What are you? A fucking child? I don't love all of my coworkers. I don't agree with many of their political views. The salient factor - the only factor of any importance - is if they can do the job. Be an adult and a professional, and praise and elevate competent people. Shunning people because, boo hoo, they said something mean about X, and it hurts my feelings just to look at them, would seriously get you punted out of my company if I had anything to say about it. We're here to get a job done, expediently, correctly, competitively with the best group of people to make it so. We're not here to massage egos, create safe spaces, or coddle people.
That sounds suspiciously like you would, ahem, blacklist them from your company for holding a view that you don't like.
The Rothschilds are left off of all these lists intentionally.
Maybe not intentionally, or not by the publishers of such lists. There's at least two problems with calculating the net worth of a family like the Rothschilds:
It cannot be counted easily from the public records. You are very likely correct in suggesting that they put effort into keeping a low profile, so they distribute their wealth around in real estate and trusts. The calculation of Bezos' wealth is based on his ownership in Amazon, which is part of the public record.
The money is held by a family. No single individual controls all of it. Taking the net worth of any single person, if it were possible, would show relatively paltry sums compared to a Gates, a Bezos, or a Buffet. Adding up the assets owned by the family-at-large, on the other hand, would probably show an astronomical number that dwarfs them.
It's quite possible that some of the people on the Forbes 500 would rather not have that kind of publicity, as you say, but their wealth is part of the public record so there they sit. I'm not saying that Jeff Bezos is such a person, as I suspect he likes and cultivates this kind of notoriety, but there may be one or two.
I believe that recent versions of GCC (4.9+) provide options that protect against stack smashing, and they're enabled by default in OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and some Linux distros. Not sure about other compilers, but on such environments a return-oriented exploit would be much harder.
You just proved his point though. If a realtor is making millions on a single home sale then the home buyers, sellers and builders are being fucked over.
You misunderstood. Such a realtor is conducting transactions worth that much, but they're not making that much themselves. Realtors are typically making 5-6% of each transaction, so $60k for every million dollars of house sold.
Whether their services are worth 6% of the price of the houses they sell is a different conversation.
Because some people's jobs are too important to be paid for voluntarily, by the willing people desiring the fruits of their labors.
Some socially valuable things aren't profitable, some profitable things aren't socially valuable. Most individuals would never decide, or could never afford, to take on a socially valuable project that loses money, which is why we have governments to do them.
I can't see any 4-cyl turbo hitting less than a 13 second quarter mile unless the car is very small and light.
FYI most Formula 1 cars are six cylinders, but a few have been four, with a displacement of only 1.6 liters. The application of the right technology can go a long way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
I was reorged and placed under a kiss ass manager-ette.
There's no reason to be a misogynist to make your case. There are plenty of epithets that you could use to describe your former manager that don't disparage other women in the process. Kiss-ass is good, as is toady, moron, bosshole, stooge, empty suit, or sycophant.
By the same token, don't call the woman driver who cuts you off a bitch or a cunt, or the male driver a prick or a faggot. You can call all of them 'assholes,' for example, and convey the proper level of insult without pointlessly insulting other members of their respective genders. Same idea as the above.
When the gasoline powered carriage replaced horses the only thing they were meant to replace was horses.
I disagree with this premise because it ignores too many things.
Self-powered cars had two primary effects: they reduced the huge amount of effluvia that horses generated, and enabled a single person to cover more miles with more cargo in less time.
By moving to self-powered cars, you need fewer
* horse handlers, such as veterinarians, stable hands, leather workers, etc
* waste haulers to clean up after the horses -- during the horse-and-buggy era city streets were awash in horse-generated efluvia, and they posed a significant environmental problem
* drivers, as a single driver (your "augmented person") can cover more distance with more cargo, in less time, than a team of horses can.
The primary reason to move away from horses was expense, and the thing that makes horses expensive is paying for people. The move was entirely driven by a reduction in work force. The fact that a single person was augmented is what makes it cost-effective; the same principle applies now because a single person can operate an entire factory floor -- it's no different than before, a single person's abilities have been augmented by technology.
The basic ethical principle is to not interfere with another's well-being. The definition of well-being may appear changeable but it should be the subject's definition and standard of well-being, not your own.
From the single principle, which we may restate as "treat others the way they want to be treated," we can derive prohibitions against murder and assault; lying, and from that cheating; theft, and from that malicious vandalism (depriving property from another, even if you don't benefit from it); and so on.
The relationship goes both ways. The subject may not turn it around and complain that your existence interferes with their well-being, since ending your existence would interfere with your well-being.
These derivations from the core principle are not subjective, and in fact are quite logical and can be reproduced by anyone regardless of culture.
Contrast that with morality, which is very subjective. Moral codes are defined by your culture, and will vary from time to time and place to place, and even from sect to sect within the greater culture.
Moral codes may be based on ethical principles but are not necessarily so, and not every moral edict is derived from an ethical principle or derivation. Your culture may have conditioned you to think that certain practices ethical but, when turned around and viewed from a subject's point of view clearly are not. The aforementioned issue of slavery is like that: the slave-owners may have decided that slavery is conducted with the slave's best interest at heart, but ask the slave how s/he feels about it and you'll get a very different answer.
And there's no reason I couldn't own a fleet of automated trucks and use this software as well. The truck owner is still making the money. The only difference is that the owner used to be the driver, and now they're not.
Independent owners? I believe you're very much mistaken. I believe that the manufacturers themselves will probably own the fleet and lease it out to shipping companies.
Prior to automated shipping, it's too much hassle to deal with humans. Paychecks, HR, unions, etc., it's all very messy and time-consuming. No manufacturer in the world wants to deal with that any more than they need to, not when you can sell a product and offload that hassle. (and don't forget maintenance contracts and spare parts!) Automation means that there is only the equipment to worry about, and the economics will change because they can sell a service with predictable maintenance costs built into the contract. Sell the trucks? Sell their livelihood to competitors? You've got to be kidding me.
I have 0 interest in being a truck driver. But if I could own a truck and make money as it drove itself all around? I might very much be interested in that.
You may not be interested in being a truck driver and that's cool, but I'm pretty sure you won't ever get to be a truck owner either.
Depends on the job. If it's something anyone with a pulse can do, then there's no real skill or reason for great pay.
There is a reason: basic respect for the person doing the job. Asking someone to work two full-time jobs just to be able to split the rent on a single apartment and still need food stamps is dehumanizing.
It would be different if low wages weren't used to create additional profit at the top, but the average McDonalds worker could get twice the pay per hour, yet still the corporation and various franchise owners would only see a dip in profits. This is the important part: their bottom lines would still be profitable, only slightly less so.
The elderly don't want robots to take care of them.
The elderly don't want robots to take care of them, but the definitely won't want to pay more for a real person to take care of them when robot care is cheaper, so robots will do -- but they reserve the right to complain all the same.
My first thought about this was, by helping people move about and live longer PG is actually contributing to environmental disaster.
By moving around more, but not replacing other transportation needs like walking to work, people are expending more calories -- which consumes additional global resources pointlessly
By living longer, people consume even more resources with the extra years lived; by helping first-world people live longer, you increase the consumed resources by some greater-than-one multiplier compared to a thriftier third-world person.
Not really. The NRA is just a gun manufacturing lobby; that's why they won't stand up for 3D printed guns.
But that counts. There's an entire industry, with money and motivation behind it, fighting for the second amendment.
Who fights for the other amendments? Nobody, which is why the definitions for things like "freedom of speech" (first), "fair and speedy trial" (sixth), and "excessive bail... fines... cruel and unsual punishment" (eighth) are so loose and squishy.
People need to stop thinking in terms of groups and group rights and concentrate on what is right for individuals. That's the real problem. TPTB have spent the last 60 years dividing people into subgroups and ethnicities and pitting them against each other to create the emotional tension to create partisan followers fueled by hate and resentment for their fellow Americans.
60 years? Is that all? In America?
What about legal Jim Crow racism, which officially ended almost 50 years ago but persisted for over a century before that? Discrimination against the Japanese in the 1920s, '30s and '40s, or against Chinese, Irish, and Italians (none of whom were considered "white" at the time) during the last half of the 19th century and early 20th century? Native Americans since the 1600s?
I'm not saying your message is wrong, but you need to check your history. This has been going on a lot longer than you think, and the sources "stirring up" discrimination are probably different than you believe. A lot of it is inborn and doesn't require stirring because, face it, humans are naturally assholes to each other.
I think you missed something: looking for sapphire on the underside is a way to tell if it's sapphire throughout, or just a veneer on the top. By having less (or no) sapphire on the underside, it would appear it's more like a coating applied over glass, not pure sapphire.
I can't say for certain whether its a non-story; that's up to the millions of customers that purchased phones with the coating, and whether they feel cheated or not.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you? A fucking child? I don't love all of my coworkers. I don't agree with many of their political views. The salient factor - the only factor of any importance - is if they can do the job. Be an adult and a professional, and praise and elevate competent people. Shunning people because, boo hoo, they said something mean about X, and it hurts my feelings just to look at them, would seriously get you punted out of my company if I had anything to say about it. We're here to get a job done, expediently, correctly, competitively with the best group of people to make it so. We're not here to massage egos, create safe spaces, or coddle people.
That sounds suspiciously like you would, ahem, blacklist them from your company for holding a view that you don't like.
He's probably not even the 10th richest.
The Rothschilds are left off of all these lists intentionally.
Maybe not intentionally, or not by the publishers of such lists. There's at least two problems with calculating the net worth of a family like the Rothschilds:
It's quite possible that some of the people on the Forbes 500 would rather not have that kind of publicity, as you say, but their wealth is part of the public record so there they sit. I'm not saying that Jeff Bezos is such a person, as I suspect he likes and cultivates this kind of notoriety, but there may be one or two.
I believe that recent versions of GCC (4.9+) provide options that protect against stack smashing, and they're enabled by default in OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and some Linux distros. Not sure about other compilers, but on such environments a return-oriented exploit would be much harder.
You just proved his point though. If a realtor is making millions on a single home sale then the home buyers, sellers and builders are being fucked over.
You misunderstood. Such a realtor is conducting transactions worth that much, but they're not making that much themselves. Realtors are typically making 5-6% of each transaction, so $60k for every million dollars of house sold.
Whether their services are worth 6% of the price of the houses they sell is a different conversation.
Because some people's jobs are too important to be paid for voluntarily, by the willing people desiring the fruits of their labors.
Some socially valuable things aren't profitable, some profitable things aren't socially valuable. Most individuals would never decide, or could never afford, to take on a socially valuable project that loses money, which is why we have governments to do them.
I can't see any 4-cyl turbo hitting less than a 13 second quarter mile unless the car is very small and light.
FYI most Formula 1 cars are six cylinders, but a few have been four, with a displacement of only 1.6 liters. The application of the right technology can go a long way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
Funny how this restaurant that charges $150+ for a dinner for two is just one block from McDonalds in my town.
You don't always get what you pay for, but you always pay for what you get.
I was reorged and placed under a kiss ass manager-ette.
There's no reason to be a misogynist to make your case. There are plenty of epithets that you could use to describe your former manager that don't disparage other women in the process. Kiss-ass is good, as is toady, moron, bosshole, stooge, empty suit, or sycophant.
By the same token, don't call the woman driver who cuts you off a bitch or a cunt, or the male driver a prick or a faggot. You can call all of them 'assholes,' for example, and convey the proper level of insult without pointlessly insulting other members of their respective genders. Same idea as the above.
I don't know if I've ever seen comments so long that they require footnotes.
You must be new here
When the gasoline powered carriage replaced horses the only thing they were meant to replace was horses.
I disagree with this premise because it ignores too many things.
Self-powered cars had two primary effects: they reduced the huge amount of effluvia that horses generated, and enabled a single person to cover more miles with more cargo in less time.
By moving to self-powered cars, you need fewer
The primary reason to move away from horses was expense, and the thing that makes horses expensive is paying for people. The move was entirely driven by a reduction in work force. The fact that a single person was augmented is what makes it cost-effective; the same principle applies now because a single person can operate an entire factory floor -- it's no different than before, a single person's abilities have been augmented by technology.
Subjective? No, not really.
The basic ethical principle is to not interfere with another's well-being. The definition of well-being may appear changeable but it should be the subject's definition and standard of well-being, not your own.
From the single principle, which we may restate as "treat others the way they want to be treated," we can derive prohibitions against murder and assault; lying, and from that cheating; theft, and from that malicious vandalism (depriving property from another, even if you don't benefit from it); and so on.
The relationship goes both ways. The subject may not turn it around and complain that your existence interferes with their well-being, since ending your existence would interfere with your well-being.
These derivations from the core principle are not subjective, and in fact are quite logical and can be reproduced by anyone regardless of culture.
Contrast that with morality, which is very subjective. Moral codes are defined by your culture, and will vary from time to time and place to place, and even from sect to sect within the greater culture.
Moral codes may be based on ethical principles but are not necessarily so, and not every moral edict is derived from an ethical principle or derivation. Your culture may have conditioned you to think that certain practices ethical but, when turned around and viewed from a subject's point of view clearly are not. The aforementioned issue of slavery is like that: the slave-owners may have decided that slavery is conducted with the slave's best interest at heart, but ask the slave how s/he feels about it and you'll get a very different answer.
Different people have different ethics, you shouldn't push yours on other people.
You're confusing ethics, which are based on principles and are not relative, with morality, which is relative and malleable.
Look at it this way: slavery has never been and never will be ethical but it is, at some times in some places, moral.
And there's no reason I couldn't own a fleet of automated trucks and use this software as well. The truck owner is still making the money. The only difference is that the owner used to be the driver, and now they're not.
Independent owners? I believe you're very much mistaken. I believe that the manufacturers themselves will probably own the fleet and lease it out to shipping companies.
Prior to automated shipping, it's too much hassle to deal with humans. Paychecks, HR, unions, etc., it's all very messy and time-consuming. No manufacturer in the world wants to deal with that any more than they need to, not when you can sell a product and offload that hassle. (and don't forget maintenance contracts and spare parts!) Automation means that there is only the equipment to worry about, and the economics will change because they can sell a service with predictable maintenance costs built into the contract. Sell the trucks? Sell their livelihood to competitors? You've got to be kidding me.
I have 0 interest in being a truck driver. But if I could own a truck and make money as it drove itself all around? I might very much be interested in that.
You may not be interested in being a truck driver and that's cool, but I'm pretty sure you won't ever get to be a truck owner either.
This is a fantastic idea, and unlike the Uber thing, this doesn't involve running afoul of local regulations.
And it's coming in just time to be squashed by fully automated trucking.
the major failure here was to outsource something important enough that a fuckup could cost them an election.
I think the Trump campaign made a fine outsourcing choice, the Russians not only didn't fuck up his chances at election they guaranteed it
No, he accidentally a word. He meant "We're all made of typos, right?"
Depends on the job. If it's something anyone with a pulse can do, then there's no real skill or reason for great pay.
There is a reason: basic respect for the person doing the job. Asking someone to work two full-time jobs just to be able to split the rent on a single apartment and still need food stamps is dehumanizing.
It would be different if low wages weren't used to create additional profit at the top, but the average McDonalds worker could get twice the pay per hour, yet still the corporation and various franchise owners would only see a dip in profits. This is the important part: their bottom lines would still be profitable, only slightly less so.
No, they voted for him because the opposing party is so corrupt
Oh, ok. Which party is that?
See? AI is imitation. "TRUE" AI is just imitation.
What about fake AI?
The elderly don't want robots to take care of them.
The elderly don't want robots to take care of them, but the definitely won't want to pay more for a real person to take care of them when robot care is cheaper, so robots will do -- but they reserve the right to complain all the same.
My first thought about this was, by helping people move about and live longer PG is actually contributing to environmental disaster.
Overall, this isn't good news.
Not really. The NRA is just a gun manufacturing lobby; that's why they won't stand up for 3D printed guns.
But that counts. There's an entire industry, with money and motivation behind it, fighting for the second amendment.
Who fights for the other amendments? Nobody, which is why the definitions for things like "freedom of speech" (first), "fair and speedy trial" (sixth), and "excessive bail ... fines ... cruel and unsual punishment" (eighth) are so loose and squishy.
60 years? Is that all? In America?
What about legal Jim Crow racism, which officially ended almost 50 years ago but persisted for over a century before that? Discrimination against the Japanese in the 1920s, '30s and '40s, or against Chinese, Irish, and Italians (none of whom were considered "white" at the time) during the last half of the 19th century and early 20th century? Native Americans since the 1600s?
I'm not saying your message is wrong, but you need to check your history. This has been going on a lot longer than you think, and the sources "stirring up" discrimination are probably different than you believe. A lot of it is inborn and doesn't require stirring because, face it, humans are naturally assholes to each other.
I think you missed something: looking for sapphire on the underside is a way to tell if it's sapphire throughout, or just a veneer on the top. By having less (or no) sapphire on the underside, it would appear it's more like a coating applied over glass, not pure sapphire.
I can't say for certain whether its a non-story; that's up to the millions of customers that purchased phones with the coating, and whether they feel cheated or not.
Payday lending entails huge risk of default, which is why the interest rates are so high and why regular banks don't offer them.