Yours is the second post mentioning advertising non existent jobs? Wtf?
Can you explain why they would do this?
There are lots of reasons:
1) The job is already filled internally but they are legally required to post it.
2) They have a new or existing employee and they are wanting to know what they employee is worth compared to other people.
3) There is a potential position and they do want to hire someone but they need to know what's out there and what it will cost
before getting approval for a salary range.
4) The job did really exist but they quickly found someone they liked but left the job "open" just in case the first person falls thru.
5) It's a position that frequently has openings and they want to be able to fill it quickly when an opening does happen.
There are likely a bunch of other similar reasons too but most probably fall into the two categories of either "market research" and/or "job technically exists but is currently unavailable to be filled"
Two reasons: So that the ISP can't modify the page in transit to include advertisements or other unwanted elements, which Comcast has been caught doing. Also so that the ISP can't use the URL paths that their subscribers visit to build interest profiles on their subscribers. With HTTPS, the man in the middle sees only the hostname (e.g. "tech.slashdot.org", not the path ("/comments.pl?sid=12295934&cid=56872990").
Those two reasons are really both part of the same real reason: So google can reduce competition. Google wants to hamper other companies ability to build interest profiles and sell advertising.
Certainly are free through places like letsencrypt. Though they're only good for 3 months. If it takes your engineers more than an hour every 3 months to maintain the cers on all those domains, perhaps you need to find better engineers
If your engineers are manually renewing your certificates every 3 months then you also need to find better engineers. The whole reason let's encrypt uses short expiration dates is so that people will automate it. They could easily do a year or longer but then people get lazy and just manually do it.
The assumption was the chance of dying went exponential. But there may be a stability plateau out there nobody has reached yet. Well if not stable then stable-er than exponential anyway.
Your cells stop dividing i.e. renewing, and slowly just die off of old age until there aren't enough cells alive in this or that organ to keep you alive.
But if there are some core of cells that live much longer, or keep dividing, and you can survive the die-off of everything else...
It's a great concept but is it true.l?
A 50/50 chance of dying each year isn't much of a plateau. Also, even if there is a plateau, your quality of life at 105+ isn't very great no matter who you are. You are typically pretty weak and decrepit. It might be useful from a scientific aspect if we can figure out why the remaining cells are more hardy and we can make the other cells behave similarly but unless we can halt aging before people start going down hill, it's almost a curse. It also would be a financial disaster to have a huge number of 100+ people who could barely work sticking around indefinitely.
Well you have reject nerds like Musk who can't think of anything but Space Trek as our ultimate evolution. It just hit me...these tech billionaires are going to kill us all. The road to hell is paved with great intentions. Dorks.
Non of these tech billionaires are jumping on the rockets and I doubt any of them will be in the early waves. They will send plenty of guinea pigs to pave the way before they ever dream of actually getting on a rocket themself. If you are talking about generational ships, probably the only thing that would get a billionaire on one would be the right to be king and even then it would be doubtful.
Yet you're sitting here limiting your means of propulsion to ones we have thought of.
But you're assuming that there is something magical we haven't thought of. Maybe there isn't. Even if there is a magical new propulsion system, how do you create a ship that can travel at 1/10 the speed of light and doesn't get destroyed by the tiny debris it encounters along the way. It is relatively simple to calculate the impact energy of a golf ball or baseball size debris at 1/10 the speed of light and it would likely destroy anything we could create and you are likely going to come across stuff much larger than that and it would be impossible to navigate around this debris at that speed. How do you create a ship that can withstand debris hitting it at 1/10 the speed of light?
The "space is just too big" argument doesn't work. First, there are no physics barriers to visiting other stars, purely engineering ones.
There are also social barriers. In order to reach our level of technology, a civilization likely needs to be hypersocial like us. Technology also brings with it a lot of security and comfort. A space faring species likely has reached the point of post scarcity. So in order to get on a generational ship you would have to give up all your friends, family, comfort, safety, etc.... I don't see most people being willing to do this. We are already as a society unwilling to take as many risks in the past and most people tend to stay close to home. Unless you are forced too like current refuges, most people are unwilling to do the whole "Oregon Trail" and risk dying on a journey for minimal gain.
Generation ships might only make sense as emergency lifeboats for when nature, or more likely man, finally puts a hard expiry date on Earth's habitability.
The problem with this approach is that any event that puts a hard expiration on earth's habitability will likely make the building of a generational ship virtually impossible. Not to mention the politics of only a few people allowed to be on it. Just like life insurance or a loan, your best bet is to get it before you need it. Right now we have the technology and excess resources and manpower to build a generational ship. After we fall, we will likely not have the resources or even the organizational structure to build such a thing.
The focus should be on the quality of the research, not the reputation of the journal.
The whole publish or perish is caused by them not being willing to judge the quality of the research. They are operating on the philosophy that the higher quantity of papers you publish and the more prestigious the journal, the better the research. They are basically using the journals to "grade" the research.
An online business now potentially needs to know tax rules for thousands of jurisdictions.
Not only do they have to know the rules, they have to potentially send the payment to thousands of jurisdictions. Imagine that you sell something for $20 to a thousand people in a thousand different cities. You just grossed $20k and maybe made a profit of about $10k. You need to submit sales taxes of about $2k. No problem except that you have to send $2 to 1000 different addresses. Most of these likely require a business license to submit a payment. Some likely require an online account and they all probably each have slightly different dates, rules, etc.... I would be ok if you could submit that $2k to a federal agency and let them distribute it but expecting small merchants to do it is going to either kill them or make them dependent on a third party like Amazon to handle it for them.
So, previously you could wholesale buy the real time tracking information of every single subscriber from the cell phone companies. Should that be made illegal or does the public availability make it OK for the goernment to obtain as well?
This shouldn't be saved in the first place. You should be required to have a warrant on each individual you want to track before storing this information. If cell phone companies weren't allowed to save this information long term then they wouldn't be tempted to sell it. There is no legitimate use for this information beyond knowing their CURRENT tower location and they definitely shouldn't be storing it longer than 24 hours without a warrant or explicit permission from the individual.
While I agree with this court decision, I also realize that a cell phone is a device that de facto broadcasts your location.
The cell phone provider likely needs to know which tower you are CURRENTLY connected to but there is absolutely no reason that it needs to know your exact location nor does it need to store anything other than the tower you are CURRENTLY connected to. Storing GPS locations and/or previous cell tower locations should be outlawed and stop immediately. It is a ridiculous invasion of privacy that shouldn't be happening. There are certain things like 911 calls where transmitting GPS coordinates or last known location should possibly be allowed to be opted in to but storing multiple previous locations should be completely outlawed without a warrant.
They spend the remainder on worrying if the staff is diverse enough and all 77 genders are represented. Personally I now identify as a wine cork.
In the last few months I have started seeing forms with fields like "Gender Assigned at Birth". This is likely both an attempt to be somewhat "politically correct" while at the same time allowing them to move on with business as usual and not having to try to keep up with the insanity.
Seriously, this seems like an easy problem to solve. We have too much in one place and not enough in another place. Can't we just extract it from the air and bottle it for the people who need it?
That fish are able to make and consistently act on a plan of survival sure is. I always assumed fish were stupid, but here they are.
Individual fish aren't necessarily using intelligence and acting on a plan. They could be inanimate objects and the results would be the same. The ones in the shallow waters are more likely to get caught. This could be personal preference of individual fish, some genetic difference in buoyancy, temperature preference, etc.. Why they are at a different depth doesn't really matter. What matters is the ones that are at the deeper depths are less likely to be caught and therefore more likely to grow bigger. Interestingly, the original article compared fish attracted to bait versus those species not attracted to bait but still didn't seem to realize the obvious connection.
How long will it take that plastic lids are the scape-goat after the great straw wars?
I agree. As we continue on our journey to a disposable society and as the cost of goods continue to drop, we will continue to make more and more stuff disposable. I remember a time when plastic bags were suppose to save the environment by reducing the number of trees cut down to make paper bags. There are probably bigger problems than the drinking straw. Pound for pound, there are likely many things that consume far more plastic per hour of use than the straw. Packaging is a big one as are all the other single use stuff. Even much of our multiuse stuff like cell phones and toys have very short live spans.
If your solution to climate change is a reduction in quality of life; you're doing it wrong.
I never use a straw even in the car. It's unnecessary and I prefer drinking without a straw. If my cup is extremely full, I take one drink before driving off. How is this so difficult? Unless you are driving on an unpaved road, I don't see the advantage of a lid and straw. Have you ever seen someone use a straw with their drive thru coffee? Coffee is hot and would likely be even worse if it spilled yet millions of people manage to drink coffee fine without a straw every day. A straw is completely unnecessary for the average healthy person.
The dispute is over whether Apple, by charging app developers a 30 percent commission fee and only allowing iOS apps to be sold through its own store, has inflated the price of iPhone apps.
Which is a false claim anyway:
People can download the source code to many iOS apps from GitHub, Gitlab, SourceForge, etc.
People can download Xcode for free and people can get a Developer Certificate for free to compile and install apps on their own iOS devices.
You only need to pay Apple $99/year for a Developer Certificate that's enabled to deploy to TestFlight and the App Store.
Even if this is true, this is only for free open source apps. Besides the fact that this is a ridiculous amount of steps to go thru to get an app, this still doesn't give someone the ability to sell an app. Inflated prices and/or monopoly generally refers to apps that you pay money for not open source apps.
Exactly. Google is already hiring a higher percentage of women and minorities than exist in the general population. They are already taking more than their fair share. The only real solution if they want more diversity without stealing from each other is to increase the diversity in the general population but this is hard for a company even as large as google to do. It would likely need to start in grade school and still has to deal with all the subtle factors that cause men and women to choose different careers.
Platform agnosticism really only works if the cost of supporting extra platforms is minimal. When universal web apps are not good enough and companies have to support native apps on multiple platforms, they start looking to which can be cut. In many cases, if your primary user base is mobile, it makes sense to stop supporting web and instead focus on android and ios.
I've been saying this for years. The whole premise behind social media and recommendation engines is broken by design. If it is working as designed then you would only ever see stuff that you "like". This puts everyone in their own private echo chamber. For entertainment this might be ok as you want to relax to something you enjoy but for news, it is a disaster and will only get worse as the algorithms improve.
I don't need unlimited. I would prefer a faster pipe than a higher data cap. Noone can afford to give everyone 1G/sec for $100/month if you saturate it all the time so it's a game of limiting speed or having caps to stop abuse. My kids and I are on the internet constantly. We use around 300gb per month on our fiber line. I think we get 1TB. That is plenty for us.
That's great and all, but where am I supposed to put pet waste? I can't flush litter box bombs down the toilet, because the litter will clog it. (I've tried) Damned if I'm going to use a reuseable bag for that...
You can still buy trashbags, plastic bags, etc... It's just illegal for a store to hand them out like candy every time you buy something. The specific law makes it illegal to use plastic bags for "transportation of merchandise in commerce" and appears to only be at the point of sale so all other uses are still completely legal. Pet waste is not generally considered merchandise so you are in the clear.
Interesting idea in spirit, but silly in practice -- market capitalization has very little to do with actual financial performance or revenue. Even taxing revenue or forcing sell off based on revenue is a more practical approach than what you propose.
Revenue and profits vary greatly by industry. Market cap or assets is pretty straightforward. Do we really need/want trillion dollar companies? Certain industries like chip manufacturers and mining are massive operations that require significant capital and economy of scale but economy of scale has diminishing returns. At some point the negatives of massive corporations outweighs any benefit of economy of scale. Would amazon really be that much different if it was only a $100 billion dollar company instead of a $800 billion dollar company. Besides being a monopoly, the other problem with massive companies is the possibility of a single point of failure bringing society to a halt. Also, companies like Amazon are now larger than some countries. We need to have some check in place so that private companies don't eclipse the world governments and become the defacto government sending everyone back to "the company store" era.
Any merger worth over x billion must inherently be anti-competitive.
I tried to post something similar a few hours ago. As we obviously can't be trusted to decide what is and is not a monopoly maybe we should just start taxing companies on market cap. An extra 10% per year per $100 billion would probably work nicely. So if you're an $800 billion dollar company like amazon or google then either start selling off chunks of your business or expect to pay 10% on the second 100 billion, 20% on the third $100 billion, etc.... Then we don't have to try to decide if and how to break them up. Let them figure out how to do that themselves. And once amazon is 8 small companies, it's easier to make sure those 8 don't collude.
Slashdot Mirror
Yours is the second post mentioning advertising non existent jobs? Wtf?
Can you explain why they would do this?
There are lots of reasons:
1) The job is already filled internally but they are legally required to post it.
2) They have a new or existing employee and they are wanting to know what they employee is worth compared to other people.
3) There is a potential position and they do want to hire someone but they need to know what's out there and what it will cost
before getting approval for a salary range.
4) The job did really exist but they quickly found someone they liked but left the job "open" just in case the first person falls thru.
5) It's a position that frequently has openings and they want to be able to fill it quickly when an opening does happen.
There are likely a bunch of other similar reasons too but most probably fall into the two categories of
either "market research" and/or "job technically exists but is currently unavailable to be filled"
Two reasons: So that the ISP can't modify the page in transit to include advertisements or other unwanted elements, which Comcast has been caught doing. Also so that the ISP can't use the URL paths that their subscribers visit to build interest profiles on their subscribers. With HTTPS, the man in the middle sees only the hostname (e.g. "tech.slashdot.org", not the path ("/comments.pl?sid=12295934&cid=56872990").
Those two reasons are really both part of the same real reason: So google can reduce competition. Google wants to hamper other companies ability to build interest profiles and sell advertising.
Certainly are free through places like letsencrypt. Though they're only good for 3 months. If it takes your engineers more than an hour every 3 months to maintain the cers on all those domains, perhaps you need to find better engineers
If your engineers are manually renewing your certificates every 3 months then you also need to find better engineers. The whole reason let's encrypt uses short expiration dates is so that people will automate it. They could easily do a year or longer but then people get lazy and just manually do it.
The assumption was the chance of dying went exponential. But there may be a stability plateau out there nobody has reached yet. Well if not stable then stable-er than exponential anyway.
Your cells stop dividing i.e. renewing, and slowly just die off of old age until there aren't enough cells alive in this or that organ to keep you alive.
But if there are some core of cells that live much longer, or keep dividing, and you can survive the die-off of everything else...
It's a great concept but is it true.l?
A 50/50 chance of dying each year isn't much of a plateau. Also, even if there is a plateau, your quality of life at 105+ isn't very great no matter who you are. You are typically pretty weak and decrepit. It might be useful from a scientific aspect if we can figure out why the remaining cells are more hardy and we can make the other cells behave similarly but unless we can halt aging before people start going down hill, it's almost a curse. It also would be a financial disaster to have a huge number of 100+ people who could barely work sticking around indefinitely.
Well you have reject nerds like Musk who can't think of anything but Space Trek as our ultimate evolution. It just hit me...these tech billionaires are going to kill us all. The road to hell is paved with great intentions. Dorks.
Non of these tech billionaires are jumping on the rockets and I doubt any of them will be in the early waves. They will send plenty of guinea pigs to pave the way before they ever dream of actually getting on a rocket themself. If you are talking about generational ships, probably the only thing that would get a billionaire on one would be the right to be king and even then it would be doubtful.
Yet you're sitting here limiting your means of propulsion to ones we have thought of.
But you're assuming that there is something magical we haven't thought of. Maybe there isn't. Even if there is a magical new propulsion system, how do you create a ship that can travel at 1/10 the speed of light and doesn't get destroyed by the tiny debris it encounters along the way. It is relatively simple to calculate the impact energy of a golf ball or baseball size debris at 1/10 the speed of light and it would likely destroy anything we could create and you are likely going to come across stuff much larger than that and it would be impossible to navigate around this debris at that speed. How do you create a ship that can withstand debris hitting it at 1/10 the speed of light?
The "space is just too big" argument doesn't work. First, there are no physics barriers to visiting other stars, purely engineering ones.
There are also social barriers. In order to reach our level of technology, a civilization likely needs to be hypersocial like us. Technology also brings with it a lot of security and comfort. A space faring species likely has reached the point of post scarcity. So in order to get on a generational ship you would have to give up all your friends, family, comfort, safety, etc.... I don't see most people being willing to do this. We are already as a society unwilling to take as many risks in the past and most people tend to stay close to home. Unless you are forced too like current refuges, most people are unwilling to do the whole "Oregon Trail" and risk dying on a journey for minimal gain.
Generation ships might only make sense as emergency lifeboats for when nature, or more likely man, finally puts a hard expiry date on Earth's habitability.
The problem with this approach is that any event that puts a hard expiration on earth's habitability will likely make the building of a generational ship virtually impossible. Not to mention the politics of only a few people allowed to be on it. Just like life insurance or a loan, your best bet is to get it before you need it. Right now we have the technology and excess resources and manpower to build a generational ship. After we fall, we will likely not have the resources or even the organizational structure to build such a thing.
The focus should be on the quality of the research, not the reputation of the journal.
The whole publish or perish is caused by them not being willing to judge the quality of the research. They are operating on the philosophy that the higher quantity of papers you publish and the more prestigious the journal, the better the research. They are basically using the journals to "grade" the research.
An online business now potentially needs to know tax rules for thousands of jurisdictions.
Not only do they have to know the rules, they have to potentially send the payment to thousands of jurisdictions. Imagine that you sell something for $20 to a thousand people in a thousand different cities. You just grossed $20k and maybe made a profit of about $10k. You need to submit sales taxes of about $2k. No problem except that you have to send $2 to 1000 different addresses. Most of these likely require a business license to submit a payment. Some likely require an online account and they all probably each have slightly different dates, rules, etc.... I would be ok if you could submit that $2k to a federal agency and let them distribute it but expecting small merchants to do it is going to either kill them or make them dependent on a third party like Amazon to handle it for them.
So, previously you could wholesale buy the real time tracking information of every single subscriber from the cell phone companies. Should that be made illegal or does the public availability make it OK for the goernment to obtain as well?
This shouldn't be saved in the first place. You should be required to have a warrant on each individual you want to track before storing this information. If cell phone companies weren't allowed to save this information long term then they wouldn't be tempted to sell it. There is no legitimate use for this information beyond knowing their CURRENT tower location and they definitely shouldn't be storing it longer than 24 hours without a warrant or explicit permission from the individual.
While I agree with this court decision, I also realize that a cell phone is a device that de facto broadcasts your location.
The cell phone provider likely needs to know which tower you are CURRENTLY connected to but there is absolutely no reason that it needs to know your exact location nor does it need to store anything other than the tower you are CURRENTLY connected to. Storing GPS locations and/or previous cell tower locations should be outlawed and stop immediately. It is a ridiculous invasion of privacy that shouldn't be happening. There are certain things like 911 calls where transmitting GPS coordinates or last known location should possibly be allowed to be opted in to but storing multiple previous locations should be completely outlawed without a warrant.
They spend the remainder on worrying if the staff is diverse enough and all 77 genders are represented. Personally I now identify as a wine cork.
In the last few months I have started seeing forms with fields like "Gender Assigned at Birth". This is likely both an attempt to be somewhat "politically correct" while at the same time allowing them to move on with business as usual and not having to try to keep up with the insanity.
Seriously, this seems like an easy problem to solve. We have too much in one place and not enough in another place.
Can't we just extract it from the air and bottle it for the people who need it?
That fish are able to make and consistently act on a plan of survival sure is. I always assumed fish were stupid, but here they are.
Individual fish aren't necessarily using intelligence and acting on a plan. They could be inanimate objects and the results would be the same. The ones in the shallow waters are more likely to get caught. This could be personal preference of individual fish, some genetic difference in buoyancy, temperature preference, etc.. Why they are at a different depth doesn't really matter. What matters is the ones that are at the deeper depths are less likely to be caught and therefore more likely to grow bigger. Interestingly, the original article compared fish attracted to bait versus those species not attracted to bait but still didn't seem to realize the obvious connection.
How long will it take that plastic lids are the scape-goat after the great straw wars?
I agree. As we continue on our journey to a disposable society and as the cost of goods continue to drop, we will continue to make more and more stuff disposable. I remember a time when plastic bags were suppose to save the environment by reducing the number of trees cut down to make paper bags. There are probably bigger problems than the drinking straw. Pound for pound, there are likely many things that consume far more plastic per hour of use than the straw. Packaging is a big one as are all the other single use stuff. Even much of our multiuse stuff like cell phones and toys have very short live spans.
Tell me how that goes while you're driving.
If your solution to climate change is a reduction in quality of life; you're doing it wrong.
I never use a straw even in the car. It's unnecessary and I prefer drinking without a straw. If my cup is extremely full, I take one drink before driving off. How is this so difficult? Unless you are driving on an unpaved road, I don't see the advantage of a lid and straw. Have you ever seen someone use a straw with their drive thru coffee? Coffee is hot and would likely be even worse if it spilled yet millions of people manage to drink coffee fine without a straw every day. A straw is completely unnecessary for the average healthy person.
Which is a false claim anyway:
Even if this is true, this is only for free open source apps. Besides the fact that this is a ridiculous amount of steps to go thru to get an app, this still doesn't give someone the ability to sell an app. Inflated prices and/or monopoly generally refers to apps that you pay money for not open source apps.
Exactly. Google is already hiring a higher percentage of women and minorities than exist in the general population. They are already taking more than their fair share. The only real solution if they want more diversity without stealing from each other is to increase the diversity in the general population but this is hard for a company even as large as google to do. It would likely need to start in grade school and still has to deal with all the subtle factors that cause men and women to choose different careers.
Platform agnosticism really only works if the cost of supporting extra platforms is minimal. When universal web apps are not good enough and companies have to support native apps on multiple platforms, they start looking to which can be cut. In many cases, if your primary user base is mobile, it makes sense to stop supporting web and instead focus on android and ios.
I've been saying this for years. The whole premise behind social media and recommendation engines is broken by design. If it is working as designed then you would only ever see stuff that you "like". This puts everyone in their own private echo chamber. For entertainment this might be ok as you want to relax to something you enjoy but for news, it is a disaster and will only get worse as the algorithms improve.
I don't need unlimited. I would prefer a faster pipe than a higher data cap.
Noone can afford to give everyone 1G/sec for $100/month if you saturate it all the time so it's a game of limiting speed or having caps to stop abuse. My kids and I are on the internet constantly. We use around 300gb per month on our fiber line.
I think we get 1TB. That is plenty for us.
That's great and all, but where am I supposed to put pet waste? I can't flush litter box bombs down the toilet, because the litter will clog it. (I've tried) Damned if I'm going to use a reuseable bag for that...
You can still buy trashbags, plastic bags, etc... It's just illegal for a store to hand them out like candy every time you buy something. The specific law makes it illegal to use plastic bags for "transportation of merchandise in commerce" and appears to only be at the point of sale so all other uses are still completely legal. Pet waste is not generally considered merchandise so you are in the clear.
Interesting idea in spirit, but silly in practice -- market capitalization has very little to do with actual financial performance or revenue. Even taxing revenue or forcing sell off based on revenue is a more practical approach than what you propose.
Revenue and profits vary greatly by industry. Market cap or assets is pretty straightforward. Do we really need/want trillion dollar companies? Certain industries like chip manufacturers and mining are massive operations that require significant capital and economy of scale but economy of scale has diminishing returns. At some point the negatives of massive corporations outweighs any benefit of economy of scale. Would amazon really be that much different if it was only a $100 billion dollar company instead of a $800 billion dollar company. Besides being a monopoly, the other problem with massive companies is the possibility of a single point of failure bringing society to a halt. Also, companies like Amazon are now larger than some countries. We need to have some check in place so that private companies don't eclipse the world governments and become the defacto government sending everyone back to "the company store" era.
Any merger worth over x billion must inherently be anti-competitive.
I tried to post something similar a few hours ago. As we obviously can't be trusted to decide what is and is not a monopoly maybe we should just start taxing companies on market cap. An extra 10% per year per $100 billion would probably work nicely. So if you're an $800 billion dollar company like amazon or google then either start selling off chunks of your business or expect to pay 10% on the second 100 billion, 20% on the third $100 billion, etc.... Then we don't have to try to decide if and how to break them up. Let them figure out how to do that themselves. And once amazon is 8 small companies, it's easier to make sure those 8 don't collude.