I find the argument that Uber drivers should be considered employees because "Uber still sets drivers' rates and the commission it pays itself, which ranges between 20 percent and 30 percent" to be specious.
If someone says how much they are going to pay for a job in advance of the job, that does not mean that anyone who takes that job is suddenly more likely to be considered an employee simply because the person who will pay them set that amount. Presumably, an independent contractor who finds the amount inadequate may try to negotiate or not do the work for that person at all, but in no way is anyone who chooses to hire an independent contractor actually *obligated* to negotiate with the independent contractor simply so that the person will not somehow be considered an employee.
There may be other reasons to consider Uber drivers as employees, but how they are paid is definitely not one of them.
Everyone has something to hide, whether they use Tor or not. Quite literally, everyone. Having something to hide, however, does not mean that one is doing or has done anything wrong, it only means that they want something to be private,
Would it then be illegal to utilize an encryption protocol that you invented yourself? How would they even know, particularly if your encryption protocol has a layer of steganography?
Perhaps I should have been more specific.... whichever option *HE* thinks will generate more revenue, which a) means that short term economic benefits only will be considered, certainly none after his presidency is over, and b) a pretty darn high priority is going to be given to whatever gets him the most money, personally.
.... when it's perfectly obvious how the choice will be made?
Given the choice between any two options, Trump will invariably choose the one that generates more revenue. Like *absolutely* invariantly.... he might as well be a computer program with a single if statement and a loop.
If they get 1 billion after 1 year, and within half a year that rate will have risen to 2 billion (since they will get another billion in only 6 months), then at that rate of growth that means that within 4 years they will be getting more than one pirate removal request per year for every single person on the planet.
Microsoft does, if you want to use their Windows subsystem for Linux. Obviously, if you don't want to use that mechanism then there is no problem, but you may want to read the context in which I asked the question.
This reads a lot like telling someone who already owns a house and is completely free of their mortgage that they should just throw all caution to the wind, give their house away to some random stranger, and spend the next 25 years paying for a new home with less than half of the square footage and no basement.
Because seriously, there is positively no way I will ever put Windows on any computer that I ever own unless I am being paid what I think my time is worth for the inconvenience.
So since it's clearly not worth your time to pay me to use it, it's not worth mine to install it.
I understand the 1960 recount in Hawaii changed Hawaii's electorate college votes, but I don't think it changed who actually got elected. As far as I was aware, Kennedy won on the day of the election anyways, and the recount in Hawaii did not change that. When I say "the results of the election", I mean the bottom line of who would become the president, not just the outcome in the areas where the recount happened.
Not an answer. I asked whether such recounts ever *have* made a difference to the results of a presidential election, not whether they would have, should have, or ought to have made a difference.
Not to diminish the importance of the development, because indeed any improvement here is most welcome, but 15% improvement strikes me much more as being in line with an incremental development than something worthy of the term "breakthrough".
If slashdot is going to whitelist, then the editor should reasonably refuse to allow any posts that contain utf8 characters that are not in the whitelist... and instead of posting a comment contaiining junk characters that won't display properly, the submitter or commenter would be directed to another editing page where they would be told that there were illegal characters contained in the post, and would be allowed to continue to edit their post just as if they had hit preview instead of submit.
Because, presumably, they expect everyone to preview their submission before hitting submit, and verify that what they are writing doesnâ(TM)t contain any such characters.
There are only a few grievances I have with this site, and its lack of friendliness to utf8 is one of them.
Sure, but then since two conductive plates are touching there is not enough resistance to the current flow to produce any heat. The charge on the capacitor would be neutralized almost instantly.
Actually, now that I think about it, you could even prevent it from being extracted by a third party device at a high rate by just adding a single diode to the charging circuit. The diode doesn't limit the rate, but it does restrict the direction that charge can flow. If the other side of the storage is hooked up to discharge circuitry that expressly limits the rate at which charge can be tapped from the storage system, then there is no possible way that you could get it to discharge any faster than the hardware was explicitly designed to do.
Two: If it can be charged very quickly, it can be discharged very quickly.
Sort of... but you can mitigate this to limit it to cases where you connect a third party device that is explicitly designed to extract the stored power from it at said rate. Such devices would be not any more difficult to detect than electronic explosives already are currently. The device itself containing the fast-charging battery could easily contain mechanisms that does not allow the battery to discharge faster than a certain speed for the electronics within, and if this mechanism is hard-wired as circuitry instead of using software or firmware to control it, then there is no way that an end user could making modifications to the device or its firmware that would cause it to exceed that rate.
Slashdot Mirror
I find the argument that Uber drivers should be considered employees because "Uber still sets drivers' rates and the commission it pays itself, which ranges between 20 percent and 30 percent" to be specious.
If someone says how much they are going to pay for a job in advance of the job, that does not mean that anyone who takes that job is suddenly more likely to be considered an employee simply because the person who will pay them set that amount. Presumably, an independent contractor who finds the amount inadequate may try to negotiate or not do the work for that person at all, but in no way is anyone who chooses to hire an independent contractor actually *obligated* to negotiate with the independent contractor simply so that the person will not somehow be considered an employee.
There may be other reasons to consider Uber drivers as employees, but how they are paid is definitely not one of them.
I couldn't directly tell from the page you linked to. How do they define "compromised"?
Everyone has something to hide, whether they use Tor or not. Quite literally, everyone. Having something to hide, however, does not mean that one is doing or has done anything wrong, it only means that they want something to be private,
Would it then be illegal to utilize an encryption protocol that you invented yourself? How would they even know, particularly if your encryption protocol has a layer of steganography?
Perhaps I should have been more specific.... whichever option *HE* thinks will generate more revenue, which a) means that short term economic benefits only will be considered, certainly none after his presidency is over, and b) a pretty darn high priority is going to be given to whatever gets him the most money, personally.
Given the choice between any two options, Trump will invariably choose the one that generates more revenue. Like *absolutely* invariantly.... he might as well be a computer program with a single if statement and a loop.
If they get 1 billion after 1 year, and within half a year that rate will have risen to 2 billion (since they will get another billion in only 6 months), then at that rate of growth that means that within 4 years they will be getting more than one pirate removal request per year for every single person on the planet.
Microsoft does, if you want to use their Windows subsystem for Linux. Obviously, if you don't want to use that mechanism then there is no problem, but you may want to read the context in which I asked the question.
What if you don't like Ubuntu?
This reads a lot like telling someone who already owns a house and is completely free of their mortgage that they should just throw all caution to the wind, give their house away to some random stranger, and spend the next 25 years paying for a new home with less than half of the square footage and no basement.
Because seriously, there is positively no way I will ever put Windows on any computer that I ever own unless I am being paid what I think my time is worth for the inconvenience.
So since it's clearly not worth your time to pay me to use it, it's not worth mine to install it.
I understand the 1960 recount in Hawaii changed Hawaii's electorate college votes, but I don't think it changed who actually got elected. As far as I was aware, Kennedy won on the day of the election anyways, and the recount in Hawaii did not change that. When I say "the results of the election", I mean the bottom line of who would become the president, not just the outcome in the areas where the recount happened.
Perhaps I wasn't specific enough in what I meant by "results".
Did any requested recount ever actually result in a change of who ended up becoming president?
Who said anything about other languages? What about Unicode punctuation that is entirely valid in any English text?
Not an answer. I asked whether such recounts ever *have* made a difference to the results of a presidential election, not whether they would have, should have, or ought to have made a difference.
Not rhetorical.... serious question here. Have recounts like this, this long after the election, ever made a difference to the results?
Not to diminish the importance of the development, because indeed any improvement here is most welcome, but 15% improvement strikes me much more as being in line with an incremental development than something worthy of the term "breakthrough".
Well... they do both have 4 valence electrons in their outermost electron shell...
But yeah, the similarity stops there.
If slashdot is going to whitelist, then the editor should reasonably refuse to allow any posts that contain utf8 characters that are not in the whitelist... and instead of posting a comment contaiining junk characters that won't display properly, the submitter or commenter would be directed to another editing page where they would be told that there were illegal characters contained in the post, and would be allowed to continue to edit their post just as if they had hit preview instead of submit.
Because, presumably, they expect everyone to preview their submission before hitting submit, and verify that what they are writing doesnâ(TM)t contain any such characters.
There are only a few grievances I have with this site, and its lack of friendliness to utf8 is one of them.
Sure, but then since two conductive plates are touching there is not enough resistance to the current flow to produce any heat. The charge on the capacitor would be neutralized almost instantly.
if it were integrated into the battery, all that would reasonably do is break the entire circuit so it doesn't discharge at all
Actually, now that I think about it, you could even prevent it from being extracted by a third party device at a high rate by just adding a single diode to the charging circuit. The diode doesn't limit the rate, but it does restrict the direction that charge can flow. If the other side of the storage is hooked up to discharge circuitry that expressly limits the rate at which charge can be tapped from the storage system, then there is no possible way that you could get it to discharge any faster than the hardware was explicitly designed to do.
Sort of... but you can mitigate this to limit it to cases where you connect a third party device that is explicitly designed to extract the stored power from it at said rate. Such devices would be not any more difficult to detect than electronic explosives already are currently. The device itself containing the fast-charging battery could easily contain mechanisms that does not allow the battery to discharge faster than a certain speed for the electronics within, and if this mechanism is hard-wired as circuitry instead of using software or firmware to control it, then there is no way that an end user could making modifications to the device or its firmware that would cause it to exceed that rate.