil do not have the constitutional right to own firearms nor vote.
Sure they don't have the right to vote, because the constitution (specifically the 14th amendment) explicitly only vests that right to citizens. There are a couple of times the constitution does that, but it's explicit each time. Note, the 2nd amendment is not one of those cases. Even illegal immigrants (7th circuit ruled in 2015) have 2nd amendment rights.
No one has the right to do business in the US.
Again, you're confusing "no one" and "not everyone". They are very different constructs. Also, anyone who escapes from North Korea and makes it to US shores most certainly can sell cheeseburgers as a refugee.
Now, North Korean companies cannot trade with the US, and it would be possible for national security sanctions to be put on China (or a specific Chinese company). But that's not what happened. In fact, Trump explicitly removed the sanctions on Huawei. Therefore they have the default behavior of being able to do business in the United States. Instead he is doing other things that they may be able to sue over.
Felony convictions exist. Felony convictions suspend some constitutional rights for public safety.
Actually, felony convictions allow for some freedoms to be curtailed. But your constitutional rights are not. For instance, the eighth, fifth, and sixth amendments are used fairly often to sue over prison situations. Now, in prison there is a far lower standard for what constituted a "reasonable" search or assembly for instance. Therefore, the freedom offered by your constitutional rights may be lessened, but you still have the right and the government still has to justify their actions as not violating those rights. You may be confused again by the 14th amendment, which spells out a specific loss of voting rights when convicted (again, voting has a lot of restrictions).
As to your lack of respect, I'll try to sleep tonight. As to your claims about "logic", the clear dependency of your fourth claim on the clear absurdity of their case is dependent on any of your other claims being true. They aren't, so there is no need to explicitly refute it. Your closing ad hominem makes me believe that you are still in high school (or younger), hence I'll respond to your post in the effort you learn something.
The only way to split Alphabet would be along lines like Waymo, Hardware, Search, and Software. Doing so would not solve the issue of monopoly in search.
Yes. It would not solve that problem directly. But it would keep search from being a loss leader funded by their ad revenue on other sites, and make it compete on fair terms with "awesomesearch.com", your startup. I mean, you'll never get around the fact that most people Google stuff, sure. But you cannot compete with it even with better tech because it doesn't have to make money. It just has to collect data for ads.
You're missing the point. You're looking at horizontal breakups (there are now AmazonA and AmazonB websites and each gets half the wearhouses, etc.). That's not what they're saying.. They're saying Amazon website and Amazon warehouse logistics are separate. So if you create "super-market-search.com" that somehow is better at finding products than Amazon, you could just purchase logistics from their vendor. It's saying that Google cannot own YouTube, GMail, the App Store, etc. There would be a search company, an ad company, an app store company, a video company etc. You know, like there was when Google was a search company before they bought an ad company, an app store company and a video company, etc.
Level 2 technology! Better than Level 1 technology, but worse than Level 3 technology! LOL
These are referring to autonomy levels, not versions. They are defined by the federal government (at least in the US). Level 5 is what all non-tech people imagine. "Car, take me to work. I'm going to sleep now". Level 0 tops out at something like ABS. Level 1 is something like cruise control or lane assist (but not both). Level 2 is both, or Tesla's autopilot. The car can maintain speed and steer, but the driver must be ready to take control back at any time. Level 3 is the car drives itself and asks for help when it needs you to take over (if traffic is crazy or the rain is messing with LIDAR), so you can read a book til then and not pay attention. Level 4 is fully autonomous but it has limitations known at purchase time. And Level 5 drives as well as you.
Slashdot Mirror
Subjective emotions are important. Ultimately, the reason things like computers and technology are good is because they make people happy.
It's not objectivity. After all, middle school history is still a lot of date memorizations. And science too. ?The problem is a lot of teachers struggled with math specifically. And so did a lot of parents. Hell, compare the social reactions you get from "I am illiterate" and "I never understood algebra"
So, you read the article and quoted it here. Except #4 doesn't happen automatically (the optical reader tabulates, checked against a human count of the paper ballots). And the whole system is made by one company.
The plans for the hardware are public. DAPRA doesn't plan on building it, they plan on helping design it. They hope someone else builds it.
I'll bet 100 dogecoins that you didn't read the article. Cause the system uses printed paper ballots (retained for security/verification), fed into a scanner.
The DARPA system also uses paper ballots as an intermediary (prints the ballots, then inset into scanner for tabulation.) If you're personally delivering it, the only advantage a "vote by mail" ballot has over this system is that someone else can fill it out for you/observe your vote. Which is only an advantage if you're selling your vote
The Department of Defense does a lot of things that are designed to promote democracy, under the theory that democratic countries just don't declare war on one another (or at least, are far less likely.) Notably, they were (are?) heavily involved in TOR.
Also, current voting machines are a clear threat to the US,and their job is to deal with those threats.
I mean, I would go for the actually legally determined example from 2018, not the rumor from 1960, personally. You know, the one in North Carolina that was so bad they are re-running the election.
It's not "research". They ran a simulation and reported the results. Which isn't interesting because the simulation was stupid.
p>They assumed a fucking circular orbit (because the extra 1 parameter for an ellipse was too damn much). Which is something that Kepler disproved in the 1600s (and became an immortal name because of it.)
Also, this assumes planets are co-planar (they aren't)
Also, it's meaningless. When people talk about "our closest neighbor", they mean the one easiest to get to. So we want to know the closest point of approach, not "average". Making up a useless measure and publishing it isn't science.
Don't they already MITM connections through their VPN?
Robocalls LIE about their number. They use random numbers in the same area code as you (often) to encourage you to pick up. They do NOT own these numbers.
What you're advocating would be punching a random person named "Frank X" cause two days ago someone hit you in the dark and yelled "I'm Frank X". Not the most reliable source of information there.
I stopped getting robocalls partway through the Obama administration, and started getting them after Trump took office. It may be coincidence, but it's easy for me to think it's related.
Oh, I think US antitrust law can do something about it. I just think it's a lot more subtle how that works than "Breakup Company X". And that makes it a bad slogan to get elected.
The question "why aren't candidates running on X" can usually be answered as one of "they don't want to do X", "the voters don't want X" or "X is too complex for 30 second spots". I think this is the last.
The presidential candidates are running in the US. Luxottica is Italian. That may be the reason.
Now, the US can probably do something, but it's a less clear case than "we want to regulate our companies."
It should, but Luxottica is an Italian company. I'm not sure how it gets broken up...
TFS says:
Absent people who took no or a single econ class, why would anyone assume there is a relationship between cost to produce something and the cost we have to pay? Hell, Apple/Google get 30% of all app payments for credit card processing and hosting a static website. Corporate profits in general are at record highs.
And Luxottica is particularly horrible. They bought Oakley by refusing to stock them (they own LensCrafters, Pearl Vision, Sunglass Hut, Walmart Optical, Target Optical, and more). Then, when the stock cratered, they bought the company, started stocking it, and raked in the bucks.
Yes and no. I mean how Amazon's internal and external APIs are somewhat different in content and quite different in price. This would normalize them.
The article is making it sound sad that she only had 4 months left on her degree. That probably caused Tufts to have to act sooner. Expelling her is probably significantly easier than revoking her degree if issued. If she was a first year, they probably could have taken more time.
But now, if she is later exonerated, they can let her back in for her last set of classes a year late.
To be somewhat fair, it's reasonable to expect an ever slowing rollout of service (outside disrupting technology). That's because obviously the easiest ones will be done first.
That's not the full cause for the slowdown, of course. But it shouldn't be dismissed.
Of course the Amazon site would communicate using computers with the Amazon warehouse. In fact, they already do. The difference is the API would be open and JacksAwesomeEcommerceSite.com could also communicate with the Amazon warehouse via the same APIs and if it offered a better shopping experience could compete with Amazon.com. Or WalMart could bid against the Amazon warehouse to fulfill an order from Amazon.com.
As you point out (right after you ask) this is straightforward regulation of interstate commerce from a constitutional point of view. Amazon may not be a monopoly (although I think an excellent case could be made that it is), but that's just a question of whether a new law needs to be passed or its a regulatory executive branch action under the current antitrust law.
The WTO is not symmetric, and for some reason China still benefits from many exceptions to the rules allowing "developing nations" to protect their local companies. The WTO isn't just concerned with material goods anymore, poking their noses into flows of capital, services and intellectual property.
Sure they don't have the right to vote, because the constitution (specifically the 14th amendment) explicitly only vests that right to citizens. There are a couple of times the constitution does that, but it's explicit each time. Note, the 2nd amendment is not one of those cases. Even illegal immigrants (7th circuit ruled in 2015) have 2nd amendment rights.
Again, you're confusing "no one" and "not everyone". They are very different constructs. Also, anyone who escapes from North Korea and makes it to US shores most certainly can sell cheeseburgers as a refugee.
Now, North Korean companies cannot trade with the US, and it would be possible for national security sanctions to be put on China (or a specific Chinese company). But that's not what happened. In fact, Trump explicitly removed the sanctions on Huawei. Therefore they have the default behavior of being able to do business in the United States. Instead he is doing other things that they may be able to sue over.
Actually, felony convictions allow for some freedoms to be curtailed. But your constitutional rights are not. For instance, the eighth, fifth, and sixth amendments are used fairly often to sue over prison situations. Now, in prison there is a far lower standard for what constituted a "reasonable" search or assembly for instance. Therefore, the freedom offered by your constitutional rights may be lessened, but you still have the right and the government still has to justify their actions as not violating those rights. You may be confused again by the 14th amendment, which spells out a specific loss of voting rights when convicted (again, voting has a lot of restrictions).
As to your lack of respect, I'll try to sleep tonight. As to your claims about "logic", the clear dependency of your fourth claim on the clear absurdity of their case is dependent on any of your other claims being true. They aren't, so there is no need to explicitly refute it. Your closing ad hominem makes me believe that you are still in high school (or younger), hence I'll respond to your post in the effort you learn something.
Yes. It would not solve that problem directly. But it would keep search from being a loss leader funded by their ad revenue on other sites, and make it compete on fair terms with "awesomesearch.com", your startup. I mean, you'll never get around the fact that most people Google stuff, sure. But you cannot compete with it even with better tech because it doesn't have to make money. It just has to collect data for ads.
You're missing the point. You're looking at horizontal breakups (there are now AmazonA and AmazonB websites and each gets half the wearhouses, etc.). That's not what they're saying.. They're saying Amazon website and Amazon warehouse logistics are separate. So if you create "super-market-search.com" that somehow is better at finding products than Amazon, you could just purchase logistics from their vendor. It's saying that Google cannot own YouTube, GMail, the App Store, etc. There would be a search company, an ad company, an app store company, a video company etc. You know, like there was when Google was a search company before they bought an ad company, an app store company and a video company, etc.
These are referring to autonomy levels, not versions. They are defined by the federal government (at least in the US). Level 5 is what all non-tech people imagine. "Car, take me to work. I'm going to sleep now". Level 0 tops out at something like ABS. Level 1 is something like cruise control or lane assist (but not both). Level 2 is both, or Tesla's autopilot. The car can maintain speed and steer, but the driver must be ready to take control back at any time. Level 3 is the car drives itself and asks for help when it needs you to take over (if traffic is crazy or the rain is messing with LIDAR), so you can read a book til then and not pay attention. Level 4 is fully autonomous but it has limitations known at purchase time. And Level 5 drives as well as you.
So, yeah, it's meaningful.