Free trade may increase economic activity, but the activity may only be profitable to large corporations and not common people (or it may be profitable for anyone).
For example, I would not like it if people from Belarus or Ukraine were allowed to freely move here, even if they did not get welfare. They would offer to work cheaper because they do not need a lot of money - if they save some money and go back home, they will be rich by local standards. The same thing my countrymen are doing in the UK.
I would not like to have my salary reduced (or be laid off) because an Ukrainian offered to do my job cheaper. Even though it would be more profitable to my employer.
Open borders mean immigrants from poor countries going to yours just for the welfare. The EU has a similar problem, at least it used to be limited to the people from the members of the EU and not any country was allowed in.
Clean air may be good, but what would we need to give up for it? Our cars, our air conditioning? Pay much more for electricity? We would probably need to give up our freedom (to use cars, choose a less efficient device etc) for it.
Not having to worry about who's poor and who isn't?
Really? Hillary is a communist or at a very least a socialist? Or does she want to provide more opportunity for the rich to get richer while screwing the poor?
I would love if anyone, including Russia and the USA would dig up and dump dirt on any candidate, as long as the dirt is real.
If the politician is corrupt and Russia provides the proof, then the politician can only blame himself for that. If all corrupt politicians are outed then maybe we would have a chance of a less corrupt government. As it is like now, I feel like having to choose between the Corleone, Tattaglia, Barzini, Cuneo and Stracci families for parliament, so my though process goes something like this "Oh, this party was never elected, let's vote for them, maybe they will be less corrupt than all the previous ones".
build the infrastructure in the way of digging down the cables and then let others offer their services on them. I guess that also solve the issue with people in rural areas not being connected otherwise.
This is what my country is doing. If you do not want to build the infrastructure, the government will and then you can lease it along with your competitors. Without the government doing this, a lot of people would not have access to high speed internet (because it wouldbe too expensive for a single provider to do and the providers may decide against building the infrastructure together and sharing the costs). This also allows smaller companies (or new ones) to better compete with the large ones because they now only need to build the infrastructure in the area their customers live in instead of also building their uplink to another city.
Sure the money ends up in Poland but on the other hand the reason it's cheaper there is most likely because they are poorer and work for lower salaries and pay less in rent and have cheaper land and
The average salary in Poland is a big higher. I guess the money is more equally shared among the managers and the workers. And importing stuff is always bad for the local country, I mean, I am bringing money to another country and leaving it there (when I buy something, part of the money goes to the government as VAT, part of it goes as income tax and then when the employee spends his salary locally, part of that money also goes to the government as tax) instead of paying the taxes in my country.
I do not think that Communism (state has complete control over the market) would be good. It would not. However, I'd like to call my idea (where large companies get tighter leashes) "enforced free market", that is, the government's job here would be to make sure that the market is free and no single company has undue influence on it (because that may lead to a monopoly and that is worse than the state controlling the market).
All this assumes democratic and not completely corrupt government. If the government is a dictatorship or really corrupt, then it is just as bad as the large corporation.
Unregulated free market has positive feedback - it easier for the rich to get richer than for the poor to catch up, or, a bigger company can become even bigger easier (by buying the competitors etc) than a small one can grow. This leads to income inequality and a lot of stale capital (billions that are sitting in a bank account and not doing anything), which, of course leads to all the money going from the poor to the rich and staying there.
The best solution is of course to simply lower taxes and let the market and people themselves figure out where to put their money but well - can't have that, it's a regulated socialist shit-hole after-all.
Regulated socialist shit-hole is better than unregulated US-style capitalism where private corporations are more powerful than the government and can do whatever they want. After all, the market is free, so you are free to choose any internet service provider serving your area: 1. Cable company A - $100/month for 10mbps and 100GB data cap. 2. Telephone company B - $100/month for 10mbps and 100GB data cap.
You are completely free to choose from any of those options. Or maybe you have to choose one from the list of one - just like in elections in the USSR.
I think that small companies should pay less taxes and be more free, bowever, once a company gets too large, it should be put under tight control from the (democratically elected) government, so the company serves the people and not its stockholders/CEO. The idea here is that a market with a lot of small companies offering similar products is quite free and self regulating. However, once one or two companies get too large, all the others would not be able to compete and it raises the bar to enter the market, therefore, the large company should be regulated more. An example would be Microsoft - a lot of people hate Windows 10, but still buy laptops with it, because it is really difficult to find a laptop without Windows (and one that works well with Linux) because of all the deals Microsoft has made with the manufacturers.
Another example would be the cable TV STB fight between FCC and the cable companies. There is no valid reason to force subscribers to buy/lease the STB from the cable company if compatible ones are available. "Cable company wants more money" is not a valid reason.
An example from my country would be the pricing of food after the national currency was replaced with Euro). It is cheaper to drive 200km to Poland to buy food than it is to buy it locally. The large stores blamed this on the farmers and larger VAT in my country. However, you can go to Poland and find milk from my country there cheaper (presumably the farmer does not give a discount to the foreigner). And the price difference is much bigger than the VAT difference. This results in a problem that if you buy stuff in Poland, you pay taxes to their budget and not the local one.
However I would expect that the motivation has little to nothing to do with encouraging Windows usage and more to do with not wanting to spend the money and time testing their hardware under Linux.
And yet, they spent money ant time making ACPI return different values for Linux instead of returning the same ones that Windows gets and if Linux fails to work with them then to hell with it.
So you're saying that despite technology changing and different things being tried, two companies that don't care at all about linux didn't go out of their way to ensure compatibility with your essentially niche desire to install an unsupported os on their machines is somehow a conspiracy against you?
And yet, as far as I understand this, they disabled the option to turn off fakeraid in BIOS, an option that is present in all PCs that support fakeraid, including the older laptops. Disabling the option does not make Windows run better, so there had to be another reason for doing it. If the reason is not to screw Linux users, then what was it?
I sometimes want to hear new music (or rather, old music I haven't heard before), I also like the lack of control with radio and the occasional traffic announcements or news segments.
I listen to radio at work (I use an actual radio and not my phone though). The radio station even announces each hour, so I do not have to keep looking at the clock.
If I play music on my PC (say, I am at home), I always feel the urge to choose the next song, so, I end up spending more time choosing and playing music (and skipping songs) than I was planning to do while listening to music. If I listen to radio or play a tape, I do not get that urge, so I spend more time doing whatever I was planning to do. Listening to radio I do not get the urge to skip a song even if I do not particularly like it (there is some music that would make me tune to another station - thankfully my favorite station does not play it).
And radio has the advantage over tapes in that it sometimes plays a song I haven't heard before, but like.
Because unlike Apple Music, Spotify, Pandora and other online streaming services... FM does not require the use of an internet connection. A lot of cellphone service providers charge for the service based on data transferred (unlike wired internet connections where you usually pay for the connection bandwidth (like 300mbps or whatever), but then can use it 100% and will not need to pay more).
Also, FM radio receiver can use very little power, compared to the cellphone transmitter which needs to be active to use the internet connection.
We can change the ISPs pretty much instantly now. We just change the priorities and prepends on our BGP router and traffic now goes through the new ISP.
So, IPv6 does not support private ASs and (more importantly) addresses owned by private companies?
Currently, the company I work for has its own AS and its own IPv4 subnet. We can use whatever ISP we want and still keep our IPs (we use two ISPs for redundancy and are able to change the ISPs to new ones if we need to). Would this be not possible with IPv6?
So, how does the Tesla autopilot differ from a regular car that does not have such feature? In both you need to pay attention to the road, presumably the same. So why use autopilot at all?
It will also look really suspicious to any bystanders. It may also not work as intended - the driver could have seen the obstacle before you turned on the light or he can use his hand to shield his eyes from the light.
It will also be difficult to achieve this during the day with clear skies.
They most likely needed to figure out how to trick the autopilot. For that you need general-purpose equipment that can be configured to produce various signals. When you find out what signal causes the intended outcome, you can build much cheaper equipment that is only capable of producing that one signal.
When the logs are analyzed after the crash, the equipment will be long gone. And the car logs won't have the fingerprints of the perp the way a brick would.
Using a gun is cheaper, but leaves evidence and if somebody sees you using the gun, they might tell the police.
On the other hand, if the radio equipment can be placed inside a backpack (or two), then there is no evidence that I caused the accident. I am just standing there minding my own business and then walk (or drive) away. If the place usually is full of people, nobody would notice or remember me and would not be able to link me to the accident.
Also, the researchers most likely used general purpose equipment which is more expensive, now that they know how to jam the radar, I am sure that much cheaper devices could be built to do just that.
You can cut the brake lines or plant a bomb in any car, that will do the job quite well. You can also use a bigger car to ram the car off the road, it should also work.
However, messing with the car using radio waves (be it confusing the radar, hacking via bluetooth or wifi or hacking the car via the internet) does not leave evidence. Or, at least does not leave any evidence that may be used to identify you.
So, standing on a bridge and dropping bowling balls or bricks on cars, that are driving under the bridge for fun may get you in trouble. Sitting by the road (or traveling in another car) with an antenna (especially if the equipment and antenna can either be made small/inconspicuous or work from longer ranges) probably won't get you in trouble, since the radio waves do not have your fingerprints.
Slashdot Mirror
Free trade may increase economic activity, but the activity may only be profitable to large corporations and not common people (or it may be profitable for anyone).
For example, I would not like it if people from Belarus or Ukraine were allowed to freely move here, even if they did not get welfare. They would offer to work cheaper because they do not need a lot of money - if they save some money and go back home, they will be rich by local standards. The same thing my countrymen are doing in the UK.
I would not like to have my salary reduced (or be laid off) because an Ukrainian offered to do my job cheaper. Even though it would be more profitable to my employer.
Well, let's try:
Open borders mean immigrants from poor countries going to yours just for the welfare. The EU has a similar problem, at least it used to be limited to the people from the members of the EU and not any country was allowed in.
Clean air may be good, but what would we need to give up for it? Our cars, our air conditioning? Pay much more for electricity? We would probably need to give up our freedom (to use cars, choose a less efficient device etc) for it.
Not having to worry about who's poor and who isn't?
Really? Hillary is a communist or at a very least a socialist? Or does she want to provide more opportunity for the rich to get richer while screwing the poor?
Disclaimer: I do not live in the US.
I would love if anyone, including Russia and the USA would dig up and dump dirt on any candidate, as long as the dirt is real.
If the politician is corrupt and Russia provides the proof, then the politician can only blame himself for that. If all corrupt politicians are outed then maybe we would have a chance of a less corrupt government. As it is like now, I feel like having to choose between the Corleone, Tattaglia, Barzini, Cuneo and Stracci families for parliament, so my though process goes something like this "Oh, this party was never elected, let's vote for them, maybe they will be less corrupt than all the previous ones".
And yet, pilot licenses have different rules based on whether you make money from flying the airplane.
build the infrastructure in the way of digging down the cables and then let others offer their services on them. I guess that also solve the issue with people in rural areas not being connected otherwise.
This is what my country is doing. If you do not want to build the infrastructure, the government will and then you can lease it along with your competitors. Without the government doing this, a lot of people would not have access to high speed internet (because it wouldbe too expensive for a single provider to do and the providers may decide against building the infrastructure together and sharing the costs). This also allows smaller companies (or new ones) to better compete with the large ones because they now only need to build the infrastructure in the area their customers live in instead of also building their uplink to another city.
Sure the money ends up in Poland but on the other hand the reason it's cheaper there is most likely because they are poorer and work for lower salaries and pay less in rent and have cheaper land and
The average salary in Poland is a big higher. I guess the money is more equally shared among the managers and the workers.
And importing stuff is always bad for the local country, I mean, I am bringing money to another country and leaving it there (when I buy something, part of the money goes to the government as VAT, part of it goes as income tax and then when the employee spends his salary locally, part of that money also goes to the government as tax) instead of paying the taxes in my country.
I do not think that Communism (state has complete control over the market) would be good. It would not. However, I'd like to call my idea (where large companies get tighter leashes) "enforced free market", that is, the government's job here would be to make sure that the market is free and no single company has undue influence on it (because that may lead to a monopoly and that is worse than the state controlling the market).
All this assumes democratic and not completely corrupt government. If the government is a dictatorship or really corrupt, then it is just as bad as the large corporation.
Unregulated free market has positive feedback - it easier for the rich to get richer than for the poor to catch up, or, a bigger company can become even bigger easier (by buying the competitors etc) than a small one can grow. This leads to income inequality and a lot of stale capital (billions that are sitting in a bank account and not doing anything), which, of course leads to all the money going from the poor to the rich and staying there.
The best solution is of course to simply lower taxes and let the market and people themselves figure out where to put their money but well - can't have that, it's a regulated socialist shit-hole after-all.
Regulated socialist shit-hole is better than unregulated US-style capitalism where private corporations are more powerful than the government and can do whatever they want. After all, the market is free, so you are free to choose any internet service provider serving your area:
1. Cable company A - $100/month for 10mbps and 100GB data cap.
2. Telephone company B - $100/month for 10mbps and 100GB data cap.
You are completely free to choose from any of those options. Or maybe you have to choose one from the list of one - just like in elections in the USSR.
I think that small companies should pay less taxes and be more free, bowever, once a company gets too large, it should be put under tight control from the (democratically elected) government, so the company serves the people and not its stockholders/CEO.
The idea here is that a market with a lot of small companies offering similar products is quite free and self regulating. However, once one or two companies get too large, all the others would not be able to compete and it raises the bar to enter the market, therefore, the large company should be regulated more. An example would be Microsoft - a lot of people hate Windows 10, but still buy laptops with it, because it is really difficult to find a laptop without Windows (and one that works well with Linux) because of all the deals Microsoft has made with the manufacturers.
Another example would be the cable TV STB fight between FCC and the cable companies. There is no valid reason to force subscribers to buy/lease the STB from the cable company if compatible ones are available. "Cable company wants more money" is not a valid reason.
An example from my country would be the pricing of food after the national currency was replaced with Euro). It is cheaper to drive 200km to Poland to buy food than it is to buy it locally. The large stores blamed this on the farmers and larger VAT in my country. However, you can go to Poland and find milk from my country there cheaper (presumably the farmer does not give a discount to the foreigner). And the price difference is much bigger than the VAT difference. This results in a problem that if you buy stuff in Poland, you pay taxes to their budget and not the local one.
Do you actually have to set it to AHCI or is the mere presence of the option to do so is enough to make Windows run worse?
However I would expect that the motivation has little to nothing to do with encouraging Windows usage and more to do with not wanting to spend the money and time testing their hardware under Linux.
And yet, they spent money ant time making ACPI return different values for Linux instead of returning the same ones that Windows gets and if Linux fails to work with them then to hell with it.
So you're saying that despite technology changing and different things being tried, two companies that don't care at all about linux didn't go out of their way to ensure compatibility with your essentially niche desire to install an unsupported os on their machines is somehow a conspiracy against you?
And yet, as far as I understand this, they disabled the option to turn off fakeraid in BIOS, an option that is present in all PCs that support fakeraid, including the older laptops. Disabling the option does not make Windows run better, so there had to be another reason for doing it. If the reason is not to screw Linux users, then what was it?
Unlimited (or rather, increased limit) data plan costs more. Wifi takes a lot of power.
I can listen to it over the internet, but if I used my cell phone connection, the provider would send me a bill for the data transferred.
I sometimes want to hear new music (or rather, old music I haven't heard before), I also like the lack of control with radio and the occasional traffic announcements or news segments.
I listen to radio at work (I use an actual radio and not my phone though). The radio station even announces each hour, so I do not have to keep looking at the clock.
If I play music on my PC (say, I am at home), I always feel the urge to choose the next song, so, I end up spending more time choosing and playing music (and skipping songs) than I was planning to do while listening to music. If I listen to radio or play a tape, I do not get that urge, so I spend more time doing whatever I was planning to do. Listening to radio I do not get the urge to skip a song even if I do not particularly like it (there is some music that would make me tune to another station - thankfully my favorite station does not play it).
And radio has the advantage over tapes in that it sometimes plays a song I haven't heard before, but like.
Because unlike Apple Music, Spotify, Pandora and other online streaming services... FM does not require the use of an internet connection. A lot of cellphone service providers charge for the service based on data transferred (unlike wired internet connections where you usually pay for the connection bandwidth (like 300mbps or whatever), but then can use it 100% and will not need to pay more).
Also, FM radio receiver can use very little power, compared to the cellphone transmitter which needs to be active to use the internet connection.
IPv4 sometimes with NAT. Some servers have public IPs some have private IPs.
We can change the ISPs pretty much instantly now. We just change the priorities and prepends on our BGP router and traffic now goes through the new ISP.
So, IPv6 does not support private ASs and (more importantly) addresses owned by private companies?
Currently, the company I work for has its own AS and its own IPv4 subnet. We can use whatever ISP we want and still keep our IPs (we use two ISPs for redundancy and are able to change the ISPs to new ones if we need to). Would this be not possible with IPv6?
So, how does the Tesla autopilot differ from a regular car that does not have such feature? In both you need to pay attention to the road, presumably the same. So why use autopilot at all?
It will also look really suspicious to any bystanders. It may also not work as intended - the driver could have seen the obstacle before you turned on the light or he can use his hand to shield his eyes from the light.
It will also be difficult to achieve this during the day with clear skies.
They most likely needed to figure out how to trick the autopilot. For that you need general-purpose equipment that can be configured to produce various signals. When you find out what signal causes the intended outcome, you can build much cheaper equipment that is only capable of producing that one signal.
When the logs are analyzed after the crash, the equipment will be long gone. And the car logs won't have the fingerprints of the perp the way a brick would.
Using a gun is cheaper, but leaves evidence and if somebody sees you using the gun, they might tell the police.
On the other hand, if the radio equipment can be placed inside a backpack (or two), then there is no evidence that I caused the accident. I am just standing there minding my own business and then walk (or drive) away. If the place usually is full of people, nobody would notice or remember me and would not be able to link me to the accident.
Also, the researchers most likely used general purpose equipment which is more expensive, now that they know how to jam the radar, I am sure that much cheaper devices could be built to do just that.
You can cut the brake lines or plant a bomb in any car, that will do the job quite well. You can also use a bigger car to ram the car off the road, it should also work.
However, messing with the car using radio waves (be it confusing the radar, hacking via bluetooth or wifi or hacking the car via the internet) does not leave evidence. Or, at least does not leave any evidence that may be used to identify you.
So, standing on a bridge and dropping bowling balls or bricks on cars, that are driving under the bridge for fun may get you in trouble. Sitting by the road (or traveling in another car) with an antenna (especially if the equipment and antenna can either be made small/inconspicuous or work from longer ranges) probably won't get you in trouble, since the radio waves do not have your fingerprints.
Ukraine would be much better served by building the solar plant along its southern border.
And the Russia may just come and take it.
The power plant, if it was built in Crimea, would belong to Russia now.
There are also fewer terrorists or other people willing to destroy the new power plant (or the power lines) in the exclusion zone compared to Africa.