Efficiency gains in the most important sectors have slowed. A decent but not foolproof indicator is those sectors continue to outpace inflation. You know sectors like healthcare, food, education, and transportation. Capitalism won't go away (at least not for anything better) until the cost of providing basic needs is lower than capitalism will support.
I might be tempted to try it for myself if I had a condition and wasn't getting adequate support from the industry. However, there is a social/legal expectation that even though I'm the primary decision maker for my child, the only life critical advice that can override an expert in the field is another expert even if the risk from the original expert advice is higher than what I may choose on my own. Losing your child is bad enough, having to stew on how you failed from a prison cell the rest of your life would be cruel.
There is a cost to society for having a significant number of obese members. I'm not fond of using shaming as a tactic to promote social change, but society does have an actual stake in your weight and a reason to pressure you into a healthier category. This is only more clear with the identification of neuroscientific reasons that you will stay in the costlier state if you take yourself there.
It doesn't happen without Democrats splitting similarly for strategic and procedural reasons. If it was feasible then they would have split off the tea party.
That isn't really a problem. Historically mass unemployment ends in revolt. The property owners will have to implement universal basic income if that is a real possibility. The real problem is if it creeps along industry by industry like it has been replacing an industry or two every decade. Then a revolt will not be likely in the property owners' lifetimes. There will be no need to implement universal basic income until it is too late for that to stem the violence, because there are other industries to find employment in.
Humans do pay less and less to their primary task if their primary task involves little interaction. However, the spread of this technology is pretty narrow. Even if it turns out to be really bad, Tesla is probably not going to deal with more deaths than Toyota had to deal with from not nailing down their floor mats. Not to mention, even in autonomous mode current law puts the person in the driver's seat under responsibility. In the meantime, Tesla is learning all the things it needs to to become a leader in making the driver obsolete and in the end making ground transportation safer. Whoever the leader in this transition is going to have to eat the bad press when things go south the first time.
If I had a nickle for every time someone told me that PC gaming was dead, then maybe I'd have a current gen console in the house. I expect this is much of the same.
I haven't gone there yet, but I've considered it. I'm close to the end of the line for media services. Cable stops at the end of my street and the company won't invest to actually run it to the houses on the street. We are serviced by the furthest piece of DSL equipment from whatever central routing equipment AT&T has in the local service area. We've had several service problems, but they are usually received with a level of dismissal that I can only assume is "we barely have a business case to have the wires down your street."
A pretty decent counter-indicator of whether or not it will be a game changer is the marketing department of the company labeling it as a game changer especially prior to actually selling any units.
I came down here to comment something similar, but I'm wondering why cabbies will make riskier driving choices than bus drivers. Is it the potential for a higher tip for getting there faster? Is it fewer passengers to be potential liabilities?
I can't help but think there are many, many cars on the road that haven't seen a dealership in a long time. No maintenance, self-maintenance, non-dealer maintenance. Eventually, we will get to the point where a significant amount of cars that need software updates will be in that pool.
I've come to think of it as a position/velocity problem. Democrats see poverty as a position of wealth problem. I'm poor if I don't have enough wealth to make it day-in, day-out. Republicans see poverty as a velocity of wealth problem. I'm poor if I can't leverage my wealth to accumulate enough over time to change economic classes. There are problems with both because they are far too ideological. It would certainly be easy for either party to use their "moral" position to oppress the poor.
Us Gen-Xers born after Star Wars don't really count. We are somewhere between Gen-X and Y. We missed these movie moments. Gen-X's music was changing just as we started to get in to music. The dot-com bubble hit before most of us were gainfully employed. But we are still old enough to know a past where our every moment wasn't consumed with tech. A time before a ubiquitous internet. A time when our computers had to squeal at other computers to communicate. We were mostly mature before social media took off.
Frankly, the easiest way to comply is just to lock everything down. It doesn't really matter how much the FCC bends over backwards to accommodate third party open source firmware. The ruling made it harder to make a business case for letting the end user change the firmware. Someone was bound to comply this way, probably a lot of someones.
I can at best remember two parts of a set of direction. Nothing makes safe driving like searching a 20x20 sheet of paper in the middle of a crowded unfamiliar urban environment where you are probably making several turns because of street unidirectionality.
If legal control doesn't matter then how is the geographic region relevant to the article? I presumed this was hinting at some sort of collusion. If that wasn't the case then how they attempted to get there is pretty irrelevant.
We've created a society where it is encouraged to live inside your own echo chamber on every topic. We physically seek out places to live that conform to our standards. We seek out online news and data sources that conform to our biases. We elect the people who talk like us on issues and the "intelligent and sane" party is happy with suggesting the other side to be shot into space because they aren't even human. Letting people curate their own information isn't doing what you say it should be doing.
Ok. Now that we've established that. Which governing organization has authority over Scotland's airspace? That would be the most relevant to identifying the actual meaning of the original comment.
When I was on cable, it never really bothered me that they weren't delivering the advertised speed until they oversubscribed the neighborhood. Everyone gets home from work/school and uses the network at the same time. Speed crawled to a snail's pace and primetime TV went blocky and unwatchable. It is one thing to do best effort, it is entirely a different thing to oversubscribe to the point that you can't provide usable service during peak usage.
Best effort: they will oversubscribe until a good percentage of customers are complaining about not getting the speed they are paying for and then just refuse service to anyone else who asks for it.
It already is that way. Discounting my equipment fees, I'm paying less with my traditional bundle than replacing either by content volume or by desired channel what the equivalent streaming services would be. Content providers have caught up with cord cutters.
Slashdot Mirror
Efficiency gains in the most important sectors have slowed. A decent but not foolproof indicator is those sectors continue to outpace inflation. You know sectors like healthcare, food, education, and transportation. Capitalism won't go away (at least not for anything better) until the cost of providing basic needs is lower than capitalism will support.
I might be tempted to try it for myself if I had a condition and wasn't getting adequate support from the industry. However, there is a social/legal expectation that even though I'm the primary decision maker for my child, the only life critical advice that can override an expert in the field is another expert even if the risk from the original expert advice is higher than what I may choose on my own. Losing your child is bad enough, having to stew on how you failed from a prison cell the rest of your life would be cruel.
There is a cost to society for having a significant number of obese members. I'm not fond of using shaming as a tactic to promote social change, but society does have an actual stake in your weight and a reason to pressure you into a healthier category. This is only more clear with the identification of neuroscientific reasons that you will stay in the costlier state if you take yourself there.
It doesn't happen without Democrats splitting similarly for strategic and procedural reasons. If it was feasible then they would have split off the tea party.
That isn't really a problem. Historically mass unemployment ends in revolt. The property owners will have to implement universal basic income if that is a real possibility. The real problem is if it creeps along industry by industry like it has been replacing an industry or two every decade. Then a revolt will not be likely in the property owners' lifetimes. There will be no need to implement universal basic income until it is too late for that to stem the violence, because there are other industries to find employment in.
Humans do pay less and less to their primary task if their primary task involves little interaction. However, the spread of this technology is pretty narrow. Even if it turns out to be really bad, Tesla is probably not going to deal with more deaths than Toyota had to deal with from not nailing down their floor mats. Not to mention, even in autonomous mode current law puts the person in the driver's seat under responsibility. In the meantime, Tesla is learning all the things it needs to to become a leader in making the driver obsolete and in the end making ground transportation safer. Whoever the leader in this transition is going to have to eat the bad press when things go south the first time.
To be bitten multiple times is suspicious, but frankly it is also kind of BS that it is opt out for what is marketed to be child's account.
If I had a nickle for every time someone told me that PC gaming was dead, then maybe I'd have a current gen console in the house. I expect this is much of the same.
I haven't gone there yet, but I've considered it. I'm close to the end of the line for media services. Cable stops at the end of my street and the company won't invest to actually run it to the houses on the street. We are serviced by the furthest piece of DSL equipment from whatever central routing equipment AT&T has in the local service area. We've had several service problems, but they are usually received with a level of dismissal that I can only assume is "we barely have a business case to have the wires down your street."
I generally just avoid coffee if I'm awake enough to know things taste.
Amazon seems only interested in hardware as far as it will suck you in to their content/shopping ecology.
A pretty decent counter-indicator of whether or not it will be a game changer is the marketing department of the company labeling it as a game changer especially prior to actually selling any units.
Finally somewhere that Comcast is not below industry standard. They don't really care anything about existing customers, just like everyone else.
I came down here to comment something similar, but I'm wondering why cabbies will make riskier driving choices than bus drivers. Is it the potential for a higher tip for getting there faster? Is it fewer passengers to be potential liabilities?
I can't help but think there are many, many cars on the road that haven't seen a dealership in a long time. No maintenance, self-maintenance, non-dealer maintenance. Eventually, we will get to the point where a significant amount of cars that need software updates will be in that pool.
I've come to think of it as a position/velocity problem. Democrats see poverty as a position of wealth problem. I'm poor if I don't have enough wealth to make it day-in, day-out. Republicans see poverty as a velocity of wealth problem. I'm poor if I can't leverage my wealth to accumulate enough over time to change economic classes. There are problems with both because they are far too ideological. It would certainly be easy for either party to use their "moral" position to oppress the poor.
Us Gen-Xers born after Star Wars don't really count. We are somewhere between Gen-X and Y. We missed these movie moments. Gen-X's music was changing just as we started to get in to music. The dot-com bubble hit before most of us were gainfully employed. But we are still old enough to know a past where our every moment wasn't consumed with tech. A time before a ubiquitous internet. A time when our computers had to squeal at other computers to communicate. We were mostly mature before social media took off.
Frankly, the easiest way to comply is just to lock everything down. It doesn't really matter how much the FCC bends over backwards to accommodate third party open source firmware. The ruling made it harder to make a business case for letting the end user change the firmware. Someone was bound to comply this way, probably a lot of someones.
I can at best remember two parts of a set of direction. Nothing makes safe driving like searching a 20x20 sheet of paper in the middle of a crowded unfamiliar urban environment where you are probably making several turns because of street unidirectionality.
If legal control doesn't matter then how is the geographic region relevant to the article? I presumed this was hinting at some sort of collusion. If that wasn't the case then how they attempted to get there is pretty irrelevant.
We've created a society where it is encouraged to live inside your own echo chamber on every topic. We physically seek out places to live that conform to our standards. We seek out online news and data sources that conform to our biases. We elect the people who talk like us on issues and the "intelligent and sane" party is happy with suggesting the other side to be shot into space because they aren't even human. Letting people curate their own information isn't doing what you say it should be doing.
Ok. Now that we've established that. Which governing organization has authority over Scotland's airspace? That would be the most relevant to identifying the actual meaning of the original comment.
When I was on cable, it never really bothered me that they weren't delivering the advertised speed until they oversubscribed the neighborhood. Everyone gets home from work/school and uses the network at the same time. Speed crawled to a snail's pace and primetime TV went blocky and unwatchable. It is one thing to do best effort, it is entirely a different thing to oversubscribe to the point that you can't provide usable service during peak usage.
Best effort: they will oversubscribe until a good percentage of customers are complaining about not getting the speed they are paying for and then just refuse service to anyone else who asks for it.
It already is that way. Discounting my equipment fees, I'm paying less with my traditional bundle than replacing either by content volume or by desired channel what the equivalent streaming services would be. Content providers have caught up with cord cutters.