Musk has been very successful in getting Tesla treated like Kickstarter - people paying money, $8,000 for this software, thousands to reserve a car, for things that did not exist at the time. Usually using similar motivations as kickstarter - preordering because they like the company and want it to exist even more than because they want the product. Man, I wish I had that salesmanship.
Collecting the first dollar is really expensive. You have to have cash registers, procedures to prevent stealing, change on hand, security, a way of delivering the cash to the bank, etc. Collecting the second dollar is really cheap. Once stores accept cash at all, they want to accept a ton of cash. However, if you never accept cash, the credit card processing fees are probably less than starting to accept cash. And they get cheaper as you get bigger, whereas cash has points of getting more expensive, so that remains true.
I don't see why. You're ignoring time information. And ad networks are both aware of computer sharing and very good at disambiguating the users.
I mean, sure, Jow could use a public computer for X (which can no longer be something he cannot view in public, like porn or personal financial data). He could then leave, and come back later to use Facebook. But that's not what people really do. They have FB in one tab and X in another.
We won't even talk about the problems this is going to create for web programmers who need to rely on knowing the exact size of the display for real-world purposes.
Fingerprinting is useful for moderation and in the fightagainst trolls, cheaters etc.
That is one of it's uses, sure. And that same use would happen if you required everyone to have a verified photo ID. This benefit isn't worth the cost.
. It is about identifying a computer, not about identifying a person
I assume you know this is a lie. IDing a computer that looks at X, and IDing that same computer as signed into FB as Joe Schmo (at the same time?) is a clear way to link Joe Schmo to X.
They cannot win either, at most they make the monopolies of the internet stronger. It seems the developer community around the web shoot itself in the foot.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Want to clarify?
He should lobby to change the rules then if he doesn't like it, not complain about an entity that followed the rules as written.
He's on the board of governors. He doesn't have to lobby, he's one of 51 people who makes the rules. He's warning everyone that this may be the last year Netflix/Amazon can do this, because he might be about to change the rules (along with 25 of his friends.)
in term of health benefits, women tend to be the more expensive gender.
Is that really true Do you have any stats to back that up? Because I thought that was solely due to the fact that women disproportionately use end-of-life care.
Men are often more likely to have unused vacation.
Well, that's a shame. We need to get away from the idea that unused vacation is acceptable.
Women are more likely to get a college degree (in the US anyway) and that has had a knock-on effect in job opportunities and futures for a huge number of US men.
True.
It's not really a surprise that women are starting to get paid more in some jobs.
This doesn't follow. I think you're bad at stats. If 95% of people getting a degree gating to the highest paid jobs are women, we would expect women to make more overall. We wouldn't expect those people in the same job to have a pay differential.
A better solution would be to have job titles (and thus pay levels) reflect skill, and then have tight salary bands for the job level. Transparency is good for everyone. The employee knows what their boss thinks of them and can have frank discussions about how to improve (or why their boss is missing their contributions). Coworkers know how much credence to give comments from each other, at least how skilled the person making them is. And also how much to expect to ask of each other. The boss benefits because their team is better (see above) and the company doesn't have to deal with the issues covered in this article.
If Netflix wants an Oscar then they need to show the film in a cinema.
The do need to by Academy rules. And they do. There is a long tradition of films meeting the minimum viewing requirements by renting a theater in LA or NY to do 1 show a day for week. And Netflix similarly meets the requirements by having a very limited theatrical release. Spielberg is complaining about that. For short animated films or documentaries, no one cared when they did that, because they weren't intended for wide release.
I'm pretty sure the question was "are people getting benefits they're not entitled to." Which is true of the doctors defrauding Medicare (getting money for unperformed procedures). The people selling their SNAP benefits usually are people entitled to SNAP benefits. Therefore, it's not "fraud" in the same sense that we are describing, even thought it is illegal.
Selling them is bad, sure. But in it's not different from buying the food and then reselling it. There's no real way to stop it on an individual level; like with the doctors the real enforcement should be focused on the stores that convert the SNAP to cash.
4% sounds about right, or even high. The US has less fraud then that in its welfare programs, in terms of bad actors. Just some of the bad actors are doctors using fraud for millions with SSNs of old people on Medicare they never met.
There is nothing in it that gives the federal government jurisdiction over driving.
Except on federally funded "postal highways", which is explicit. Or the fact that trucking is vital for "interstate commerce". Oh, and since people drive from state to state with driver's licenses, there's the "full faith and credit" clause too. And of course, there's the "necessary and proper" clause.
, maybe another hour for washing yourself (being generous here, I know some of you won't even shower daily)
That's not generous, it's stingy. So is the food prep. You're using mandatory tasks to remove free time, so "generous", implying giving the other side the benefit of the doubt, is to minimize the time. So if you assume 10 minutes reheating a pizza (eaten while you play) and 10 minutes showering, that's generous.
So if anyone who works on your IP in any sense has ever violated anyone else's IP, you have no right to complain. So when those MariaDB people pirated Black Panther, the fact that one guy who worked at some point in his life listened to music he downloaded illegally makes the whole movie fair game? Cause that's stupid and your point is stupid.
I'm not sure how renting access to the software isn't the exact type of behavior intended under "distribution". I mean, I get that legally it's not, but it seems that it ethically and intentionally is.
The thing was, open-source wasn't prepared for the rise of cloud services. It allowed a lot of people to, using SaaS, improve and monetize OSS without giving back. It was a failure to imagine when the GPL2 was written.
Imagine if you could get the source to the AWS services because you use them. That would be a different story, and the OSS people would be happy. But because they never ship you a binary, just rent you access to it, it's a loophole in the spirit of OSS.
It boggles my mind that so many small/medium/large businesses in retail, wholesale, transportation, distribution, etc. are trusting their data and IT to and funding a company that is out to put them out of business.
What shocked me the most was Netflix moving to the AWS cloud.
That said, I understand why people want to use AWS. It's easy to find people who understand it, or claim to understand it at least. It can do pretty much anything you want. That said, I find it pretty hard to figure out how to do pretty much anything on it.
Well, Google also loves the new TLDs because it makes the whole URL system less understandable to most people. I mean, they already are training you not to understand the difference between a search query (forwarded to them) and a URL in the address bar.
I mean,it's not like they don't have FB identities tied to all their users, with birthdates. It must be soooo hard to figure out how many users were teenagers.
The cost of putting together a story is no where near a deciding factor. After all RDR2 has a bigger budget than most (all?) Marvel movies. But then it's single player. If it's single player, it's harder to fit microtransactions in (also, if it's too fun to get the items in game, it's hard to fit microtransactions in). It's also impossible to turn off the servers to force upgrades to RDR3 (or GTA6). It's harder to generate a community, which means its harder to show franchise-ness to accountants. There are lots of business reasons why multiplayer is better, but none of them have to do with cost.
In the US, I think there was one example of a sports stadium deal working out. Like, literally one. The rest promise economic effects that never materialize and have huge cost overruns.
Slashdot Mirror
Musk has been very successful in getting Tesla treated like Kickstarter - people paying money, $8,000 for this software, thousands to reserve a car, for things that did not exist at the time. Usually using similar motivations as kickstarter - preordering because they like the company and want it to exist even more than because they want the product. Man, I wish I had that salesmanship.
You are 0% correct.
Constitutional rights protect everyone on US soil. One justice disagrees with that (Thomas), and it's news because it's not normal.
All US citizens do, for sure. And, under international treaties and organizations (e.g. the WTO), so do the ones from many other countries.
Citation desperately needed.
Since you've been wrong about everything else, I don't know why you think that they should be sanctioned.
Collecting the first dollar is really expensive. You have to have cash registers, procedures to prevent stealing, change on hand, security, a way of delivering the cash to the bank, etc. Collecting the second dollar is really cheap. Once stores accept cash at all, they want to accept a ton of cash. However, if you never accept cash, the credit card processing fees are probably less than starting to accept cash. And they get cheaper as you get bigger, whereas cash has points of getting more expensive, so that remains true.
I don't see why. You're ignoring time information. And ad networks are both aware of computer sharing and very good at disambiguating the users.
I mean, sure, Jow could use a public computer for X (which can no longer be something he cannot view in public, like porn or personal financial data). He could then leave, and come back later to use Facebook. But that's not what people really do. They have FB in one tab and X in another.
What uses are these?
That is one of it's uses, sure. And that same use would happen if you required everyone to have a verified photo ID. This benefit isn't worth the cost.
I assume you know this is a lie. IDing a computer that looks at X, and IDing that same computer as signed into FB as Joe Schmo (at the same time?) is a clear way to link Joe Schmo to X.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Want to clarify?
He's on the board of governors. He doesn't have to lobby, he's one of 51 people who makes the rules. He's warning everyone that this may be the last year Netflix/Amazon can do this, because he might be about to change the rules (along with 25 of his friends.)
Is that really true Do you have any stats to back that up? Because I thought that was solely due to the fact that women disproportionately use end-of-life care.
Well, that's a shame. We need to get away from the idea that unused vacation is acceptable.
True.
This doesn't follow. I think you're bad at stats. If 95% of people getting a degree gating to the highest paid jobs are women, we would expect women to make more overall. We wouldn't expect those people in the same job to have a pay differential.
A better solution would be to have job titles (and thus pay levels) reflect skill, and then have tight salary bands for the job level. Transparency is good for everyone. The employee knows what their boss thinks of them and can have frank discussions about how to improve (or why their boss is missing their contributions). Coworkers know how much credence to give comments from each other, at least how skilled the person making them is. And also how much to expect to ask of each other. The boss benefits because their team is better (see above) and the company doesn't have to deal with the issues covered in this article.
I'm pretty sure the question was "are people getting benefits they're not entitled to." Which is true of the doctors defrauding Medicare (getting money for unperformed procedures). The people selling their SNAP benefits usually are people entitled to SNAP benefits. Therefore, it's not "fraud" in the same sense that we are describing, even thought it is illegal.
Selling them is bad, sure. But in it's not different from buying the food and then reselling it. There's no real way to stop it on an individual level; like with the doctors the real enforcement should be focused on the stores that convert the SNAP to cash.
4% sounds about right, or even high. The US has less fraud then that in its welfare programs, in terms of bad actors. Just some of the bad actors are doctors using fraud for millions with SSNs of old people on Medicare they never met.
Or, they unionize and do. That's literally what a union is for.
Except on federally funded "postal highways", which is explicit. Or the fact that trucking is vital for "interstate commerce". Oh, and since people drive from state to state with driver's licenses, there's the "full faith and credit" clause too. And of course, there's the "necessary and proper" clause.
That's not generous, it's stingy. So is the food prep. You're using mandatory tasks to remove free time, so "generous", implying giving the other side the benefit of the doubt, is to minimize the time. So if you assume 10 minutes reheating a pizza (eaten while you play) and 10 minutes showering, that's generous.
Under current law, or you think there's no way we could make it illegal??
So if anyone who works on your IP in any sense has ever violated anyone else's IP, you have no right to complain. So when those MariaDB people pirated Black Panther, the fact that one guy who worked at some point in his life listened to music he downloaded illegally makes the whole movie fair game? Cause that's stupid and your point is stupid.
I'm not sure how renting access to the software isn't the exact type of behavior intended under "distribution". I mean, I get that legally it's not, but it seems that it ethically and intentionally is.
The thing was, open-source wasn't prepared for the rise of cloud services. It allowed a lot of people to, using SaaS, improve and monetize OSS without giving back. It was a failure to imagine when the GPL2 was written.
Imagine if you could get the source to the AWS services because you use them. That would be a different story, and the OSS people would be happy. But because they never ship you a binary, just rent you access to it, it's a loophole in the spirit of OSS.
What shocked me the most was Netflix moving to the AWS cloud.
That said, I understand why people want to use AWS. It's easy to find people who understand it, or claim to understand it at least. It can do pretty much anything you want. That said, I find it pretty hard to figure out how to do pretty much anything on it.
Well, Google also loves the new TLDs because it makes the whole URL system less understandable to most people. I mean, they already are training you not to understand the difference between a search query (forwarded to them) and a URL in the address bar.
I mean,it's not like they don't have FB identities tied to all their users, with birthdates. It must be soooo hard to figure out how many users were teenagers.
The cost of putting together a story is no where near a deciding factor. After all RDR2 has a bigger budget than most (all?) Marvel movies. But then it's single player. If it's single player, it's harder to fit microtransactions in (also, if it's too fun to get the items in game, it's hard to fit microtransactions in). It's also impossible to turn off the servers to force upgrades to RDR3 (or GTA6). It's harder to generate a community, which means its harder to show franchise-ness to accountants. There are lots of business reasons why multiplayer is better, but none of them have to do with cost.
In the US, I think there was one example of a sports stadium deal working out. Like, literally one. The rest promise economic effects that never materialize and have huge cost overruns.