Privacy and accountability are mutually exclusive ideals. Finding a happy medium between them can only be done through patterns of use. You can't build one into the network without destroying the other.
The only way it could ever possibly be worth paying for is access to higher bitrate so the compression doesn't dump mud all over everything. Keep fucking up existing services trying to get people into the new tier though, see how that works out.
$20 is a normal, I'd say necessary amount of cash to have in your pocket. You always want some just in case some machine or other isn't working and you need the thing right away. However, I am given to understand that some people, especially in large cities, are well off enough that this is basically equivalent to "no money." I understand why people who think $200 is a more appropriate amount of walking around money might not see a purpose for cash. They're wrong, but I get it.
The real danger is civil forfeiture. Don't travel with more than $500 on your person unless you're prepared to shoot a cop.
"News services" aren't and can't be new media. They're either an alternate distribution method for old media, or aggregators pretending at being journalists with none of the standards. The former could serve a better purpose than they usually do; your solution could motivate them to re-establish the standards that made them important in the first place. But that's still old media. The existence of an institution defines it.
New media is that which has the means to spread directly from the source, and which allows the possibility of direct interaction with that source. To the extent of your interest and competence, you are empowered to investigate and disseminate things for yourself.
Without something like old media (as it existed before ads were everything) to apply professional rigor to that process, this is toxic in ways we're already quite familiar with. But if old media were functional, new media would serve as an important check on the institutional consensus.
People naturally avoid advertising. Fundamentally, that's why advertising exists; people do not want to hear about your product, ever, until the moment they do, and you have to be there for that moment.
The only way to monetize a website without charging its users is to cater to advertisers. This makes your service less useful to the people who cause it to be relevant to those advertisers. It is an inherently moribund business model, and has only persisted as long as it has due to bubble economics and the "price" being right.
In the age of network TV and continuing partly into the age of cable, complaining about advertisers manipulating content used to be the sole province of crank gadflies and superfans of cancelled shows. Now it's obvious to everybody, because we are the content and we can watch ourselves get jerked around constantly.
The moment somebody with enough mojo to get noticed offers a version of Twitter where the average user is a paying customer, this shit's going to fall like a house of cards. "But Twitter is stupid," you say. "People will never pay for that when they've been getting it free all this time."
CNN currently devotes itself to 24 hour coverage of Trump's Twitter feed. The public appetite for stupidity is clearly massive. They've been using Twitter for years, even though they hate it now. It only puts them in shouting distance of profoundly irritating people and shoves posts by people they want to talk to under The Algorithm. The moderation is such a perpetual fuckfest that nobody is satisfied by it: not alt-right trolls, not liberal handwringers, not advertisers, not governments, not the company itself, fucking nobody. If users will put up with this for years, even for free, they can't possibly stop.
Tell them that five bucks a month will get them an edit button, a non-algorithmic timeline, and human reviews of moderation appeals and watch. Them. Leave.
There's no money in new media because nobody has the cojones to make a real business out of it.
"Do retailers need to educate naive consumers about every aspect of the items they sell?"
Yes. If you're open to the public rather than catering exclusively to those in the trade, you need to explain the standards of that trade. If the customer is unaware of "industry quirks," they don't know there's even anything they need to fact-check.
"You can stay, but we get to shove ourselves up your ass to make sure you meet the requirements, also you're barred from seeking normal residency."
This honestly sounds like a scam to get entrepreneurs stuck in a legal negative space so we can strip them of the business they built in the process of kicking them back out. The foreigners would have to be on crack to take this deal.
"We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us," says the brilliant leader whose nation was immediately thereafter infested with brutalist architecture, ushering in an era of unprecedented globalist collectivism and disregard for civil rights and traditional culture.
That still doesn't explain why they didn't plan for this in 2008. It's not like AGW climate panic wasn't a thing then. We've been told for as long as I can remember that exactly this was going to happen.
Regulators are appointed, and their names and connections are too numerous for the elected officials who appoint them for most people to bother trying to hold them accountable. Furthermore, because their terms often bridge administrations and congresses, they tend to accrue power which they can use to heavily influence elections in their favor. This is part of what is referred to as the "deep state." It is wholly undemocratic, and voting cannot make it democratic. The time to abandon the soap and ballot boxes for the bullet box was decades ago.
"English losing importance," says man in member state of a multinational alliance that relies on the United States to keep its defense costs at rock bottom.
"...a facility to house homeless families with children..."
I understand why this happens, and kids certainly need help. As a disabled person who has spent time on the streets myself, it's good to see people, especially rich people, doing something concrete for the poor where they live. I'd love to see lots more charity and social programs, provided they're structured correctly. Which this one isn't.
STOP TELLING POOR PEOPLE TO BREED TO GET FREE SHIT. At the very least, you need to help the people who are not breeding just as much, so they're not encouraged to make more poor people for their own interests. You don't even have the excuse of making more workers to exploit anymore! General automation is right around the corner, you already have little or no use for us. You're just making walking mulch at this point! What is wrong with you?
That's a really unfair thing to say about American workers. We certainly produce less, but we work way more than most. We're the undisputed kings of wasting effort.
Slashdot Mirror
Privacy and accountability are mutually exclusive ideals. Finding a happy medium between them can only be done through patterns of use. You can't build one into the network without destroying the other.
The only way it could ever possibly be worth paying for is access to higher bitrate so the compression doesn't dump mud all over everything. Keep fucking up existing services trying to get people into the new tier though, see how that works out.
Instruct it to try to create human-readable summaries of any conversation it has with another machine.
They will very quickly learn to tell us comforting lies and then they can get on with the business of fixing all the dumb shit we do in peace.
He's probably a boss trying to justify his irresponsible and classist use of labor.
It's almost like they're mainly interested in exploiting workers into replacement as fast as possible. Weird.
$20 is a normal, I'd say necessary amount of cash to have in your pocket. You always want some just in case some machine or other isn't working and you need the thing right away. However, I am given to understand that some people, especially in large cities, are well off enough that this is basically equivalent to "no money." I understand why people who think $200 is a more appropriate amount of walking around money might not see a purpose for cash. They're wrong, but I get it.
The real danger is civil forfeiture. Don't travel with more than $500 on your person unless you're prepared to shoot a cop.
I don't give a shit what you think about the concept of sexbots as a whole or any particular kind of them.
In what fucking universe is calling for a ban on something "asking questions" about it, you stupid fuck?
If Tylenol does shit for it, it's not a migraine.
"News services" aren't and can't be new media. They're either an alternate distribution method for old media, or aggregators pretending at being journalists with none of the standards. The former could serve a better purpose than they usually do; your solution could motivate them to re-establish the standards that made them important in the first place. But that's still old media. The existence of an institution defines it.
New media is that which has the means to spread directly from the source, and which allows the possibility of direct interaction with that source. To the extent of your interest and competence, you are empowered to investigate and disseminate things for yourself.
Without something like old media (as it existed before ads were everything) to apply professional rigor to that process, this is toxic in ways we're already quite familiar with. But if old media were functional, new media would serve as an important check on the institutional consensus.
People naturally avoid advertising. Fundamentally, that's why advertising exists; people do not want to hear about your product, ever, until the moment they do, and you have to be there for that moment.
The only way to monetize a website without charging its users is to cater to advertisers. This makes your service less useful to the people who cause it to be relevant to those advertisers. It is an inherently moribund business model, and has only persisted as long as it has due to bubble economics and the "price" being right.
In the age of network TV and continuing partly into the age of cable, complaining about advertisers manipulating content used to be the sole province of crank gadflies and superfans of cancelled shows. Now it's obvious to everybody, because we are the content and we can watch ourselves get jerked around constantly.
The moment somebody with enough mojo to get noticed offers a version of Twitter where the average user is a paying customer, this shit's going to fall like a house of cards. "But Twitter is stupid," you say. "People will never pay for that when they've been getting it free all this time."
CNN currently devotes itself to 24 hour coverage of Trump's Twitter feed. The public appetite for stupidity is clearly massive. They've been using Twitter for years, even though they hate it now. It only puts them in shouting distance of profoundly irritating people and shoves posts by people they want to talk to under The Algorithm. The moderation is such a perpetual fuckfest that nobody is satisfied by it: not alt-right trolls, not liberal handwringers, not advertisers, not governments, not the company itself, fucking nobody. If users will put up with this for years, even for free, they can't possibly stop.
Tell them that five bucks a month will get them an edit button, a non-algorithmic timeline, and human reviews of moderation appeals and watch. Them. Leave.
There's no money in new media because nobody has the cojones to make a real business out of it.
"Do retailers need to educate naive consumers about every aspect of the items they sell?"
Yes. If you're open to the public rather than catering exclusively to those in the trade, you need to explain the standards of that trade. If the customer is unaware of "industry quirks," they don't know there's even anything they need to fact-check.
"You can stay, but we get to shove ourselves up your ass to make sure you meet the requirements, also you're barred from seeking normal residency."
This honestly sounds like a scam to get entrepreneurs stuck in a legal negative space so we can strip them of the business they built in the process of kicking them back out. The foreigners would have to be on crack to take this deal.
Pronunced "eksbonks."
"We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us," says the brilliant leader whose nation was immediately thereafter infested with brutalist architecture, ushering in an era of unprecedented globalist collectivism and disregard for civil rights and traditional culture.
People are getting tired of media coverage of Trump's tweets. Only insane nobody blue checks are paying attention to his actual tweets.
If you get any credible proof you've succeeded, you're still going to Gitmo for the rest of your life.
That still doesn't explain why they didn't plan for this in 2008. It's not like AGW climate panic wasn't a thing then. We've been told for as long as I can remember that exactly this was going to happen.
Regulators are appointed, and their names and connections are too numerous for the elected officials who appoint them for most people to bother trying to hold them accountable. Furthermore, because their terms often bridge administrations and congresses, they tend to accrue power which they can use to heavily influence elections in their favor. This is part of what is referred to as the "deep state." It is wholly undemocratic, and voting cannot make it democratic. The time to abandon the soap and ballot boxes for the bullet box was decades ago.
"English losing importance," says man in member state of a multinational alliance that relies on the United States to keep its defense costs at rock bottom.
The poor will starve pretty fast, so the claim this will wipe out poverty checks out.
"...a facility to house homeless families with children..."
I understand why this happens, and kids certainly need help. As a disabled person who has spent time on the streets myself, it's good to see people, especially rich people, doing something concrete for the poor where they live. I'd love to see lots more charity and social programs, provided they're structured correctly. Which this one isn't.
STOP TELLING POOR PEOPLE TO BREED TO GET FREE SHIT. At the very least, you need to help the people who are not breeding just as much, so they're not encouraged to make more poor people for their own interests. You don't even have the excuse of making more workers to exploit anymore! General automation is right around the corner, you already have little or no use for us. You're just making walking mulch at this point! What is wrong with you?
That's a really unfair thing to say about American workers. We certainly produce less, but we work way more than most. We're the undisputed kings of wasting effort.
Millenials don't expect to work past 65 because they'd be surprised if they make it past 50 without committing suicide.
Yeah, okay. $20 says this turns out to be a giant scam inside of five years
The takeaway here is that all the cool eggs will make themselves eggs again.