To be fair, I highly doubt you have any more knowledge about what a CEO does than that CEO would about your programming example. Reviewing the details of a proposed multi-million (or billion) $ multi-faceted deal isn't incredibly different than chasing down code. Multiple input and output streams with a high degree of complexity and multiple variable data points throughout.
Some positions benefit better from close coordination and constant communication. Other positions partly benefit from that and also benefit from closed off space that limits interruptions. And some positions greatly benefit from largely closeted space that minimizes unplanned interruptions for the majority of the day.
With that said, it's the minority of jobs that fit into the first as best I can tell. But contrary to what people think, real-estate is actually pretty expensive in major cities. Fitting twice as many people on a floor is a huge savings to a medium size company - a savings that directly impacts your books (assuming a publicly traded company). So, while there's PLENTY of 'studies' showing the benefits and desire of employees they're all universally bullsh*t. They're driven by 1) people who want to sell office furniture and renovation and 2) people who want to save large amounts of $ on real estate (i.e. driving down run rate costs, which increases pretty much every aspect of your financial books).
See my other post. We could get a media distribution company involved. Call them cable companies:)
I don't think the approach of cable companies or multiple disparate streaming providers is the right way to go...but the media companies are using this as a way to massively change their billing practices in ways that rate increases would never allow.
So we get the mess we have today instead where every company things the shit gold and deserve some ridiculous per-show/stream/person/tv/series/etc. compensation. Just like how music streaming services are paying significantly more per song-listen than traditional radio ever did or does.
One can argue that the companies have colluded to write laws not in the best interest of the population which the government is there to serve. Also, many of these laws are directly opposed to the intent and/or letter of the underlying law (or constitutional law as the case may be) which, excluding the corrupt politics and policies allowing them, should never have been put on the books in the first place.
So based on that, it certainly can be considered justification (moral, if not legal) for individuals committing copyright infringement: The laws in their current state should never have been allowed to exist as they're abusive, oppressive, and not in the interest of the VAST majority of the population they're purporting to 'serve'.
Organized business-level infringement (i.e. for profit) is another story.
Why doesn't someone start a service...some kind of company...get ahold of all these streaming providers and sub-license their content streaming?
You could combine them all into one unified interface that they all are accessible from. Give each one an assigned designation separate from their name so they're easy to find. Maybe call it a channel or something. You'd obviously want a directory of them available as part of your service too. Then users could subscribe for a unified fee and access all these 'channels' for a huge variety of shows. Maybe offer packages of similar kinds as add-ons to the base service. And since you have a unified paltform now, you could probably have future plans to avoid rate increases by introducing advertisements at semi-normalized intervals in the shows. Call them commercials. Because the service is unified it would be easy for this provider to insert commercials based on region or other demographics and collect revenue for that towards paying the providers for their content.
Heck, you could even introduce hardware to help give everyone an identical experience. Now, since those boxes access all this content they should be semi-proprietary which would necessitate the provider owning and renting them to you. Couldn't have you using the 'box to provide content to more than one TV or device at once after all. Since all these shows come down via the internet cabling or wireless (which still uses cables for backhaul) why not call them cable companies for slang.
Heck, if they were smart they could also offer other services like internet and telephone!
Same here. I still pay for netflix but mainly for friends who want to watch whatever netflix exclusive while they're over...and I don't care much about the few $/month. But I'm certainly NOT going to pay for a whole bunch of other related services to get all the bits and pieces to make things whole again. Partly because of the money, but also the complexity.
When I want to watch a show and it's not on netflix, I'm very unlikely to go hunting around for which streaming service has it (while filtering the dozen or so that 'sell' heavily DRMd copies of shows for ridiculous prices), then sign up, install their app, log in, find the show...etc.
It's quite literally faster and easier to find a torrent and wait for the download 99% of the time.
Basically the union sees where the auto industry is going and that what will be a huge chunk of it in less than 10 years is outside their nice little garden. They're mad. They're afraid. They don't like change.
TBH, all musk has to do is invalidate any pending stock options for people who unionize and pay them the typical union benefits/rates. They'll make way less and no one will want to jump on that bandwagon.
When you look at the actual stats (not just "people get hurt and we want less of that" nonsense) then Tesla is far and away better than a normal auto plant.
This is, as normal with unions, nothing but propaganda very loosely tied to facts.
The "best" camera isn't going to make someone a good photographer.
I regularly help tourists/friends/etc. with group shots when I'm out. They hand me anything from a phone to a $5k+ dSLR and it's not uncommon to hand it back to "omg wow how did you do that" irrespective of the camera's cost. Understanding basics of lighting and framing is way more important than spending several thousand bucks on gear. Hell, fill flash is probably the most overlooked feature that almost every camera has.
Does my pricey gear get me better shots? Sometimes. But other times I get no shots at all because I don't lug around a backpack full of heavy gear...or rather I take them on my phone since that rarely leaves my side.
TBH there's so much logic built into a modern smartphone to 'fix' shots and avoid the person having to know the first thing about photography than ever before. It works for it's purpose and it's purpose was never to be a dSLR...but to be a functional camera that requires virtually zero skill to use.
And yah...to make hipsters feel better about their egos:)
Did I miss something and cnet started posting actual, accurate information again or did we fall into a time warp and it's the 90s?
Oh wait: Full disclosure: I'm not a professional photographer, but I am an Instagram addict. My phone is my primary lens and, like many other people, I care most about camera quality when upgrading my phone.
Yeah, no. Nothing's changed after all.
The only thing made 'clear' from this article is that it's a useless review. Go visit an actual photography site for reviews on cameras.
That is *exactly* synthesizing bokeh in software. It's a composite image, modified in software. The DOF on such a small lens makes 'real' bokeh pretty much impossible.
For what it is, it's handy and despite being a semi-pro photographer myself I very often grab my phone for a picture instead of keeping a real camera handy. Convenience wins over quality most of the time.
With that said, I consistently get MUCH better pictures from my Samsung than iPhone (I have both thanks to work) and can only view TFA as thinly veiled propaganda. 9 out of 10 dentists agree too. The 10th works for Apple and his NDA prohibits him from commenting... sparing rumors about the much anticipated iBrush.
That's not rejection, that's bitching and moaning and... given the effective monopoly (or collusion between the extremely limited choices leading to the same thing) you don't really have any choice to take your money elsewhere.
Any popular movie, TV show, album, etc. downloads much faster than realtime. Granted the blocks don't come in order so you can't stream off it like that...but it's rare that I have the 'hey let's watch XYZ' idea and it takes longer to download than it does to actually get ready and sit down to watch it.
Plus the huge benefits of time/device/format/etc-shifting any way without silly restrictions. Yeah, I have to store things but $100-200 buys quite a few TB of storage and if I was worried about having to re-download due to ISP caps or whatever, $100 more buys another drive to keep a second copy.
I have netflix because it *was* easier and had most things I wanted. Now it's missing a lot and TBH I only keep it because it's cheap and friends who come over sometimes want to watch stuff and don't understand torrents.
First off, your logic is utterly flawed. A kill switch is only used as an intentional measure after the device has been lost/stolen/etc. and otherwise the device operates completely normally. A 'smart gun' is intended to prevent the normal function unless a special condition is met (RFID/fingerprint/etc.) and so defaults to a 'broken' state.
Completely opposite behaviors.
The kill switch on phones has been working quite well the last few years...and if you don't lose your phone it's effectively transparent.
Criminals typically don't do the cost-benefit analysis and decide to go legit.
Criminals are (typically) not nearly as smart as they think they are either. It 'makes sense' to steal 2-3 phones a day which someone will flip for $50 cash in bulk for you when the prospect of an actual job is abhorrent to your lifestyle.
The same logic chain is what drives many people to rob gas stations and convenience stores despite the low return and fairly high rate of arrest.
In theory, it would be good to flag and make each lost or stolen phone subject of a police investigation.
In reality, this alone would overwhelm pretty much all the police departments everywhere and effectively zero would be investigated. This would give thieves impunity and defeat the purpose of the (substantial) investment in tracking/investigative infrastructure. Sometimes the simpler approach is the better one.
Do you even own a smartphone?...because that's not AT ALL how the device locks work. Using find my iPhone as an example - I can lock the phone, track the location, sent an audible alert to the phone (even if on silent), and send a custom message to the screen ("Phone lost/stolen, call xxx to arrange return") and the phone is otherwise useless except for parts.
It's MUCH less common for people to 'zap' the phone since it makes return much more difficult... and even so, the serial number can still assist with returning it and the owner can 'un-zap' it by which I mean simply unlock it.
To be a bit pedantic: if you lose your phone and someone picks it up...and doesn't turn it over to the police it technically IS stolen.
Lost property is still legally owned by the person who lost it.
Found property does NOT become the property of the finder until it's been turned over to the police and subject to a waiting period.
However, I still agree that a substantial portion of 'theft' is fraudulently labeled so in order to save face, get insurance payouts, etc. but that's and entirely different societal problem.
You have to follow all the anti-money-laundering rules first and launder your money through the gaping holes in the 'advanced' software and algorithms they use.
Actually, if you're investing $350mm, you generally DO get a good way of knowing about the company you're investing in. That is - they pretty much tell you whatever you ask. You get to look at their plans, their tech, their infra, their people, etc.
If you really thing investors throw around that much money on a hunch without some realistic expectations you're naive.
Also, if most of your investments break even and 1 in 10 is a huge hit then you are WAY ahead of the game.
I'm pretty sure he's talking about all the developers selling apps (or freemium apps) in the app store.
With that said, Apple does have a large footprint. Shipping 100m iphones isn't something trucking wave off. Sourcing parts for said devices is a non-trivial task involving many people. Selling, supporting, etc. said devices, again, involves a lot of people. Add in the 3rd party repair shops, people selling related services, etc. and you DO have quite a few people
I'd say most of those 2m jobs are still their app store developers but in the larger bucket, apple represents a non-trivial percentage of a lot of industries related to the products they sell.
No, the onus is on floating wind turbine manufacturers to show that they're safe, not others to show that they're unsafe.
No, you're the making outlandish claims based on zero evidence while others have repeatedly shows related and relevant information supporting their side.
At least 'for the children' is occasionally supported by facts in context. This is clearly for the birds...
[citation needed] on this affecting specific species in any significant way.
No, this isn't the 1930s where we assume things to be safe until proven unsafe. Documentation is needed on it not affecting species in any significant way.
Continuously repeating the same mantra doesn't make it any more true or useful or applicable. Plus you're asking someone to prove a negative in this case.
How does one go about 'proving' something safe without testing it? Computer model? Oh...that's not proof. That's just a make model and we can't be sure we have all the variables, it's too dangerous to test still...and so on.
I don't usually get all ad hom...but you sound like a protectionist idiot. Go back and wrap yourself up in (hypoallergenic, free range, responsibly sourced) blankets, close your eyes, and hum really loud so you don't have to notice the world around you.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, I highly doubt you have any more knowledge about what a CEO does than that CEO would about your programming example. Reviewing the details of a proposed multi-million (or billion) $ multi-faceted deal isn't incredibly different than chasing down code. Multiple input and output streams with a high degree of complexity and multiple variable data points throughout.
Some positions benefit better from close coordination and constant communication. Other positions partly benefit from that and also benefit from closed off space that limits interruptions. And some positions greatly benefit from largely closeted space that minimizes unplanned interruptions for the majority of the day.
With that said, it's the minority of jobs that fit into the first as best I can tell. But contrary to what people think, real-estate is actually pretty expensive in major cities. Fitting twice as many people on a floor is a huge savings to a medium size company - a savings that directly impacts your books (assuming a publicly traded company). So, while there's PLENTY of 'studies' showing the benefits and desire of employees they're all universally bullsh*t. They're driven by 1) people who want to sell office furniture and renovation and 2) people who want to save large amounts of $ on real estate (i.e. driving down run rate costs, which increases pretty much every aspect of your financial books).
See my other post. We could get a media distribution company involved. Call them cable companies :)
I don't think the approach of cable companies or multiple disparate streaming providers is the right way to go...but the media companies are using this as a way to massively change their billing practices in ways that rate increases would never allow.
So we get the mess we have today instead where every company things the shit gold and deserve some ridiculous per-show/stream/person/tv/series/etc. compensation. Just like how music streaming services are paying significantly more per song-listen than traditional radio ever did or does.
One can argue that the companies have colluded to write laws not in the best interest of the population which the government is there to serve. Also, many of these laws are directly opposed to the intent and/or letter of the underlying law (or constitutional law as the case may be) which, excluding the corrupt politics and policies allowing them, should never have been put on the books in the first place.
So based on that, it certainly can be considered justification (moral, if not legal) for individuals committing copyright infringement: The laws in their current state should never have been allowed to exist as they're abusive, oppressive, and not in the interest of the VAST majority of the population they're purporting to 'serve'.
Organized business-level infringement (i.e. for profit) is another story.
Tried that already...and no one likes cable companies.
Why doesn't someone start a service...some kind of company...get ahold of all these streaming providers and sub-license their content streaming?
You could combine them all into one unified interface that they all are accessible from. Give each one an assigned designation separate from their name so they're easy to find. Maybe call it a channel or something. You'd obviously want a directory of them available as part of your service too. Then users could subscribe for a unified fee and access all these 'channels' for a huge variety of shows. Maybe offer packages of similar kinds as add-ons to the base service. And since you have a unified paltform now, you could probably have future plans to avoid rate increases by introducing advertisements at semi-normalized intervals in the shows. Call them commercials. Because the service is unified it would be easy for this provider to insert commercials based on region or other demographics and collect revenue for that towards paying the providers for their content.
Heck, you could even introduce hardware to help give everyone an identical experience. Now, since those boxes access all this content they should be semi-proprietary which would necessitate the provider owning and renting them to you. Couldn't have you using the 'box to provide content to more than one TV or device at once after all. Since all these shows come down via the internet cabling or wireless (which still uses cables for backhaul) why not call them cable companies for slang.
Heck, if they were smart they could also offer other services like internet and telephone!
Same here. I still pay for netflix but mainly for friends who want to watch whatever netflix exclusive while they're over...and I don't care much about the few $/month. But I'm certainly NOT going to pay for a whole bunch of other related services to get all the bits and pieces to make things whole again. Partly because of the money, but also the complexity.
When I want to watch a show and it's not on netflix, I'm very unlikely to go hunting around for which streaming service has it (while filtering the dozen or so that 'sell' heavily DRMd copies of shows for ridiculous prices), then sign up, install their app, log in, find the show...etc.
It's quite literally faster and easier to find a torrent and wait for the download 99% of the time.
Basically the union sees where the auto industry is going and that what will be a huge chunk of it in less than 10 years is outside their nice little garden. They're mad. They're afraid. They don't like change.
TBH, all musk has to do is invalidate any pending stock options for people who unionize and pay them the typical union benefits/rates. They'll make way less and no one will want to jump on that bandwagon.
When you look at the actual stats (not just "people get hurt and we want less of that" nonsense) then Tesla is far and away better than a normal auto plant.
This is, as normal with unions, nothing but propaganda very loosely tied to facts.
Agreed. It's quite the opposite.
The "best" camera isn't going to make someone a good photographer.
I regularly help tourists/friends/etc. with group shots when I'm out. They hand me anything from a phone to a $5k+ dSLR and it's not uncommon to hand it back to "omg wow how did you do that" irrespective of the camera's cost. Understanding basics of lighting and framing is way more important than spending several thousand bucks on gear. Hell, fill flash is probably the most overlooked feature that almost every camera has.
Does my pricey gear get me better shots? Sometimes. But other times I get no shots at all because I don't lug around a backpack full of heavy gear...or rather I take them on my phone since that rarely leaves my side.
I believe someone announced a card specifically for that. basically a stripped down and optimized vid card that doesn't do vid.
Also ETH is heading for a change from POW to POS which I believe removes much of the processing requirements.
And their pictures still suck either way.
TBH there's so much logic built into a modern smartphone to 'fix' shots and avoid the person having to know the first thing about photography than ever before. It works for it's purpose and it's purpose was never to be a dSLR...but to be a functional camera that requires virtually zero skill to use.
And yah...to make hipsters feel better about their egos :)
Did I miss something and cnet started posting actual, accurate information again or did we fall into a time warp and it's the 90s?
Oh wait: Full disclosure: I'm not a professional photographer, but I am an Instagram addict. My phone is my primary lens and, like many other people, I care most about camera quality when upgrading my phone.
Yeah, no. Nothing's changed after all.
The only thing made 'clear' from this article is that it's a useless review. Go visit an actual photography site for reviews on cameras.
That is *exactly* synthesizing bokeh in software. It's a composite image, modified in software. The DOF on such a small lens makes 'real' bokeh pretty much impossible.
For what it is, it's handy and despite being a semi-pro photographer myself I very often grab my phone for a picture instead of keeping a real camera handy. Convenience wins over quality most of the time.
With that said, I consistently get MUCH better pictures from my Samsung than iPhone (I have both thanks to work) and can only view TFA as thinly veiled propaganda. 9 out of 10 dentists agree too. The 10th works for Apple and his NDA prohibits him from commenting ... sparing rumors about the much anticipated iBrush.
That's not rejection, that's bitching and moaning and ... given the effective monopoly (or collusion between the extremely limited choices leading to the same thing) you don't really have any choice to take your money elsewhere.
I prefer the do that with their maternal parent, though the paternal one will suffice.
They don't seem able to find their posterior with both hands so auto-copulation seems a bit outside their abilities.
Did you notice that they bumped prices AND all their new packages charge even more for significantly less bandwidth? Improving service indeed...
Any popular movie, TV show, album, etc. downloads much faster than realtime. Granted the blocks don't come in order so you can't stream off it like that...but it's rare that I have the 'hey let's watch XYZ' idea and it takes longer to download than it does to actually get ready and sit down to watch it.
Plus the huge benefits of time/device/format/etc-shifting any way without silly restrictions. Yeah, I have to store things but $100-200 buys quite a few TB of storage and if I was worried about having to re-download due to ISP caps or whatever, $100 more buys another drive to keep a second copy.
I have netflix because it *was* easier and had most things I wanted. Now it's missing a lot and TBH I only keep it because it's cheap and friends who come over sometimes want to watch stuff and don't understand torrents.
First off, your logic is utterly flawed. A kill switch is only used as an intentional measure after the device has been lost/stolen/etc. and otherwise the device operates completely normally. A 'smart gun' is intended to prevent the normal function unless a special condition is met (RFID/fingerprint/etc.) and so defaults to a 'broken' state.
Completely opposite behaviors.
The kill switch on phones has been working quite well the last few years...and if you don't lose your phone it's effectively transparent.
Criminals typically don't do the cost-benefit analysis and decide to go legit.
Criminals are (typically) not nearly as smart as they think they are either. It 'makes sense' to steal 2-3 phones a day which someone will flip for $50 cash in bulk for you when the prospect of an actual job is abhorrent to your lifestyle.
The same logic chain is what drives many people to rob gas stations and convenience stores despite the low return and fairly high rate of arrest.
In theory, it would be good to flag and make each lost or stolen phone subject of a police investigation.
In reality, this alone would overwhelm pretty much all the police departments everywhere and effectively zero would be investigated. This would give thieves impunity and defeat the purpose of the (substantial) investment in tracking/investigative infrastructure. Sometimes the simpler approach is the better one.
Do you even own a smartphone? ...because that's not AT ALL how the device locks work. Using find my iPhone as an example - I can lock the phone, track the location, sent an audible alert to the phone (even if on silent), and send a custom message to the screen ("Phone lost/stolen, call xxx to arrange return") and the phone is otherwise useless except for parts.
It's MUCH less common for people to 'zap' the phone since it makes return much more difficult ... and even so, the serial number can still assist with returning it and the owner can 'un-zap' it by which I mean simply unlock it.
To be a bit pedantic: if you lose your phone and someone picks it up...and doesn't turn it over to the police it technically IS stolen.
Lost property is still legally owned by the person who lost it.
Found property does NOT become the property of the finder until it's been turned over to the police and subject to a waiting period.
However, I still agree that a substantial portion of 'theft' is fraudulently labeled so in order to save face, get insurance payouts, etc. but that's and entirely different societal problem.
No no no...you can't do that!
You have to follow all the anti-money-laundering rules first and launder your money through the gaping holes in the 'advanced' software and algorithms they use.
Oh wait... :)
Actually, if you're investing $350mm, you generally DO get a good way of knowing about the company you're investing in. That is - they pretty much tell you whatever you ask. You get to look at their plans, their tech, their infra, their people, etc.
If you really thing investors throw around that much money on a hunch without some realistic expectations you're naive.
Also, if most of your investments break even and 1 in 10 is a huge hit then you are WAY ahead of the game.
I'm pretty sure he's talking about all the developers selling apps (or freemium apps) in the app store.
With that said, Apple does have a large footprint. Shipping 100m iphones isn't something trucking wave off. Sourcing parts for said devices is a non-trivial task involving many people. Selling, supporting, etc. said devices, again, involves a lot of people. Add in the 3rd party repair shops, people selling related services, etc. and you DO have quite a few people
I'd say most of those 2m jobs are still their app store developers but in the larger bucket, apple represents a non-trivial percentage of a lot of industries related to the products they sell.
No, the onus is on floating wind turbine manufacturers to show that they're safe, not others to show that they're unsafe.
No, you're the making outlandish claims based on zero evidence while others have repeatedly shows related and relevant information supporting their side.
At least 'for the children' is occasionally supported by facts in context. This is clearly for the birds...
[citation needed] on this affecting specific species in any significant way.
No, this isn't the 1930s where we assume things to be safe until proven unsafe. Documentation is needed on it not affecting species in any significant way.
Continuously repeating the same mantra doesn't make it any more true or useful or applicable. Plus you're asking someone to prove a negative in this case.
How does one go about 'proving' something safe without testing it? Computer model? Oh...that's not proof. That's just a make model and we can't be sure we have all the variables, it's too dangerous to test still...and so on.
I don't usually get all ad hom...but you sound like a protectionist idiot. Go back and wrap yourself up in (hypoallergenic, free range, responsibly sourced) blankets, close your eyes, and hum really loud so you don't have to notice the world around you.