"Unviable" here means "They won't make the same profit margin they expected, which were based on skirting the laws." So yeah, you wouldn't want to be an investor.
The idea isn't totally dead if you start regulating it a bit. Smartphone apps to arrange rides opens up a middle ground between full-time professional taxi drivers and your friend taking you someplace that previously wouldn't work. You couldn't easily find someone who happened to be driving to the airport next week that had some extra space, you had to either beg someone to go out of their way or pay for a taxi at inflated rates (due to the city and airport taking a cut). The cat is already kind of out of the bag, I'm skeptical that the fight over ridesharing is one that cities and taxis are going to win in the long term.
I can't speak for big name schools or law schools, and this is purely anecdotal evidence. But in my experience, books written by professors who teach the class are the cheaper ones and are the only books that come close to being completely useful. Those are also the professors who are better teachers as they're invested in the course rather than just fulfilling an obligation.
Yes, just like any law, there are loopholes in it and there will be people who exploit those loopholes, which does not necessarily mean the whole thing is going to be a waste of time.
Guns aren't illegal in Chicago. You just can't buy a gun in Chicago thanks to scaremongering about Chicago's crime rate* and the predictable response from voters: to be scared into ceding some rights to politicians.
* There are pretty rough areas, yes, just like any major city in the US. And yes, the number of murders is higher than zero, which is bad but to be expected. And yes, the total number of people murdered by guns seems shockingly high until you adjust for population, at which point it looks very much average for an American city. The fact that everyone is convinced the crime rate is really high in Chicago is about the only thing unusual about the situation.
Putin has become a modern day Stalin, though without the gulags.
Stalin didn't start off with the Gulags though. Putin still has time to start full on purging Russia of some evil conspiracy. Possibly a homosexual conspiracy.
From wiki it sounds like the term is basically just "not a smartphone." Dumbphones evidently fall into that category. I'm guessing "feature phone" is simply a stupid marketing term that sounds better than "dumbphone."
That doesn't really explain CNN's obsession with mh370 though: CNN's nonstop coverage of "A plane is missing" has been going on for months. In that time, Ebola has broken out, some celebrity somewhere has undoubtedly died, and Russia invaded Ukraine. Yet CNN KEEPS coming back to "BREAKING FUCKING NEWS, HOLD ON TO YOUR SEAT: THE PLANE!!! IT'S STILL MISSING!!!" It's clearly not about filler. Ebola would have made a much sexier story. Since it's all pundits, they wouldn't need to change anything, just ask the people in front of the camera to speculate on whether we're all going to die of Ebola rather than where they think the plane crashed.
At this point, I think CNN is staying with the flight because they think anyone still watching CNN is actually hooked on the dizzying highs that come along with watching yet another computer generated line over the indian ocean while some self-proclaimed expert on airplanes guesses about what was going on when the plane hit the water. Meanwhile people who actually want to know the news have switched over to the internet. It's the same approach other specialized cable channels are taking: The Learning Channel has realized that anyone who wants to learn anything tuned out long ago, but they can cling to some viewers with stupid shows like Honey Boo Boo. Not just filling time: addictive to some moron with eyeballs.
You call it "regression" and that sounds bad. I think "responsibility" is the more accurate term. Carbon is an externalized cost. If I demand you start paying for it, that's not me taking away your rights, regressing from anything in that sense, that's me demanding you pay for the costs you're putting on other people.
On top of that, it's all well and good to say that alternatives should be an improvement over fossil fuels, and it should be. Unfortunately, the fossil fuel industry is making sure that can't happen. They've forced regression/responsibility as the only way forward without more serious consequences.
They should probably cut corners. Life, uh, probably can't find a way.
In (slightly more) seriousness, the movie you're quoting addresses the issue you seem to be pointing out.
John Hammond: If I was to create a flock of condors on this island, you wouldn't have anything to say.
Dr. Ian Malcolm: No, hold on. This isn't some species that was obliterated by deforestation, or the building of a dam. Dinosaurs had their shot, and nature selected them for extinction.
Passenger pigeons, the poster child for this guy, died because of human related habitat loss and humans eating them. The species under discussion are mostly species that are still around currently. The mammoth thing, wiki tells me it's controversial whether humans killed them off or whether it was due to warming. Either way, I think we've definitely got both bases covered.
The problems with taking that approach to juvenile law are pretty much entirely emotional or moral issues that don't apply to ISPs. Removing misbehaving kids from parents would be a logical step, it's just we can't stomach removing kids except from the absolute worst parents as a last resort, and because the government can't literally raise children, as kids need emotional support.
If we as a species weren't so emotionally weak, that would definitely be the most obvious solution to juvenile crime.
Only people who absurdly misunderstand corporate personhood would argue similar things about ISPs: removing networks from comcast isn't going to make the networks break down in tears and be scarred for life, likely to get into drugs and jail. Comcast isn't likely to act like a parent who has had their child taken from them, they're not going to break down crying and eventually try to kill itself. Unfortunately.
Advertisers bend over backwards to find out your interests voulontarily and send you targeted information. Google lets you know what it thinks it knows about you and, at least the last time I saw it, lets you edit it. Or at least gives you the impression that you can edit it. Fill out online surveys, etc. They try to make it VERY easy.
And yet, they're resorting to tracking why? Because the vast majority of people won't voulontarily tell advertisers what they're interested in. The heydey of spam e-mails that cost you money really left their impression on people, we hate online advertisers.
Tracking is bad because it's an invasion of my privacy, not because it leads to annoying things like ads for cars. Even if advertisers were only telling me things that were relevant and valuable, and even if the information they collected had no chance of falling into the wrong hands, it's still not something I allowed, and I never will allow it if I can help it.
Was that plain android or was that some custom system that samsung or motorolla put out? A lot of those firmwares were pretty awful, some still are.
I really don't understand why they even bother. Approximately NO ONE EVER has said "Oh, I'm going to get a samsung phone, because touchwiz is so much better than regular android!" People who know one custom OS from another generally seem to rip it out as soon as possible and put in a different system, and the vast majority of customers only know it's not an iphone. People don't seem to be upgrading phones because their old phones don't get updates anymore, and if their phone artificially can't update, that's not really good for brand loyalty.
Anyway, as far as GNU/linux phone, I think that will have the same problems that you cite for android: whatever the motivation for manufacturers putting their own crap on top and making it only windows compatible will be true of any phone system UNLESS the manufacturers ARE the people making the OS, like apple or windows.
I agree, which is why I'm glad this doesn't appear to be arbitrary at the moment. The guy did something that should be prohibited.
Also, laws aren't made instantly and perfectly. The drone flying hobby is pretty new, there's going to be a period of finding a balance between too restrictive and too lax. It's likely going to be more restrictive than hobbyists would prefer, and it's going to be more lax than the regulators would prefer. Additionally, hobbyists need to realize that if someone dies, and someone else can blame it on not enough laws, there are going to suddenly be a lot more restrictions in place.
I suspect any treaty negotiated between Hitler and Stalin would have ended poorly for everyone aside from those two no matter how transparent and open the proceedings were. I'm more optimistic about other government actions, but there are still always going to be loopholes in transparency. Giving people the illusion of transparency could legitimize some awful agreements. I suspect the opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership would be even more muted if a show of negotiations were made to look like they were transparent. I think most of the traction the opposition is getting is by pointing out it's large corporations deciding law in secret.
If Haliburton was able to say "No way! We posted the notice for the open session!...in the cellar in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'." then the TPP would be getting even less attention than it is now.
A movie screen will be $15. A 75” TV will be $4.00. A smartphone will be $1.99.
He gives it 10 years.
By "movie screen" he might mean 4K or ultra HD, by TV he might mean HD or SD, and by smartphone he might mean "on itunes with DRM to only play on iphones."
What seems like nonsense to me is the ten year prediction: they already charge more for HD on at least amazon and vudu.
He goes onto say that movies should be available on home screens at most 3 weeks from initial release, so it's possible he's suggesting that movie tickets at theaters go down to 15$ after three weeks and at that time, you start selling the movie on amazon or whatever and smartphones. He brings up that the vast majority of a movies profits are in those first three weekends, so not getting it to streaming sooner is just wasting time and money.
Whatever the case, I don't think the summary is accurate, I don't think what he was saying was that crazy.
I see nothing about what the guy factually "did", only what he's been accused of and convicted of by courts made up of fallible humans.
"Deserve" also is questionable. I don't know how to define justice, but I do know it's not "revenge" or "trying to make two wrongs into a right."
You do answer the question though: the US still has it because of the revulsion we feel for criminals, it makes the anti-death penalty side more apathetic and the pro-death penalty side more motivated. When I was reading that article, I was considering doing something on the order of posting it to facebook. Then I read the bit about raping and killing an 11 month old and my reaction was "Weeeeell, maybe I won't even bother posting it to facebook."
I remember hearing that one reason the US didn't have this while most other civilized countries did was because of all the crazy christians we have, who think it's the mark of the devil. There's no doubt a little bit of reluctance to start a new security measure which will cost them money, especially when there's no real demand for it here, but I'm guessing concerns over some insane televangelist going on some insane rant about "Visa is the DEVIL!" could seal the deal. So I'm going to blame them.
I'm familiar with that, which is why I'm not saying anything positive about it. There's a ton of room between building up expectations and saying "It's certain to be bad."
You aren't "certain" it's going to be a dissapointment before the movie is made. It's not like the first three were made, perfectly, by God himself. Furthermore, if it's terrible and you call it in advance, congratulations! You get to say "I called it!" to all the zero people who care.
Why is that? Within living memory, we left the atmosphere for the first time. It's a little premature to look at budget negotiations and NASA's budget and conclude that we will NEVER EVER EVER colonize space. You and I would consider waiting another thousand years for humans to colonize another planet depressingly long, but considering the universe is something like 16 billion years old: it's not in any hurry.
Slashdot Mirror
He didn't say the alternative was not also a scam, that's a strawman. In a two way fight, both parties can be scumbags.
"Unviable" here means "They won't make the same profit margin they expected, which were based on skirting the laws." So yeah, you wouldn't want to be an investor.
The idea isn't totally dead if you start regulating it a bit. Smartphone apps to arrange rides opens up a middle ground between full-time professional taxi drivers and your friend taking you someplace that previously wouldn't work. You couldn't easily find someone who happened to be driving to the airport next week that had some extra space, you had to either beg someone to go out of their way or pay for a taxi at inflated rates (due to the city and airport taking a cut). The cat is already kind of out of the bag, I'm skeptical that the fight over ridesharing is one that cities and taxis are going to win in the long term.
I can't speak for big name schools or law schools, and this is purely anecdotal evidence. But in my experience, books written by professors who teach the class are the cheaper ones and are the only books that come close to being completely useful. Those are also the professors who are better teachers as they're invested in the course rather than just fulfilling an obligation.
Yes, just like any law, there are loopholes in it and there will be people who exploit those loopholes, which does not necessarily mean the whole thing is going to be a waste of time.
Guns aren't illegal in Chicago. You just can't buy a gun in Chicago thanks to scaremongering about Chicago's crime rate* and the predictable response from voters: to be scared into ceding some rights to politicians.
* There are pretty rough areas, yes, just like any major city in the US. And yes, the number of murders is higher than zero, which is bad but to be expected. And yes, the total number of people murdered by guns seems shockingly high until you adjust for population, at which point it looks very much average for an American city. The fact that everyone is convinced the crime rate is really high in Chicago is about the only thing unusual about the situation.
Putin has become a modern day Stalin, though without the gulags.
Stalin didn't start off with the Gulags though. Putin still has time to start full on purging Russia of some evil conspiracy. Possibly a homosexual conspiracy.
From wiki it sounds like the term is basically just "not a smartphone." Dumbphones evidently fall into that category. I'm guessing "feature phone" is simply a stupid marketing term that sounds better than "dumbphone."
That doesn't really explain CNN's obsession with mh370 though: CNN's nonstop coverage of "A plane is missing" has been going on for months. In that time, Ebola has broken out, some celebrity somewhere has undoubtedly died, and Russia invaded Ukraine. Yet CNN KEEPS coming back to "BREAKING FUCKING NEWS, HOLD ON TO YOUR SEAT: THE PLANE!!! IT'S STILL MISSING!!!" It's clearly not about filler. Ebola would have made a much sexier story. Since it's all pundits, they wouldn't need to change anything, just ask the people in front of the camera to speculate on whether we're all going to die of Ebola rather than where they think the plane crashed.
At this point, I think CNN is staying with the flight because they think anyone still watching CNN is actually hooked on the dizzying highs that come along with watching yet another computer generated line over the indian ocean while some self-proclaimed expert on airplanes guesses about what was going on when the plane hit the water. Meanwhile people who actually want to know the news have switched over to the internet. It's the same approach other specialized cable channels are taking: The Learning Channel has realized that anyone who wants to learn anything tuned out long ago, but they can cling to some viewers with stupid shows like Honey Boo Boo. Not just filling time: addictive to some moron with eyeballs.
Posting something odd on reddit is "whoring for 15 minutes of fame" now? What's posting on slashdot then?
You call it "regression" and that sounds bad. I think "responsibility" is the more accurate term. Carbon is an externalized cost. If I demand you start paying for it, that's not me taking away your rights, regressing from anything in that sense, that's me demanding you pay for the costs you're putting on other people.
On top of that, it's all well and good to say that alternatives should be an improvement over fossil fuels, and it should be. Unfortunately, the fossil fuel industry is making sure that can't happen. They've forced regression/responsibility as the only way forward without more serious consequences.
In (slightly more) seriousness, the movie you're quoting addresses the issue you seem to be pointing out.
John Hammond: If I was to create a flock of condors on this island, you wouldn't have anything to say.
Dr. Ian Malcolm: No, hold on. This isn't some species that was obliterated by deforestation, or the building of a dam. Dinosaurs had their shot, and nature selected them for extinction.
Passenger pigeons, the poster child for this guy, died because of human related habitat loss and humans eating them. The species under discussion are mostly species that are still around currently. The mammoth thing, wiki tells me it's controversial whether humans killed them off or whether it was due to warming. Either way, I think we've definitely got both bases covered.
The problems with taking that approach to juvenile law are pretty much entirely emotional or moral issues that don't apply to ISPs. Removing misbehaving kids from parents would be a logical step, it's just we can't stomach removing kids except from the absolute worst parents as a last resort, and because the government can't literally raise children, as kids need emotional support.
If we as a species weren't so emotionally weak, that would definitely be the most obvious solution to juvenile crime.
Only people who absurdly misunderstand corporate personhood would argue similar things about ISPs: removing networks from comcast isn't going to make the networks break down in tears and be scarred for life, likely to get into drugs and jail. Comcast isn't likely to act like a parent who has had their child taken from them, they're not going to break down crying and eventually try to kill itself. Unfortunately.
Exactly! It would be MUCH BETTER than what we're getting from comcast!
We are currently in a massive drought, which is on track to be the most expensive natural disaster ever for the US, costing us 75-150 billion dollars. The GDP is expected to be reduced by up to one percent because of the lack of water. The price of food will go up.
Explain to me how "hippies" who tried to prevent this from happening are the bad guys here and not people like you.
I think that's wildly missing the point.
Advertisers bend over backwards to find out your interests voulontarily and send you targeted information. Google lets you know what it thinks it knows about you and, at least the last time I saw it, lets you edit it. Or at least gives you the impression that you can edit it. Fill out online surveys, etc. They try to make it VERY easy.
And yet, they're resorting to tracking why? Because the vast majority of people won't voulontarily tell advertisers what they're interested in. The heydey of spam e-mails that cost you money really left their impression on people, we hate online advertisers.
Tracking is bad because it's an invasion of my privacy, not because it leads to annoying things like ads for cars. Even if advertisers were only telling me things that were relevant and valuable, and even if the information they collected had no chance of falling into the wrong hands, it's still not something I allowed, and I never will allow it if I can help it.
Was that plain android or was that some custom system that samsung or motorolla put out? A lot of those firmwares were pretty awful, some still are.
I really don't understand why they even bother. Approximately NO ONE EVER has said "Oh, I'm going to get a samsung phone, because touchwiz is so much better than regular android!" People who know one custom OS from another generally seem to rip it out as soon as possible and put in a different system, and the vast majority of customers only know it's not an iphone. People don't seem to be upgrading phones because their old phones don't get updates anymore, and if their phone artificially can't update, that's not really good for brand loyalty.
Anyway, as far as GNU/linux phone, I think that will have the same problems that you cite for android: whatever the motivation for manufacturers putting their own crap on top and making it only windows compatible will be true of any phone system UNLESS the manufacturers ARE the people making the OS, like apple or windows.
I agree, which is why I'm glad this doesn't appear to be arbitrary at the moment. The guy did something that should be prohibited.
Also, laws aren't made instantly and perfectly. The drone flying hobby is pretty new, there's going to be a period of finding a balance between too restrictive and too lax. It's likely going to be more restrictive than hobbyists would prefer, and it's going to be more lax than the regulators would prefer. Additionally, hobbyists need to realize that if someone dies, and someone else can blame it on not enough laws, there are going to suddenly be a lot more restrictions in place.
Definitely a joke. Here's someone saying the full IUPAC name for the largest known protein (the apt common name being Titin.) If you have three and a half hours to kill, I'm sure it's enthralling.
I suspect any treaty negotiated between Hitler and Stalin would have ended poorly for everyone aside from those two no matter how transparent and open the proceedings were. I'm more optimistic about other government actions, but there are still always going to be loopholes in transparency. Giving people the illusion of transparency could legitimize some awful agreements. I suspect the opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership would be even more muted if a show of negotiations were made to look like they were transparent. I think most of the traction the opposition is getting is by pointing out it's large corporations deciding law in secret.
...in the cellar in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'." then the TPP would be getting even less attention than it is now.
If Haliburton was able to say "No way! We posted the notice for the open session!
A movie screen will be $15. A 75” TV will be $4.00. A smartphone will be $1.99.
He gives it 10 years.
By "movie screen" he might mean 4K or ultra HD, by TV he might mean HD or SD, and by smartphone he might mean "on itunes with DRM to only play on iphones."
What seems like nonsense to me is the ten year prediction: they already charge more for HD on at least amazon and vudu.
He goes onto say that movies should be available on home screens at most 3 weeks from initial release, so it's possible he's suggesting that movie tickets at theaters go down to 15$ after three weeks and at that time, you start selling the movie on amazon or whatever and smartphones. He brings up that the vast majority of a movies profits are in those first three weekends, so not getting it to streaming sooner is just wasting time and money.
Whatever the case, I don't think the summary is accurate, I don't think what he was saying was that crazy.
I see nothing about what the guy factually "did", only what he's been accused of and convicted of by courts made up of fallible humans.
"Deserve" also is questionable. I don't know how to define justice, but I do know it's not "revenge" or "trying to make two wrongs into a right."
You do answer the question though: the US still has it because of the revulsion we feel for criminals, it makes the anti-death penalty side more apathetic and the pro-death penalty side more motivated. When I was reading that article, I was considering doing something on the order of posting it to facebook. Then I read the bit about raping and killing an 11 month old and my reaction was "Weeeeell, maybe I won't even bother posting it to facebook."
I remember hearing that one reason the US didn't have this while most other civilized countries did was because of all the crazy christians we have, who think it's the mark of the devil. There's no doubt a little bit of reluctance to start a new security measure which will cost them money, especially when there's no real demand for it here, but I'm guessing concerns over some insane televangelist going on some insane rant about "Visa is the DEVIL!" could seal the deal. So I'm going to blame them.
I'm familiar with that, which is why I'm not saying anything positive about it. There's a ton of room between building up expectations and saying "It's certain to be bad."
You aren't "certain" it's going to be a dissapointment before the movie is made. It's not like the first three were made, perfectly, by God himself. Furthermore, if it's terrible and you call it in advance, congratulations! You get to say "I called it!" to all the zero people who care.
(Pointless cynicism is a pet peeve of mine)
Why is that? Within living memory, we left the atmosphere for the first time. It's a little premature to look at budget negotiations and NASA's budget and conclude that we will NEVER EVER EVER colonize space. You and I would consider waiting another thousand years for humans to colonize another planet depressingly long, but considering the universe is something like 16 billion years old: it's not in any hurry.