How does a company lose hundreds of millions of dollars when their product is pictures and text?
THAT DISAPPEAR NO LESS.
IF YOU'RE SPENDING TOO MUCH JUST SAY NEW FEATURE THE SNAPS GO AWAY SOONER NOW, BAM, LOWER SERVER COSTS.
I get that building an electric car or 3D printing organs is going to eat up money, but FFS, how do silicon valley types piss money away on shit that in no way should qualify as "tech?"
I am a supporter of Net Neutrality. However off the wall statements doesn't help the cause.
Same trouble with opposing climate change. It's certain to be bad, but it's too abstract to get many people to care. Specific bad things to motivate people are predictions, and when people find out it's only POSSIBLE, not DEFINITE, they feel like they've been lied to and excuse themselves to go back to apathy.
I'm still trying to understand that secret service scandal conservatives were so upset about during Obama's term. Something like Obama hated America so much that he tried to let someone breach the whitehouse to kill the president who happened to be himself?
Twitter is now a PR tool used to set the media's heads collectively spinning on the topic of the Twitter Chief's choice
Along with the rest of us. He's not attacking the "media elites" to champion we the people. He's attacking most of us daily, the tweets are just insult to injury.
That applies to subject matter much much much more than sensor size. And given most of us carry smartphones all the time and full-frame cameras almost never, the content is better for cell phones.
By all means, carry a camera with you. You may be surprised to realize that google activating hdr enhancements in their phone doesn't affect your ability to do that. It probably won't even decrease the number of people who are impressed with how much better your photos are than the camera phone. Hard to go below zero after all.
I have a feeling that a lot of this is driven by the pharma industry who don't want deaths turning public (or investor and regulator) opinion on something.
The case of Jesse Gelsinger, who died after some poorly designed experimental gene therapy, took the wind out of gene therapy's sails. Maybe it wouldn't have gone anywhere anyway, but with everyone too spooked to fund it anymore after one death, it definitely wouldn't.
One in five women are raped so yes, most of us probably have.
Most rapists are close with the victims. The idea that there are "those people" looking for white women to rape is a common myth that lead to cocaine being taken out of coca-cola. And it's never been based on anything other than paranoia.
Is there a federal law that ISPs WILL be given business licenses regardless of state laws?
If certain puritanical states and counties can find ways to limit or ban the sale of ALCOHOL, I'm pretty sure they can find ways to make sure Comcast follows some reasonable rules.
I swear, if the real estate industry spent half as much effort doing their job as they did making sure races stay apart, we'd have a whole new housing bubble meltdown on our hands...
"ISPs that do not conform to state regulations (which specify net neutrality) will be denied business licenses in our state as will anyone contracting for such ISPs."
Seems like states could, if they wanted, find a way to force the issue.
I mean, sure, they won't, because state and local legislatures are even worse than the national legislature...
We really really need to stop supporting twisting the law and watering down the Constitution when it means getting some policy we want. The ends do not justify the means. There hasn't been a single policy change seriously considered or implemented in this country that provides more benefits or prevents more harm OVERALL than the limitations on government power in the Constitution
What does that have to do with the issue at hand though? You can almost always make an argument about something is/is not constitutional. This is no different. Nothing is squarely unconstitutional, and the constitution is intentionally NOT a guide for every policy question.
Please, tell me what is twisting the constitution to regulate ISPs as common carriers. Or what is twisting the constitution to NOT regulate them that way. Or to tell the states they can't regulate ISPs by claiming it's interstate commerce.
And I'd be REALLY interested in how you have an opinion on the constitutionality of Pai's dictate or counter-arguments... when there are no details about the policy yet....
It's not one Russia narrative, it's several, all of which are relevant to slashdot. It's almost like they're a major power in the world and there are a lot of facets to it!
2016 election: Russia relevant (not saying Russia did it, just it's a story)
Cybersecurity: Russia relevant
Censorship online: Russia relevant
Anything geopolitical: Russia relevant
Uranium (non-political): Russia relevant.
Wikileaks: Russia relevant.
Partisan politicial issue about GOP, dems, greens: Russia relevant.
Is it possible that you're just upset because you're worried Russia will turn out to have ties to your preferred political side (applies to all sides)?
Straw man argument there. What I (a flaming liberal compared to the entire US government) heard in my circles was:
- He released a company wide memo which predictably upset a lot of his coworkers
- The right wing media was taking a break from lecturing about personal responsibility to champion him as a poster boy for political speech run amok
- He might be claiming to have a PhD when he didn't actually finish it
- He performed a lewd skit in front of his grad program and got in trouble for it
- He might be going on conservative media playing up the "I'm a victim of liberals!" angle.
I'll admit all of that is behavior I've come to expect from republicans, but I heard ZERO indictments of him about his political leanings. Maybe that was just because there was too much material to get to boring stuff like that in his 15 minutes of fame.
I can't really blame monsanto for what the DEA did. JFC I knew they always managed to make the dumbest possible move, but that really takes the cake...
Resistance evolving in weeds was predicted, if Monsanto claimed that wouldn't happen, shame on whichever idiots believed it.
Horizontal gene transfer to other species though, yeah. That's always been a concern, and monsanto steamrolled through it. If the NRA has a competitor for making sure a controversy will be inflamed in the future, it's Monsanto. GMOs face an uphill battle because of those assholes, people WILL die as a result of their greed. But as far as the kill-switch goes, Monsanto ISN'T an example of why kill-switches in biotech will always lead to bad things.
Show me how more people have died in the US from terrorist attacks than white dudes with guns that we've done fuck all about and I'll concede that terrorism is something to worry about.
It's a matter of numbers. All your cells have dozens of kill switches built into them. They generally work for the 40 trillion or so cells you're made of for long enough. But that took billions of years of trial and error. And even with that, cellular evolution eventually overwhelms them and kills you with cancer.
The technology in question isn't applied. Hopefully even government regulators will be intelligent enough to realize that a single kill switch is no match for evolution.
Oops, misformatted first point. You might be thinking of glyphosphate resistant weeds, which have been spreading. Either they evolved resistance (predictable) or modified genes from the crops spread to the weeds (Scary, less likely, I couldn't immediately find whether there had been any documented cases of this). But that's a far cry from a kill switch failing. There was no kill switch built into anything monsanto has sold.
Three: terminator seeds, which Monsanto developed, are unable to reproduce. These seeds were never sold. There's not much need: modern farmers aren't really interested in re-using seeds. First generation hybrids that are sold are superior, second generation seeds are a mix that aren't worth as much.
But hey, maybe you can react like they did, when they sued the farmers on whose fields the Monsanto crops had spread for copyright infringement and put them in prison for 10-20 years.
Yes, that actually happened.
You're intentionally peddling lies here. The farmer in question planted the GMO seeds he didn't buy or license. I don't think he should have had to license seeds he obtained from his own land, so that part is shit, but he did knowingly use the seeds without paying the fee. He had to pay a small fine, NOT the lawyers fees, and he didn't fucking get sent to prison.
Slashdot Mirror
How does a company lose hundreds of millions of dollars when their product is pictures and text?
THAT DISAPPEAR NO LESS.
IF YOU'RE SPENDING TOO MUCH JUST SAY NEW FEATURE THE SNAPS GO AWAY SOONER NOW, BAM, LOWER SERVER COSTS.
I get that building an electric car or 3D printing organs is going to eat up money, but FFS, how do silicon valley types piss money away on shit that in no way should qualify as "tech?"
I am a supporter of Net Neutrality. However off the wall statements doesn't help the cause.
Same trouble with opposing climate change. It's certain to be bad, but it's too abstract to get many people to care. Specific bad things to motivate people are predictions, and when people find out it's only POSSIBLE, not DEFINITE, they feel like they've been lied to and excuse themselves to go back to apathy.
I'm still trying to understand that secret service scandal conservatives were so upset about during Obama's term. Something like Obama hated America so much that he tried to let someone breach the whitehouse to kill the president who happened to be himself?
Twitter is now a PR tool used to set the media's heads collectively spinning on the topic of the Twitter Chief's choice
Along with the rest of us. He's not attacking the "media elites" to champion we the people. He's attacking most of us daily, the tweets are just insult to injury.
Garbage In, Garbage Out.
That applies to subject matter much much much more than sensor size. And given most of us carry smartphones all the time and full-frame cameras almost never, the content is better for cell phones.
By all means, carry a camera with you. You may be surprised to realize that google activating hdr enhancements in their phone doesn't affect your ability to do that. It probably won't even decrease the number of people who are impressed with how much better your photos are than the camera phone. Hard to go below zero after all.
I have a feeling that a lot of this is driven by the pharma industry who don't want deaths turning public (or investor and regulator) opinion on something.
The case of Jesse Gelsinger, who died after some poorly designed experimental gene therapy, took the wind out of gene therapy's sails. Maybe it wouldn't have gone anywhere anyway, but with everyone too spooked to fund it anymore after one death, it definitely wouldn't.
CAR-T too, more recently
a woman you know beaten and raped
One in five women are raped so yes, most of us probably have.
Most rapists are close with the victims. The idea that there are "those people" looking for white women to rape is a common myth that lead to cocaine being taken out of coca-cola. And it's never been based on anything other than paranoia.
Its not just that, its that the people who live in low economic areas make excuses as to why crime against "the man" is okay.
Pure unadulterated stereotype with zero hard facts: +5 insightful.
Please note, I am NOT mentioning skin color/race (until here), because it doesn't really matter for this discussion.
Plus it's crystal clear from the context?
He can't: Comcast cut him off of Google!
Is there a federal law that ISPs WILL be given business licenses regardless of state laws?
If certain puritanical states and counties can find ways to limit or ban the sale of ALCOHOL, I'm pretty sure they can find ways to make sure Comcast follows some reasonable rules.
I swear, if the real estate industry spent half as much effort doing their job as they did making sure races stay apart, we'd have a whole new housing bubble meltdown on our hands...
"ISPs that do not conform to state regulations (which specify net neutrality) will be denied business licenses in our state as will anyone contracting for such ISPs."
Seems like states could, if they wanted, find a way to force the issue.
I mean, sure, they won't, because state and local legislatures are even worse than the national legislature...
We really really need to stop supporting twisting the law and watering down the Constitution when it means getting some policy we want. The ends do not justify the means. There hasn't been a single policy change seriously considered or implemented in this country that provides more benefits or prevents more harm OVERALL than the limitations on government power in the Constitution
What does that have to do with the issue at hand though? You can almost always make an argument about something is/is not constitutional. This is no different. Nothing is squarely unconstitutional, and the constitution is intentionally NOT a guide for every policy question.
Please, tell me what is twisting the constitution to regulate ISPs as common carriers. Or what is twisting the constitution to NOT regulate them that way. Or to tell the states they can't regulate ISPs by claiming it's interstate commerce.
And I'd be REALLY interested in how you have an opinion on the constitutionality of Pai's dictate or counter-arguments... when there are no details about the policy yet....
It's not one Russia narrative, it's several, all of which are relevant to slashdot. It's almost like they're a major power in the world and there are a lot of facets to it!
2016 election: Russia relevant (not saying Russia did it, just it's a story)
Cybersecurity: Russia relevant
Censorship online: Russia relevant
Anything geopolitical: Russia relevant
Uranium (non-political): Russia relevant.
Wikileaks: Russia relevant.
Partisan politicial issue about GOP, dems, greens: Russia relevant.
Is it possible that you're just upset because you're worried Russia will turn out to have ties to your preferred political side (applies to all sides)?
Straw man argument there. What I (a flaming liberal compared to the entire US government) heard in my circles was:
- He released a company wide memo which predictably upset a lot of his coworkers
- The right wing media was taking a break from lecturing about personal responsibility to champion him as a poster boy for political speech run amok
- He might be claiming to have a PhD when he didn't actually finish it
- He performed a lewd skit in front of his grad program and got in trouble for it
- He might be going on conservative media playing up the "I'm a victim of liberals!" angle.
I'll admit all of that is behavior I've come to expect from republicans, but I heard ZERO indictments of him about his political leanings. Maybe that was just because there was too much material to get to boring stuff like that in his 15 minutes of fame.
I can't really blame monsanto for what the DEA did. JFC I knew they always managed to make the dumbest possible move, but that really takes the cake...
Resistance evolving in weeds was predicted, if Monsanto claimed that wouldn't happen, shame on whichever idiots believed it.
Horizontal gene transfer to other species though, yeah. That's always been a concern, and monsanto steamrolled through it. If the NRA has a competitor for making sure a controversy will be inflamed in the future, it's Monsanto. GMOs face an uphill battle because of those assholes, people WILL die as a result of their greed. But as far as the kill-switch goes, Monsanto ISN'T an example of why kill-switches in biotech will always lead to bad things.
Show me how more people have died in the US from terrorist attacks than white dudes with guns that we've done fuck all about and I'll concede that terrorism is something to worry about.
(sigh) the number of people dead from 9/11 wasn't a blip on the fatality graph. White dudes with guns though IS. Google it.
There's enough chaos to destroy us from simply playing the insane side against the rest of us?
She was seven years old at the time for fuck's sake. Seven year olds' have no concept of sex (unless they've been raped by a republican.)
Holy cow, I thought you were trolling! Thank you!
Nobody gave a flying fuck when Amy Schumer and Lena Dunham openly admitted to being rapists and pedophiles.
Citation needed. Googling Schumer and pedophile didn't come up with anything.
Lena Dunham DID get a lot of heat for writing that she touched her one year old sister when she was seven years old. It was predictably all from the far-right smear machine, the same one that has convinced many Americans that Hillary Clinton murdered soldiers at Benghazi on her way to build atomic bombs for Russia.
it's a witch hunt where all it takes is a social media post to ruin people's entire lives and career without a shred of evidence
You're projecting here. That is literally what you're doing.
It's a matter of numbers. All your cells have dozens of kill switches built into them. They generally work for the 40 trillion or so cells you're made of for long enough. But that took billions of years of trial and error. And even with that, cellular evolution eventually overwhelms them and kills you with cancer.
The technology in question isn't applied. Hopefully even government regulators will be intelligent enough to realize that a single kill switch is no match for evolution.
Oops, misformatted first point. You might be thinking of glyphosphate resistant weeds, which have been spreading. Either they evolved resistance (predictable) or modified genes from the crops spread to the weeds (Scary, less likely, I couldn't immediately find whether there had been any documented cases of this). But that's a far cry from a kill switch failing. There was no kill switch built into anything monsanto has sold.
Monsanto tried that too with their engineered crops. They were supposed to be unable to reproduce. And yet they did! Because mutations.
I think you're confusing three separate issues and believing they're a reality that fits what you want to believe.
Two: there have been lawsuits that monsanto pollen contaminated fields (you mention this below). It appears more likely the farmer in question intentionally cultivated GMO seeds, using roundup, and at any rate, that's much different from what you're suggesting.
Three: terminator seeds, which Monsanto developed, are unable to reproduce. These seeds were never sold. There's not much need: modern farmers aren't really interested in re-using seeds. First generation hybrids that are sold are superior, second generation seeds are a mix that aren't worth as much.
But hey, maybe you can react like they did, when they sued the farmers on whose fields the Monsanto crops had spread for copyright infringement and put them in prison for 10-20 years. Yes, that actually happened.
You're intentionally peddling lies here. The farmer in question planted the GMO seeds he didn't buy or license. I don't think he should have had to license seeds he obtained from his own land, so that part is shit, but he did knowingly use the seeds without paying the fee. He had to pay a small fine, NOT the lawyers fees, and he didn't fucking get sent to prison.