"Mr Simanainen says that while some individuals found work, they were no more likely to do so than a control group of people who weren't given the money. "
So they were also no less likely to find work. The point of UBI isn't to help people find work, its to allow people to live with some dignity when there aren't any jobs to be had.
Here's a suggestion - Have tried NOT being a whiny little bitch? I find that works for me.
I tell ya what, I'll send you my spare dongle (I, unlike you, manage to keep my bluetooth headphones charged) and you can stop post annoying stories. Deal?
Sure, all that is true in a competitive market. The thing, is the first you learn at Business School is that competitive markets are for suckers. What you really want is a monopoly, and there's plenty of ways to achieve one. Patents, network effects, regulation, brand recognition, high cost of entry to the market - there are lots of ways to achieve a monopoly, or at least a near monopoly.
There are plenty of companies that are value extractors. Healthcare, telecommunications, pharmaceutical and finance are rife with value extractors - companies that find a niche where they can extract far more value than they actually create. That High Frequency traders on the stock exchange - able to profit by being a little bit faster than everyone else, or being able to flood the exchange with bogus trades. The apologists will say that they "create liquidity" but in reality they have just found a way to extract value that someone else would have otherwise enjoyed.
Tariffs are a regressive tax on US consumers, so the Republicans have cut taxes for the wealthy, and are about to increase the tax burden of everyone else. Got it.
Geez, you guys won't be happy until the entire world hates you. I think maybe it's time to roll back those copyright extensions that the US foisted on us to protect US companies like Disney.
Economics is the study of how to efficiently allocate scarce resources to meet unlimited wants and needs. Supply and demand is ONE way to do this, but not the only one.
Funnily enough people whose ancestor were sold into slavery, lynched, exterminated in gas chambers or bashed for being different tend be a bit tetchy when people use the names for them that the perpetrators used. Funnily enough, the people whose ancestors were owned the slaves, carried out the lynchings, conducted the extermination or bashed people tend not to mind so much.
The problem is that the argument that people are too easily offended is sometimes used by bigots who just want to be able to use offensive names that have been backed up with violence. African Americans aren't being precious when they get upset by people calling them names that were used by the people who loved a good lynching. LGBT people aren't being "snowflakes" when they are offended by the names used by people who considered it sport to bash men for being too effeminate.
It's all too easy to reach for the "political correctness gone mad" trope when you aren't the one being targeted.
If you are having trouble figuring out what it means to force someone to do something they don't want to do, I suggest you look at the example of an old white male Republican telling young women what to do with their bodies. Hint: When it's their mistress, they ask her to get an abortion, when it's anyone else they tell them they have to go full term.
This wasn't even a Bill, it was just a motion. Basically just a statement with no legally binding effect on anything. I wouldn't lose my mind over it just yet.
Capitalism v communism is one spectrum. Perhaps a more useful lens to view this through is one of totalitarianism v a free society. Government agencies using backdoors seems like it skews towards the totalitarian side of the spectrum.
“We’re going to end up with complete autonomy, and I think we will have complete autonomy in approximately two years.” That doesn’t mean city streets will be overflowing with driverless Tesla vehicles by 2018 (coincidentally, the company’s Model 3 should be on roads by then). Musk expects regulators will lag behind the technology. He predicts it will take an additional year for regulators to determine that it’s safe and to go through an approval process. In some jurisdictions, it may take five years or more, he says.
Normalization is good because otherwise when one of your users gets married and wants to change her surname you realise that every entry in every table that relates to the user has their surname recorded and you have to update millions of rows in twenty different tables and none of it is documented and if you miss updating it any of the tables you might break something important. In a normalised database you change it one place and you are done.
My Mother would drop me off at Kmart in the electronics section every Saturday for a couple of hours while she went shopping. They had a C64 and people would write stupid little programs that printed text on the screen. I watched them, figured out how to stop the running code and get into the editor and by trial and error figured out how to change the text, make it repeat in different ways and add colour.
Nagged my parents into buying me an Amstrad CPC464 and got a book on how to write text adventure games on the Amstrad CPC464. The first real program I remember writing was a random character generator for Dungeons and Dragons. Never did get it to generate an all 18's character despite running it hundreds of times!:)
I'd argue that small, industrialised economies had a higher cost per capita to change over to metric because some fixed costs are distributed over a smaller population. Australia changed over between 1970 and 1988, and the world didn't end and there weren't riots on the streets. I really think this is one way in which the USA is broken - nobody can agree on changing things so nothing gets changed, even when it would be better in the long term. That is not a good thing and contributes to a slow decline in competitiveness.
We still use imperial units when precision is not important, and where it is customary. We still talk about a person's height in feet, and talk about "mileage" even though we actually measure distances in kilometres.
The three largest expenses of the US Federal government are Social Security, Healthcare and the military. If defense was handled at the state level it would be difficult to prevent some states being free-riders, particularly land-locked states. Healthcare and social security could possibly be handled at the state level but the costs would still exist and would result in a great deal of duplication. Also, big business would love to be able to play individual states off against eachother for the best tax deal. It would be a very different country - in fact each state would operate much more like an individual country with all the potential for internal conflict that that entails.
This doesn't excuse waste, but it is extremely naive to think that large corporations are intrinsically any less wasteful and bureaucratic than government departments once they achieve a certain size.
IE fiasco? Are you talking about the same "fiasco" where IE ended up with around 95% marketshare? Sounds like a raging success to me. Where they might've learned that heavy handing stuff down consumers throats are something MS are big enough to do. It's good to see that they can't always do that.
Maybe he is talking about the IE "fiasco" where they needlessly tried to integrate IE with Windows in order to (successfully) drive Netscape out of the browser business, bring down a decade of antitrust heat on themselves and very nearly getting Microsoft broken up into three separate companies by the Department of Justice? Or is that your definition of a "raging success"?
The first thing to realise is that you can be legally blind even though you retain some of your vision. I used to work with a guy who was blind, but could see enough to use a 21 inch screen with a high contrast colour screen. Also, remember that blindness can occur later in life, so think about how you will feel if become blind due to disease or accident. As the web becomes more and more important to daily life, the disadvantage suffered by not being able to use it will become worse. Providing a blind friendly web page does not mean you have to provide the same page to sighted users, you just have to provide a useable alternative. Finally, the idea that web pages should be laid out with precise control by the web designer over layout cannot continue indefinately. You cannot dictate what type of browser or screen resoultion a user will have. This will even more pronounced if things like browser capable mobile phones or PDA's become more common. You have to provide content that people can see regardless of their viewing platform, at least if you are a commercial concern.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that you can't tell the difference between 2 good sensors and 1 bad versus 2 bad sensors and one good.
Back in the day they would *gasp* wash the bottles and re-use them.
"Mr Simanainen says that while some individuals found work, they were no more likely to do so than a control group of people who weren't given the money. "
So they were also no less likely to find work. The point of UBI isn't to help people find work, its to allow people to live with some dignity when there aren't any jobs to be had.
LIDARs that are in close proximity to each other - you mean like on a freeway?
Not just to a total stranger. To a 20 year old on New Year's Eve. What did you think he wanted the property for?
Here's a suggestion - Have tried NOT being a whiny little bitch? I find that works for me.
I tell ya what, I'll send you my spare dongle (I, unlike you, manage to keep my bluetooth headphones charged) and you can stop post annoying stories. Deal?
If there was advance notice of the storm, they made a business decision to have people come in to work. In this case it cost two workers their lives.
Sure, all that is true in a competitive market. The thing, is the first you learn at Business School is that competitive markets are for suckers. What you really want is a monopoly, and there's plenty of ways to achieve one. Patents, network effects, regulation, brand recognition, high cost of entry to the market - there are lots of ways to achieve a monopoly, or at least a near monopoly.
There are plenty of companies that are value extractors. Healthcare, telecommunications, pharmaceutical and finance are rife with value extractors - companies that find a niche where they can extract far more value than they actually create. That High Frequency traders on the stock exchange - able to profit by being a little bit faster than everyone else, or being able to flood the exchange with bogus trades. The apologists will say that they "create liquidity" but in reality they have just found a way to extract value that someone else would have otherwise enjoyed.
Tariffs are a regressive tax on US consumers, so the Republicans have cut taxes for the wealthy, and are about to increase the tax burden of everyone else. Got it.
Geez, you guys won't be happy until the entire world hates you. I think maybe it's time to roll back those copyright extensions that the US foisted on us to protect US companies like Disney.
Economics is the study of how to efficiently allocate scarce resources to meet unlimited wants and needs. Supply and demand is ONE way to do this, but not the only one.
Funnily enough people whose ancestor were sold into slavery, lynched, exterminated in gas chambers or bashed for being different tend be a bit tetchy when people use the names for them that the perpetrators used. Funnily enough, the people whose ancestors were owned the slaves, carried out the lynchings, conducted the extermination or bashed people tend not to mind so much.
The problem is that the argument that people are too easily offended is sometimes used by bigots who just want to be able to use offensive names that have been backed up with violence. African Americans aren't being precious when they get upset by people calling them names that were used by the people who loved a good lynching. LGBT people aren't being "snowflakes" when they are offended by the names used by people who considered it sport to bash men for being too effeminate.
It's all too easy to reach for the "political correctness gone mad" trope when you aren't the one being targeted.
Except the people who get hacked and their android customers, not Epic.
If you are having trouble figuring out what it means to force someone to do something they don't want to do, I suggest you look at the example of an old white male Republican telling young women what to do with their bodies. Hint: When it's their mistress, they ask her to get an abortion, when it's anyone else they tell them they have to go full term.
This wasn't even a Bill, it was just a motion. Basically just a statement with no legally binding effect on anything. I wouldn't lose my mind over it just yet.
Capitalism v communism is one spectrum. Perhaps a more useful lens to view this through is one of totalitarianism v a free society. Government agencies using backdoors seems like it skews towards the totalitarian side of the spectrum.
More context:
“We’re going to end up with complete autonomy, and I think we will have complete autonomy in approximately two years.” That doesn’t mean city streets will be overflowing with driverless Tesla vehicles by 2018 (coincidentally, the company’s Model 3 should be on roads by then). Musk expects regulators will lag behind the technology. He predicts it will take an additional year for regulators to determine that it’s safe and to go through an approval process. In some jurisdictions, it may take five years or more, he says.
Normalization is good because otherwise when one of your users gets married and wants to change her surname you realise that every entry in every table that relates to the user has their surname recorded and you have to update millions of rows in twenty different tables and none of it is documented and if you miss updating it any of the tables you might break something important. In a normalised database you change it one place and you are done.
My Mother would drop me off at Kmart in the electronics section every Saturday for a couple of hours while she went shopping. They had a C64 and people would write stupid little programs that printed text on the screen. I watched them, figured out how to stop the running code and get into the editor and by trial and error figured out how to change the text, make it repeat in different ways and add colour.
Nagged my parents into buying me an Amstrad CPC464 and got a book on how to write text adventure games on the Amstrad CPC464. The first real program I remember writing was a random character generator for Dungeons and Dragons. Never did get it to generate an all 18's character despite running it hundreds of times! :)
I'd argue that small, industrialised economies had a higher cost per capita to change over to metric because some fixed costs are distributed over a smaller population. Australia changed over between 1970 and 1988, and the world didn't end and there weren't riots on the streets. I really think this is one way in which the USA is broken - nobody can agree on changing things so nothing gets changed, even when it would be better in the long term. That is not a good thing and contributes to a slow decline in competitiveness.
We still use imperial units when precision is not important, and where it is customary. We still talk about a person's height in feet, and talk about "mileage" even though we actually measure distances in kilometres.
The three largest expenses of the US Federal government are Social Security, Healthcare and the military. If defense was handled at the state level it would be difficult to prevent some states being free-riders, particularly land-locked states. Healthcare and social security could possibly be handled at the state level but the costs would still exist and would result in a great deal of duplication. Also, big business would love to be able to play individual states off against eachother for the best tax deal. It would be a very different country - in fact each state would operate much more like an individual country with all the potential for internal conflict that that entails.
This doesn't excuse waste, but it is extremely naive to think that large corporations are intrinsically any less wasteful and bureaucratic than government departments once they achieve a certain size.
Just don't kill yourself or some else doing it. Some of those components have very high voltages.
IE fiasco? Are you talking about the same "fiasco" where IE ended up with around 95% marketshare? Sounds like a raging success to me. Where they might've learned that heavy handing stuff down consumers throats are something MS are big enough to do. It's good to see that they can't always do that.
Maybe he is talking about the IE "fiasco" where they needlessly tried to integrate IE with Windows in order to (successfully) drive Netscape out of the browser business, bring down a decade of antitrust heat on themselves and very nearly getting Microsoft broken up into three separate companies by the Department of Justice? Or is that your definition of a "raging success"?
The first thing to realise is that you can be legally blind even though you retain some of your vision. I used to work with a guy who was blind, but could see enough to use a 21 inch screen with a high contrast colour screen. Also, remember that blindness can occur later in life, so think about how you will feel if become blind due to disease or accident. As the web becomes more and more important to daily life, the disadvantage suffered by not being able to use it will become worse. Providing a blind friendly web page does not mean you have to provide the same page to sighted users, you just have to provide a useable alternative. Finally, the idea that web pages should be laid out with precise control by the web designer over layout cannot continue indefinately. You cannot dictate what type of browser or screen resoultion a user will have. This will even more pronounced if things like browser capable mobile phones or PDA's become more common. You have to provide content that people can see regardless of their viewing platform, at least if you are a commercial concern.