What is the name worth? Probably a bit. Isn't the Slash code open? At least, various versions of it. Anyone can (and have) set up a Slashdot clone, the trick is getting visitors, and then maintaining it. Just like debugging and fixing can be the majority of dev time on a software project, I suspect that the ongoing staff/bandwidth/maintenance costs would quickly dwarf the initial investment.
Remember? Reloading several times, while a kernel-build finished? Hail, 3-Digit UIDs.
My college computer came with 4MB of RAM, and a kernel build on that took about 6 hours while the hard drive thrashed violently, so I ran it overnight. That's a lot of reloads.:-)
because individuals can't compete when it comes to getting access to our politicians...fact.
You could extend that easily to rich vs poor as well, the rich have far FAR more access when it comes to access to politicians than poor people do, on par with corporations. I don't know if it's a problem with "corporate people" so much as it is wealth = access. There are few things that you could do to corporations to fix this problem that you wouldn't also have to apply to wealthy individuals.
Wealthy guys who have no income or shady businesses where income can be hidden do not want a tax cut on income, go figure. This is like blubbering William Buffet and his poor secretary who pays more in taxes than he does because again, we don't tax wealth.
It's not about taxing wealth, which I don't think SHOULD be taxed. It's about taxing income. Of course not all income is 1040 income, and for the very rich, very little of it came from there. But all wealth came from -somewhere-, and it's there, where it's earned, that it should be taxed. That's where the effort should go -- closing those loopholes, reducing false "business losses," reducing the items you can buy as business writeoffs, etc.
He said both the top Democrat and Republican candidate were absolutely horrible, corrupt choices. That's something we should all come out of this thinking, and demand a higher standard next time.
Iâ(TM)d imagine most people voting on abortion legislation would know that.
Considering those things, Iâ(TM)d imagine that you can determine what party is the white supremacist party based on their support of abortion.
You're kidding, right? They're poor. They can't afford a family. Having children is a disaster in their lives that they can't afford, such that going through with the pregnancy is clearly the worse choice for them. That only feeds into white supremacy if you're only looking at the most surface level and trivial of facts.
And this is what we get when we allow lobbyists to run the government, because "corporations are people too".
Famous Romney quote, but he didn't mean that a company as an entity is an actual human being. A company is just a collection of people. The Citizen's United case decided that groups of people do not lose their collective free speech rights because they incorporate.
I'd argue that it could have made a difference who he appointed. He had to appoint a Republican, not a former Verizon lawyer.
You never know what you'll get. Tom Wheeler was a lobbyist for the telecom industry, enough that he faced some pretty stiff opposition to being appointed FCC chair. Yet he ended up advancing policies that the telecoms hated. It's hard to tell if someone has been "captured," or if they still have independent will.
You are correct in that it's better to be proactive instead of reactive with safety. What gives me hope is that auto-pilot might enforce some proactive safety measures that most people ignore throughout the day, like safe following distance. I was taught in driver's ed that you should never follow so closely to a car that if it it had to stop suddenly, that you could come to a complete stop without rear-ending them. Meanwhile on the freeways around here, no one does that. No one leaves a "safe" following distance if there's any traffic around. Leaving that sort of distance means you're leaving space for someone to merge into your lane and get ahead, and we can't have that.
Your average person knows what "assist" means. It means, "I'm going to do something, and this other person or thing is going to help me out with some parts of it." They know that assist does not mean totally hands-off. Autopilot has the opposite connotation in popular consciousness.
Tesla's defense of every accident that makes the headlines is that their system is not fully autonomous and requires constant driver input. (wahhh it's called autopilot - Arguing over the meaning of their marketing name is semantics.)
People get confused because Tesla and Waymo try to have it both ways. They frequently talk about how in the not-too-distant-future no one will drive a car anymore. Think of all the stuff you could get done! Hell, you won't need parking because you can call your empty car to drive itself to you. The perfect solution for the inebriated guy who needs to drive home. All of these stories Tesla hypes up because they want us to be hyped up about the future. The future of autopilot. Arguing about the name is not semantics if the name is legitimately confusing.
This is a silly meme. There's no evidence whatsoever that people driving Teslas don't know that autopilot is an assistive technology, not one that drives itself without monitoring.
I think most people who haven't looked into the issue, when you call it autopilot, that yes, it drives itself without monitoring, because that's what the phrase has meant outside of its use by Tesla. Peoples' next thought is "Autopilot isn't an autopilot? Then what's the damn point?" It's not just Tesla drivers that have to be won over to the concept, it's non-Tesla drivers. Calling an assistive technology "autopilot" is waaaay jumping the gun.
In the immediate post revolutionary war, America was fairly resource starved militarily. Britain and France were two of the superpowers then. Asking America to step in, where only about 10% of the mostly British a few years before still with friends and family as well in Britain, to aid the French, would be like asking Iceland to side with America if a US v Russia war broke out. Which if Russia was the initial aggressor their participation in NATO might require...
Before the 1800s, the US didn't have any type of army or military. It was believed that the US should have no standing army. Oh, how times have changed.. They had no resources with which to invade other countries; theirs was an entirely defensive force made up by the militia. There's this belief that the USA should have invaded Prussia to help the French out, just like the French attacked the British to help the US out, but that assumes that the US and France were on even footing at that point in history. The best they did for quite some time was attack the Barbary Pirates, but there's no comparison between that and attacking a nation-state with a real army.
FFS, Pelosi and other democrat leadership trying to white knight on behalf of a notoriously murderous street gang of illegal aliens.
They're most noticeable for the amount of free press the President have given them, far in excess of their actual influence and range. That's helped them recruit, as notoriety is the entire purpose of their heinous acts.
I'm trying to figure out how Google would do this. I can't think of a single service from which Google has steered me away. Not that I use Google for anything outside of search and gmail, but. If a service starts up and Google artificially lowers its rankings, that would definitely get them into big-time anti-trust trouble. I don't see how that would be worth it.
I could only think "Do.... do you really think he can make concentration camps for everyone that isn't white and straight and the government would just let him????"
The President cannot do that, and that's where some of this "deep state" and "the swamp" talk comes up. They expect that everyone, including various people in the executive branch, have to be personally loyal to Trump and do whatever he wants. That is not, and should not be the case.
If I'm being polite and helping people, I certainly do expect people to do the same with me. This is part of our basic social contract. If you are polite and help people who won't do the same with you, then you are just being abused, and I suggest you get away from those people as the only result will be that you'll end up bitter and vengeful.
I treat people the way I want to be treated, even if I don't know that will be reciprocated. For multiple reasons, but I believe it's better for one's mental health to feel good at being kind, just as it's bad for one's mental health to be cynical and bitter.
That doesn't mean I necessarily stick my neck out and take risks that I'm pretty sure are bad ideas, nor do I have to be naive in all situations and just be taken advantage of all the time. But kindness takes two for it to not be abusive, and if I'm not the one to take the first step, why should I expect it of anyone else?
Thanos' solution is actually pretty lame because eliminating just 50 percent of the population doesn't solve the problem.
In fact, you can get back to the same number of working population (on Earth) in just one generation. Is Thanos planning on finger-snapping every twenty years?
Continual population replenishment means nothing if they have no jobs to keep pumping money.
And there will be no jobs if there aren't young people earning money and spending it. While I approve of checks on population through people making the choice to have fewer children, there are definite economic effects of a greying society. Having a larger percentage of society in a non-working/retired role can lead to economic drag as savings are spent and services are used, but without those people contributing to the workforce. The opposite is also true, with a growing society of work-active young people spending and investing. The Aging of Japan is an interesting look at a 1st-world society that has rather quickly had its average age rise, as the Japanese live longer, and had low fertility rates. To counteract those economic declines, Japan is considering relaxing restrictions on immigration to keep the population higher, as well as raising the retirement age to keep people in the active work force. They've already raised the age at which you can start withdrawing pension funds just to deal with labor shortages.
Of course it is. How would we even count the homeless in that number? Head count? And I'm sure a great many of them have fallen into the "chronically unemployed/not looking for a job category" that for some reason doesn't count toward the unemployment numbers.
Well sure, "unemployment" that doesn't count people who aren't interested in a job at a company is a less useful statistic than you might think. Homemakers and other stay-at-home folks, people studying on their own or at school, the retired, none of those people are 'problems.' But someone who wants to work but can't find a job? That's the problem class to try to address.
The homeless tend to die where weather becomes extreme--over 700 freeze to death each year--and, besides, can't raise the panhandle funds to live if everyone around them is poor. There are collapsing ghettos around San Francisco and Seattle, too, just a few miles away; the homeless didn't make the trek across country to get there.
Also forgot to mention, sometimes the homeless arrive on buses, as some cities give them free one-way bus passes to elsewhere in the country.
Almost anywhere in Baltimore where we have collapsing houses and third-world-grade city blocks will accept these--largely because you have about three neighbors on the entire street of 40 or 50 houses.
But the homeless seem to concentrate in the areas where the housing is most in demand. Mild-weather coastal cities, generally places that don't freeze in the winter or swelter in the summer, places most conducive to living outdoors year round. Most of those places have severe housing shortages, and it's easy to think that the housing shortages are causing the homelessness, but many homeless come from elsewhere, and a huge number of them have other reasons for being homeless: *) Mental problems. They would end up damaging a place or threatening neighbors, getting themselves kicked out. Or they might just wander off and not come back. *) Substance abuse. All of the above. *) Willful homelessness. Yes, that last one is a thing, and many people in my area have expressed the view that they don't WANT housing. They don't like living with structure. They like living with no rules. They're fine with subsistence living, maybe some basic services, but not services to keep them off the street.
Slashdot Mirror
What is the name worth? Probably a bit. Isn't the Slash code open? At least, various versions of it. Anyone can (and have) set up a Slashdot clone, the trick is getting visitors, and then maintaining it. Just like debugging and fixing can be the majority of dev time on a software project, I suspect that the ongoing staff/bandwidth/maintenance costs would quickly dwarf the initial investment.
If CmdrTaco cared about Slashdot he wouldn't have literally sold out!
Maybe, but maybe he wasn't content with the legacy of his life being "the guy that started Slashdot, and that's pretty much all he did."
Remember? Reloading several times, while a kernel-build finished?
Hail, 3-Digit UIDs.
My college computer came with 4MB of RAM, and a kernel build on that took about 6 hours while the hard drive thrashed violently, so I ran it overnight. That's a lot of reloads. :-)
because individuals can't compete when it comes to getting access to our politicians...fact.
You could extend that easily to rich vs poor as well, the rich have far FAR more access when it comes to access to politicians than poor people do, on par with corporations. I don't know if it's a problem with "corporate people" so much as it is wealth = access. There are few things that you could do to corporations to fix this problem that you wouldn't also have to apply to wealthy individuals.
Wealthy guys who have no income or shady businesses where income can be hidden do not want a tax cut on income, go figure. This is like blubbering William Buffet and his poor secretary who pays more in taxes than he does because again, we don't tax wealth.
It's not about taxing wealth, which I don't think SHOULD be taxed. It's about taxing income. Of course not all income is 1040 income, and for the very rich, very little of it came from there. But all wealth came from -somewhere-, and it's there, where it's earned, that it should be taxed. That's where the effort should go -- closing those loopholes, reducing false "business losses," reducing the items you can buy as business writeoffs, etc.
You're right, he actually said nothing at all.
He said both the top Democrat and Republican candidate were absolutely horrible, corrupt choices. That's something we should all come out of this thinking, and demand a higher standard next time.
70% of abortionâ(TM)s are black.
Iâ(TM)d imagine most people voting on abortion legislation would know that.
Considering those things, Iâ(TM)d imagine that you can determine what party is the white supremacist party based on their support of abortion.
You're kidding, right? They're poor. They can't afford a family. Having children is a disaster in their lives that they can't afford, such that going through with the pregnancy is clearly the worse choice for them. That only feeds into white supremacy if you're only looking at the most surface level and trivial of facts.
And this is what we get when we allow lobbyists to run the government, because "corporations are people too".
Famous Romney quote, but he didn't mean that a company as an entity is an actual human being. A company is just a collection of people. The Citizen's United case decided that groups of people do not lose their collective free speech rights because they incorporate.
I'd argue that it could have made a difference who he appointed. He had to appoint a Republican, not a former Verizon lawyer.
You never know what you'll get. Tom Wheeler was a lobbyist for the telecom industry, enough that he faced some pretty stiff opposition to being appointed FCC chair. Yet he ended up advancing policies that the telecoms hated. It's hard to tell if someone has been "captured," or if they still have independent will.
You are correct in that it's better to be proactive instead of reactive with safety. What gives me hope is that auto-pilot might enforce some proactive safety measures that most people ignore throughout the day, like safe following distance. I was taught in driver's ed that you should never follow so closely to a car that if it it had to stop suddenly, that you could come to a complete stop without rear-ending them. Meanwhile on the freeways around here, no one does that. No one leaves a "safe" following distance if there's any traffic around. Leaving that sort of distance means you're leaving space for someone to merge into your lane and get ahead, and we can't have that.
Assist, Help
Your average person knows what "assist" means. It means, "I'm going to do something, and this other person or thing is going to help me out with some parts of it." They know that assist does not mean totally hands-off. Autopilot has the opposite connotation in popular consciousness.
Tesla's defense of every accident that makes the headlines is that their system is not fully autonomous and requires constant driver input. (wahhh it's called autopilot - Arguing over the meaning of their marketing name is semantics.)
People get confused because Tesla and Waymo try to have it both ways. They frequently talk about how in the not-too-distant-future no one will drive a car anymore. Think of all the stuff you could get done! Hell, you won't need parking because you can call your empty car to drive itself to you. The perfect solution for the inebriated guy who needs to drive home. All of these stories Tesla hypes up because they want us to be hyped up about the future. The future of autopilot. Arguing about the name is not semantics if the name is legitimately confusing.
This is a silly meme. There's no evidence whatsoever that people driving Teslas don't know that autopilot is an assistive technology, not one that drives itself without monitoring.
I think most people who haven't looked into the issue, when you call it autopilot, that yes, it drives itself without monitoring, because that's what the phrase has meant outside of its use by Tesla. Peoples' next thought is "Autopilot isn't an autopilot? Then what's the damn point?" It's not just Tesla drivers that have to be won over to the concept, it's non-Tesla drivers. Calling an assistive technology "autopilot" is waaaay jumping the gun.
In the immediate post revolutionary war, America was fairly resource starved militarily. Britain and France were two of the superpowers then. Asking America to step in, where only about 10% of the mostly British a few years before still with friends and family as well in Britain, to aid the French, would be like asking Iceland to side with America if a US v Russia war broke out. Which if Russia was the initial aggressor their participation in NATO might require...
Before the 1800s, the US didn't have any type of army or military. It was believed that the US should have no standing army. Oh, how times have changed.. They had no resources with which to invade other countries; theirs was an entirely defensive force made up by the militia. There's this belief that the USA should have invaded Prussia to help the French out, just like the French attacked the British to help the US out, but that assumes that the US and France were on even footing at that point in history. The best they did for quite some time was attack the Barbary Pirates, but there's no comparison between that and attacking a nation-state with a real army.
FFS, Pelosi and other democrat leadership trying to white knight on behalf of a notoriously murderous street gang of illegal aliens.
They're most noticeable for the amount of free press the President have given them, far in excess of their actual influence and range. That's helped them recruit, as notoriety is the entire purpose of their heinous acts.
And yet he's rich and president while someone who think he's smarter is you as AC on /.
They could be the same. You never know!
I'm trying to figure out how Google would do this. I can't think of a single service from which Google has steered me away. Not that I use Google for anything outside of search and gmail, but. If a service starts up and Google artificially lowers its rankings, that would definitely get them into big-time anti-trust trouble. I don't see how that would be worth it.
I could only think "Do.... do you really think he can make concentration camps for everyone that isn't white and straight and the government would just let him????"
The President cannot do that, and that's where some of this "deep state" and "the swamp" talk comes up. They expect that everyone, including various people in the executive branch, have to be personally loyal to Trump and do whatever he wants. That is not, and should not be the case.
If I'm being polite and helping people, I certainly do expect people to do the same with me. This is part of our basic social contract. If you are polite and help people who won't do the same with you, then you are just being abused, and I suggest you get away from those people as the only result will be that you'll end up bitter and vengeful.
I treat people the way I want to be treated, even if I don't know that will be reciprocated. For multiple reasons, but I believe it's better for one's mental health to feel good at being kind, just as it's bad for one's mental health to be cynical and bitter.
That doesn't mean I necessarily stick my neck out and take risks that I'm pretty sure are bad ideas, nor do I have to be naive in all situations and just be taken advantage of all the time. But kindness takes two for it to not be abusive, and if I'm not the one to take the first step, why should I expect it of anyone else?
Are the interests of grandchildren of German, Irish, and Eyetalian immigrants in conflict, or are they all Americans at this point?
I think it's more like the interests of his established society is in conflict with the interests of a newly-introduced society.
Thanos' solution is actually pretty lame because eliminating just 50 percent of the population doesn't solve the problem.
In fact, you can get back to the same number of working population (on Earth) in just one generation.
Is Thanos planning on finger-snapping every twenty years?
Continual population replenishment means nothing if they have no jobs to keep pumping money.
And there will be no jobs if there aren't young people earning money and spending it.
While I approve of checks on population through people making the choice to have fewer children, there are definite economic effects of a greying society. Having a larger percentage of society in a non-working/retired role can lead to economic drag as savings are spent and services are used, but without those people contributing to the workforce. The opposite is also true, with a growing society of work-active young people spending and investing. The Aging of Japan is an interesting look at a 1st-world society that has rather quickly had its average age rise, as the Japanese live longer, and had low fertility rates. To counteract those economic declines, Japan is considering relaxing restrictions on immigration to keep the population higher, as well as raising the retirement age to keep people in the active work force. They've already raised the age at which you can start withdrawing pension funds just to deal with labor shortages.
Of course it is. How would we even count the homeless in that number? Head count? And I'm sure a great many of them have fallen into the "chronically unemployed/not looking for a job category" that for some reason doesn't count toward the unemployment numbers.
Well sure, "unemployment" that doesn't count people who aren't interested in a job at a company is a less useful statistic than you might think. Homemakers and other stay-at-home folks, people studying on their own or at school, the retired, none of those people are 'problems.' But someone who wants to work but can't find a job? That's the problem class to try to address.
The homeless tend to die where weather becomes extreme--over 700 freeze to death each year--and, besides, can't raise the panhandle funds to live if everyone around them is poor. There are collapsing ghettos around San Francisco and Seattle, too, just a few miles away; the homeless didn't make the trek across country to get there.
Also forgot to mention, sometimes the homeless arrive on buses, as some cities give them free one-way bus passes to elsewhere in the country.
Almost anywhere in Baltimore where we have collapsing houses and third-world-grade city blocks will accept these--largely because you have about three neighbors on the entire street of 40 or 50 houses.
But the homeless seem to concentrate in the areas where the housing is most in demand. Mild-weather coastal cities, generally places that don't freeze in the winter or swelter in the summer, places most conducive to living outdoors year round. Most of those places have severe housing shortages, and it's easy to think that the housing shortages are causing the homelessness, but many homeless come from elsewhere, and a huge number of them have other reasons for being homeless:
*) Mental problems. They would end up damaging a place or threatening neighbors, getting themselves kicked out. Or they might just wander off and not come back.
*) Substance abuse. All of the above.
*) Willful homelessness. Yes, that last one is a thing, and many people in my area have expressed the view that they don't WANT housing. They don't like living with structure. They like living with no rules. They're fine with subsistence living, maybe some basic services, but not services to keep them off the street.