Did you miss the part where robots and automation takes over producing goods and services?
Only Robots producing goods and services, vs Humans and Robots producing goods and services.
Less wealth vs More Wealth.
This is simple, but you are thinking that I missed something? The reason that the basics (such as simple math) are so elusive to you here is cognitive dissonance. You can't feel good about the math, so you dont even notice when you make a horrible math error like declare that 1 is greater than 2.
The real solution to stopping this shit ending up at parliament is for people to make a stand against fake charities
Your solution leaves the corrupt politicians that sell legislation to fake charities in play.
Maybe instead of focusing on the symptom, you should focus on the cause. The cause is the politicians who sell legislation to fake charities. Stop voting for them.
And dont respond with an excuse for why you continue to vote for them. You are already dead in the water with that angle because when you took the moral high ground you also decided to shift the blame away from people that take money for legislation.
Disagree. A parent can't always hover over their children - heck, a parent shouldn't.
Your idea of using the government to take over for the worst parenting is awesome.
I'll be moving in tomorrow to protect your children from you, The worst parents abuse their children after all. You are right, not every parent can be a good parent 24/7. Thats why you are no longer allowed to be around your children unsupervised.
But UBI is not supposed to create wealth, it is supposed to redistribute it.
Thats funny, because it looks like its redistributing money, not wealth.
Wealth is the goods and services that people enjoy. Now if you create an incentive not to produce goods and not to provide services...there there will be less goods and services to go around... really.
Thats it. Thats the whole fucking thing boiled down to the only fact that matters. If you give people an incentive to not produce goods and to not provide services, then its a fact that less people will produce goods and less people will provide services. Thats less goods and less services to go around. Thats less wealth.
You claim that UBI isnt intended to create wealth... no fucking shit.. it destroys wealth.
..which is why single people have an on/off relationship with Netflix. We subscribe for a month or two until we've caught up, then we unsubscribe for several months.
A normal business response to users like us would be to offer a 2 year contract that we cant refuse, but Netflix doesnt have the luxury to do that because none of their content is so temporary.
Netflix knows that its not in the power position in its relationship with its customers, and the studios could easily destroy them if they wanted to with an easy to follow one step plan: Do not sign any more contracts with Netflix.
Based on other comments, the devil is in the details regarding the 8086/8088 processors.
...only to people that think that the bus width defines the arity of the processor. This idea is only accurate if you are a raging novice on the subject.
Under their definition, my several year old 4-core A10-6800K is a 128-bit processor and the latest processors are all 256-bit. This should be the end of the debate on that matter because its a stupid definition imagined by what are ostensibly outsiders to the subject.
The number of address lines is also not suitable, as under that definition there still arent any 64-bit processors.
The only sensible definition is the width of a machine word, but even that is tricky, as it could be reasonably argued that starting with the 486 (which integrated the x87 FPU) the word size has been and continues to remain 80-bit.
So the definition is that a processors arity is the width of the largest machine word that the CPU can use as an address. In this case, 64-bit is here, and in fact 64-bit, 32-bit, and 16-bit all arrived when everyone said that they did.
A data bus could be 1-bit (aka serial) and I imagine if optical computing ever takes off that that might be the best choice there.
charge only for data leaving their network, instead of charging for data traversing their wireless networks.
This is exactly how the backbone is organized and settled. When people mention "settlement free" peering agreements, these are normally just when the data going both ways is about balanced. Every once in awhile one of these agreements gets stressed due to a growing imbalance, several times now due specifically to netflix's at-the-time provider (first when they were with Cogent, second when they were with Level 3, and interestingly that first time the dispute was between Cogent and Level 3) discovering that one of their settlement-free agreements isnt going to be settlement-free in the future.
In any event, ultimately its the sender of the packets that must secure its delivery. In some cases this requires paying someone else to complete the task.
1) It's not a baby. Not by a long shot yet. Science trumps belief.
Do tell us the scientific definition of "baby."
Let me explain the science for you. The fetus is human. Its a growing homo sapien. Humans have rights. That last part is not science but instead its ethics. Human rights.
Under the law, only People and certain domesticated animals have rights, and this is where you should be arguing from. The fetus is not a Person under the law. Thats where you take your stand. Dont take a position that isnt based on sound factual reasoning when you have a clear, sound, reasoned and wholly factual position that does as well.
This idea that you can so trivially dehumanize the fetus is telling. Its easier to do great harm to someone when they arent a real person. We have dehumanized and done great harm to groups of people before.
This is an ethics problem, not a science problem, but I can tell that you arent all that comfortable with this part of your ethics being on display, so you have tried to redefine it as a science problem. Trouble is, science says that a fetus has its own unique human DNA. The issue at hand is should we let a person kill another human being under these specific circumstances: Its the mother that wants it done, and its not yet a person.
If you want to argue that the fetus is not a Person under the law, you would easily win vs me. But dont call that science either.
The thing is, they havent "dispersed" throughout the State.. the ones that have moved there already are mainly centered around Keene. Several dozen of them have already been elected to the State legislature. They took 12 State House seats in 2010 alone.
You guys think whats going on there is just something that might happen in the future and probably wont work if it does, but its already happening and it is already demonstrably working.
The plan was so sound that even a partial execution of it has already gotten results.
While that may be true, it could be considered an attack vector.
Major parts of all modern operating systems are dedicated to reducing attack vectors. Even main memory has an OS gatekeeper.
While I sit here wondering why the fucking bios variables dont have an OS gatekeeper, I find it a bit alarming that instead of access restrictions there is in fact a red carpet.
There is already so much public crap on Trump he should be buried 15' deep, but apparently his Republican base just doesn't care.
Weak interpretation.
Trump only matters because the media gives him more coverage than all the other candidates from both parties combined. The media is literally funding his election campaign. Trump will be elected for certain unless he pulls out of the race.
The HFT will also get you the money saving advantages of a smaller spread.
The anti-algorithms crowd like to gloss over the fact that its always the best offers at both ends of the spread that get the trade. These HFT's only get trades when they offer a better prices than anyone else. That should be the end of the discussion. The fact that there is such vicious competition over the margin is a good thing.
And since free movement of people is one of founding principles of EU - it can't happen.
Its going to happen anyways, and it will be many years before it becomes unsustainable, and at that point the E.U. will go through an autonomy crisis where a big decision is made regarding the authority of the E.U. over its member States.
Slashdot Mirror
...save consumers $300 million a year in electricity costs...
So $1/year/person. In other words, no savings to speak of.
Did you miss the part where robots and automation takes over producing goods and services?
Only Robots producing goods and services, vs Humans and Robots producing goods and services.
Less wealth vs More Wealth.
This is simple, but you are thinking that I missed something? The reason that the basics (such as simple math) are so elusive to you here is cognitive dissonance. You can't feel good about the math, so you dont even notice when you make a horrible math error like declare that 1 is greater than 2.
The real solution to stopping this shit ending up at parliament is for people to make a stand against fake charities
Your solution leaves the corrupt politicians that sell legislation to fake charities in play.
Maybe instead of focusing on the symptom, you should focus on the cause. The cause is the politicians who sell legislation to fake charities. Stop voting for them.
And dont respond with an excuse for why you continue to vote for them. You are already dead in the water with that angle because when you took the moral high ground you also decided to shift the blame away from people that take money for legislation.
Disagree. A parent can't always hover over their children - heck, a parent shouldn't.
Your idea of using the government to take over for the worst parenting is awesome.
I'll be moving in tomorrow to protect your children from you, The worst parents abuse their children after all. You are right, not every parent can be a good parent 24/7. Thats why you are no longer allowed to be around your children unsupervised.
Are you picking up what I am putting down?
But UBI is not supposed to create wealth, it is supposed to redistribute it.
Thats funny, because it looks like its redistributing money, not wealth.
Wealth is the goods and services that people enjoy. Now if you create an incentive not to produce goods and not to provide services...there there will be less goods and services to go around... really.
Thats it. Thats the whole fucking thing boiled down to the only fact that matters. If you give people an incentive to not produce goods and to not provide services, then its a fact that less people will produce goods and less people will provide services. Thats less goods and less services to go around. Thats less wealth.
You claim that UBI isnt intended to create wealth... no fucking shit.. it destroys wealth.
..which is why single people have an on/off relationship with Netflix. We subscribe for a month or two until we've caught up, then we unsubscribe for several months.
A normal business response to users like us would be to offer a 2 year contract that we cant refuse, but Netflix doesnt have the luxury to do that because none of their content is so temporary.
Netflix knows that its not in the power position in its relationship with its customers, and the studios could easily destroy them if they wanted to with an easy to follow one step plan: Do not sign any more contracts with Netflix.
Do you realize that under your definition, you probably posted that with a 256-bit computer?
Based on other comments, the devil is in the details regarding the 8086/8088 processors.
Under their definition, my several year old 4-core A10-6800K is a 128-bit processor and the latest processors are all 256-bit. This should be the end of the debate on that matter because its a stupid definition imagined by what are ostensibly outsiders to the subject.
The number of address lines is also not suitable, as under that definition there still arent any 64-bit processors.
The only sensible definition is the width of a machine word, but even that is tricky, as it could be reasonably argued that starting with the 486 (which integrated the x87 FPU) the word size has been and continues to remain 80-bit.
So the definition is that a processors arity is the width of the largest machine word that the CPU can use as an address. In this case, 64-bit is here, and in fact 64-bit, 32-bit, and 16-bit all arrived when everyone said that they did.
A data bus could be 1-bit (aka serial) and I imagine if optical computing ever takes off that that might be the best choice there.
I desperately want a middle line drawn on the curve.
Buy some paint and do it late at night.
Replacing a fixed 6 week schedule with a 6 to 8 week schedule and having the same number of releases a year is mathematically impossible
Veracity isnt one of the metrics that they were "optimizing."
charge only for data leaving their network, instead of charging for data traversing their wireless networks.
This is exactly how the backbone is organized and settled. When people mention "settlement free" peering agreements, these are normally just when the data going both ways is about balanced. Every once in awhile one of these agreements gets stressed due to a growing imbalance, several times now due specifically to netflix's at-the-time provider (first when they were with Cogent, second when they were with Level 3, and interestingly that first time the dispute was between Cogent and Level 3) discovering that one of their settlement-free agreements isnt going to be settlement-free in the future.
In any event, ultimately its the sender of the packets that must secure its delivery. In some cases this requires paying someone else to complete the task.
1) It's not a baby. Not by a long shot yet. Science trumps belief.
Do tell us the scientific definition of "baby."
Let me explain the science for you. The fetus is human. Its a growing homo sapien. Humans have rights. That last part is not science but instead its ethics. Human rights.
Under the law, only People and certain domesticated animals have rights, and this is where you should be arguing from. The fetus is not a Person under the law. Thats where you take your stand. Dont take a position that isnt based on sound factual reasoning when you have a clear, sound, reasoned and wholly factual position that does as well.
This idea that you can so trivially dehumanize the fetus is telling. Its easier to do great harm to someone when they arent a real person. We have dehumanized and done great harm to groups of people before.
This is an ethics problem, not a science problem, but I can tell that you arent all that comfortable with this part of your ethics being on display, so you have tried to redefine it as a science problem. Trouble is, science says that a fetus has its own unique human DNA. The issue at hand is should we let a person kill another human being under these specific circumstances: Its the mother that wants it done, and its not yet a person.
If you want to argue that the fetus is not a Person under the law, you would easily win vs me. But dont call that science either.
and dispersed throughout the state.
The thing is, they havent "dispersed" throughout the State .. the ones that have moved there already are mainly centered around Keene. Several dozen of them have already been elected to the State legislature. They took 12 State House seats in 2010 alone.
You guys think whats going on there is just something that might happen in the future and probably wont work if it does, but its already happening and it is already demonstrably working.
The plan was so sound that even a partial execution of it has already gotten results.
If the title was "How I diagnosed and fixed an obscure UVC camera issue" then it would be appropriate for slashdot.
While that may be true, it could be considered an attack vector.
Major parts of all modern operating systems are dedicated to reducing attack vectors. Even main memory has an OS gatekeeper.
While I sit here wondering why the fucking bios variables dont have an OS gatekeeper, I find it a bit alarming that instead of access restrictions there is in fact a red carpet.
Mounting UEFI variables as read only breaks things too
Firmware developers, for not being resiliant in the face of such shenanigans
The firmware guys didnt ask that its contents be exposed as just another generic part of the storage hierarchy. Its supposed to be Handle With Care.
I am not an audiophile, but the tiny amp inside wireless headphones usually suck.
Stop buying the cheapest pair on the rack.
There is already so much public crap on Trump he should be buried 15' deep, but apparently his Republican base just doesn't care.
Weak interpretation.
Trump only matters because the media gives him more coverage than all the other candidates from both parties combined. The media is literally funding his election campaign. Trump will be elected for certain unless he pulls out of the race.
I'm a T-Mobile customer [...] I still don't trust T-Mobile.
I see your real problem.
a) You have been giving money to your enemy.
b) You plan to eagerly continue to give money to your enemy.
Let us know when you take the first step and accept responsibility.
People do not have an incentive to shop around so long as insurance is covering it.
HFT will just get your order filled faster.
The HFT will also get you the money saving advantages of a smaller spread.
The anti-algorithms crowd like to gloss over the fact that its always the best offers at both ends of the spread that get the trade. These HFT's only get trades when they offer a better prices than anyone else. That should be the end of the discussion. The fact that there is such vicious competition over the margin is a good thing.
but it's the only reasonable option my employer is offering me.
Please explain why only your employer (or perhaps government) be the only ones that can offer you a retirement strategy.
I'm not saying that there were not blackouts
Actually, yes you did say that. You said it so directly that you could not have meant anything else.
Now you are not just wrong, but a fucking liar too.
And since free movement of people is one of founding principles of EU - it can't happen.
Its going to happen anyways, and it will be many years before it becomes unsustainable, and at that point the E.U. will go through an autonomy crisis where a big decision is made regarding the authority of the E.U. over its member States.