People keep saying this, but it is obviously not true. Many things have had their existence disproven in the course of history.
You can't disprove (or prove) the existence of God, however, because God is not necessarily defined by the properties of the natural world that we can observe. Any so-called proof or disproof that could ever be presented would be just so much smoke, ether trivially shown to be making an unproven assumption or else outright logically self-contradictory.
And closer to A4 proportions than letter, so viewing letter-sized documents on it maximized to fill its width is no better than on a regular 9.7" iPad... In fact, it's slightly worse... as the Tab S4 is nearly a 1/4" narrower than a 9.7" iPad... The extra height goes to waste for viewing such documents.
That said, I haven't personally handled an S4 yet, so I can only speak to what I know in terms of its physical size, I expect it would be roughly the same as a regular iPad for viewing letter sized pages, which is passable, but less than ideal. Larger Android tablets yet do exist, but they are usually proportionally taller as well... I've not heard of any 21" android tablets, although I do know of an 18.9" one, and at hdmi screen proportions, it is still more than half an inch narrower for page viewing than a 12.9" iPad pro. Assuming the 21" tablet you mentioned is proportioned similarly, it would be not even an inch wider than the 12.9" iPad pro, despite all of the additional screen height.
If I wanted a tablet, an Android tablet is more flexible
But not as large.
I find viewing many documents that are formatted for letter-sized pages is easiest on a device that is large enough to view entire page at once, and at full size.
It's supported by the general theory that we presently consume more resources than Earth is capable of replenishing
Theories don't tend to be very easy to disprove.
We have more than enough resources on this planet to serve everyone on it, and historically, the more people there are, the more efficient we get at producing, so the production capacity of the planet goes up with it.
Obviously the planet still has finite resources and this can be taken only so far, but at the moment and for the foreseeable future, this planet is quite capable of replenishing what we consume. Any problems we experience are a consequence of the limitation on distributation capability, not limitations on the quantity of resources themselves.
Seriously, the collective biomass of humans is nowhere near the collective biomasses of some other species.... and some people think that *WE* are the problem? Admittedly we consume more than our fair share (only 0.01% of earth's biomass, but consuming roughly a quarter of the planet's resources), but we are still not endangering the sustainability of things because of our population.
There are other things we are doing to this planet that may easily have a detrimental effect on our long term survivability than breeding too quickly.
There are still people that hold an iPad is for consumption only.... but full photoshop on the iPad should put the last nail in the coffin for that notion.
It formed random "sentences" based on markov chains 3 words deep constructed from a word appearance database collected over about 4 months of irc logs that I had personally collected. Each "sentence" it created was based on a single word that was randomly selected from the channel chatter since the last comment, and it made one comment every two minutes. It was nothing more sinister than that.
Much of what it said seemed nonsequitor, and I think it was widely assumed to be trolling, although I had not coded it specifically to do so.
There wasn't a single channel that took it to where it was not banned. In retrospect, it was an interesting social experiment, although I hadn't intended it to be such.
As I was saying, AI could probably be trained to ignore such thoughts, just as we can, with only a modest amount of concentration, easily ignore conversations that may be occurring all around us while we are engaged in a conversation of our own.
If somebody else is getting rich while they are not if they actually *have* enough to live on that they don't genuinely need more of an income anyways?
If a UBI gives me the equivalent of a decent salary that is enough to afford a place to live and eat and still be able to afford nice things every so often if I'm willing to put aside money for it for a few months, then what reason other than petty jealousy, would I have to care that some other person happens to be making 5 to 10 times as much?
I imagine a future wherein computers would be able to read your mind, similar in concept to speech recognition except for mere thoughts instead of spoken words. As you think of what you would want to otherwise type or say, the computer would respond exactly as if that had been typed at a keyboard.
An AI could adapt itself to the way that you think so that if your mind has a propensity to wander, the system could learn to recognize with certain things, that is not necessarily what you meant to actually tell the computer to do, and would eventually be able to filter out extraneous information, much as we can, for example, in a crowded room with many people talking all around us, still focus on a single conversation that we are a part of.
That's true... instead, all of that police effort and then some will have to be focused on protecting the millions of innocent people who have been made more vulnerable by the weakening of such encryption.
So a really self-heeling [sic] material has to have some intelligence.
It requires no more intelligence than a spring needs to return to its preferred length. One exploits the physical properties of your substance to produce a desired result, and engineers the materials in such a way that its naturally preferred state is whatever that desired result is. This does not require any intelligence whatsoever.
The definition of "decent wage" is never defined....
I would define as being, at a bare minimum, whatever "living wage" is presently defined at.
... a person who works as a janitor will never make the same as a person who's a line selector.
I never suggested they should be paid the same. I suggested that they should both be making a decent wage, which means that they are both making *AT LEAST* enough money to functionally live on (if they are working full time, that is... if they are not, then the amount they make should be proportionally less), independently, in society without further depending on any government assistance or subsidization.
Besides, I have strong idea that I know where your entire reasoning is going to end up. Some form of "basic income" project, and believing that it would solve all social ills.
Not even a little bit, no.... Honestly, while I do have pretty strong socialist leanings, I would posiitvely *NOT* advocate a UBI in our current society. I can imagine it may ultimately become necessary at some point in time, but I think that if it does, society itself will have already changed in whatever major ways were necessary for it to actually work. Not that I know precisely what these ways are, but I know that we are not there yet, and I doubt we will be even in my grandchildren's lifetime, let alone mine.
If a job is so menial that it doesn't justify paying a person to do it a decent wage if they are doing it full time, then it's not a job that should be done by people at all.
If that's not an option, then if society still needs the job to be done, then it follows that it must be worth paying someone a decent wage to do it... and how mundane anyone else might find that job to be is irrelevant.
To suggest otherwise is to treat people who work at such low paying jobs as less than human.
No, if they accept it, it more likely means that it's the best that they are able to do because everyone else is too cheap to pay them a decent wage in the first place, and the only way to force people to pay better is to mandate it, by law.
Or do you think that it's right to pay people that work full time hours anything less than a wage that is enough to actually live on?
That depends.
Wrong answer.
The problem right now is that wages haven't kept pace with inflation like they have in the past.
Of course... and the solution to this is to start actually paying people fairly, not to compound the problem by not paying them right just because it might cause a momentary dip in the highest paid's bottom line who could afford it anyways. In the long run, the improvements in productivity that result from better wages more than make up for the financial losses. Ford figured that out a century ago.
He didn't have a deal lined up, but what is the reason for thinking that he might not have *believed* that he could have a deal lined up?
As I said before... it's stupid, but being stupid is not the same thing as trying to commit fraud. It's not an excuse to avoid consequences, but it certainly should be an excuse to avoid being accused of doubting a person's integrity or intentions, and the legal definition of fraud most definitely includes having an *intent*.
Minimum wage hikes do cost some jobs, but most people who get laid off find employment again within 6 months, and for minimum wage workers, at a better rate of pay on account of the minimum wage hike.
Or do you think that it's right to pay people that work full time hours anything less than a wage that is enough to actually live on?
Slashdot Mirror
People keep saying this, but it is obviously not true. Many things have had their existence disproven in the course of history.
You can't disprove (or prove) the existence of God, however, because God is not necessarily defined by the properties of the natural world that we can observe. Any so-called proof or disproof that could ever be presented would be just so much smoke, ether trivially shown to be making an unproven assumption or else outright logically self-contradictory.
Challenge accepted
The iPad Pro is still an iPad.
And closer to A4 proportions than letter, so viewing letter-sized documents on it maximized to fill its width is no better than on a regular 9.7" iPad... In fact, it's slightly worse... as the Tab S4 is nearly a 1/4" narrower than a 9.7" iPad... The extra height goes to waste for viewing such documents.
That said, I haven't personally handled an S4 yet, so I can only speak to what I know in terms of its physical size, I expect it would be roughly the same as a regular iPad for viewing letter sized pages, which is passable, but less than ideal. Larger Android tablets yet do exist, but they are usually proportionally taller as well... I've not heard of any 21" android tablets, although I do know of an 18.9" one, and at hdmi screen proportions, it is still more than half an inch narrower for page viewing than a 12.9" iPad pro. Assuming the 21" tablet you mentioned is proportioned similarly, it would be not even an inch wider than the 12.9" iPad pro, despite all of the additional screen height.
No... I don't think any of my bot's comments ever made there, to be honest.
But not as large.
I find viewing many documents that are formatted for letter-sized pages is easiest on a device that is large enough to view entire page at once, and at full size.
Theories don't tend to be very easy to disprove.
We have more than enough resources on this planet to serve everyone on it, and historically, the more people there are, the more efficient we get at producing, so the production capacity of the planet goes up with it.
Obviously the planet still has finite resources and this can be taken only so far, but at the moment and for the foreseeable future, this planet is quite capable of replenishing what we consume. Any problems we experience are a consequence of the limitation on distributation capability, not limitations on the quantity of resources themselves.
Seriously, the collective biomass of humans is nowhere near the collective biomasses of some other species.... and some people think that *WE* are the problem? Admittedly we consume more than our fair share (only 0.01% of earth's biomass, but consuming roughly a quarter of the planet's resources), but we are still not endangering the sustainability of things because of our population.
There are other things we are doing to this planet that may easily have a detrimental effect on our long term survivability than breeding too quickly.
What, has Apple made XCode for the iPad?
Indeed I was.... it's nice to be remembered.
It formed random "sentences" based on markov chains 3 words deep constructed from a word appearance database collected over about 4 months of irc logs that I had personally collected. Each "sentence" it created was based on a single word that was randomly selected from the channel chatter since the last comment, and it made one comment every two minutes. It was nothing more sinister than that.
Much of what it said seemed nonsequitor, and I think it was widely assumed to be trolling, although I had not coded it specifically to do so.
There wasn't a single channel that took it to where it was not banned. In retrospect, it was an interesting social experiment, although I hadn't intended it to be such.
Citation?
As I was saying, AI could probably be trained to ignore such thoughts, just as we can, with only a modest amount of concentration, easily ignore conversations that may be occurring all around us while we are engaged in a conversation of our own.
If somebody else is getting rich while they are not if they actually *have* enough to live on that they don't genuinely need more of an income anyways?
If a UBI gives me the equivalent of a decent salary that is enough to afford a place to live and eat and still be able to afford nice things every so often if I'm willing to put aside money for it for a few months, then what reason other than petty jealousy, would I have to care that some other person happens to be making 5 to 10 times as much?
I imagine a future wherein computers would be able to read your mind, similar in concept to speech recognition except for mere thoughts instead of spoken words. As you think of what you would want to otherwise type or say, the computer would respond exactly as if that had been typed at a keyboard.
An AI could adapt itself to the way that you think so that if your mind has a propensity to wander, the system could learn to recognize with certain things, that is not necessarily what you meant to actually tell the computer to do, and would eventually be able to filter out extraneous information, much as we can, for example, in a crowded room with many people talking all around us, still focus on a single conversation that we are a part of.
That's true... instead, all of that police effort and then some will have to be focused on protecting the millions of innocent people who have been made more vulnerable by the weakening of such encryption.
While I can't speak to the particulars of the wages that you are citing, did I say anything that suggested I meant otherwise?
It requires no more intelligence than a spring needs to return to its preferred length. One exploits the physical properties of your substance to produce a desired result, and engineers the materials in such a way that its naturally preferred state is whatever that desired result is. This does not require any intelligence whatsoever.
I would define as being, at a bare minimum, whatever "living wage" is presently defined at.
I never suggested they should be paid the same. I suggested that they should both be making a decent wage, which means that they are both making *AT LEAST* enough money to functionally live on (if they are working full time, that is... if they are not, then the amount they make should be proportionally less), independently, in society without further depending on any government assistance or subsidization.
Not even a little bit, no.... Honestly, while I do have pretty strong socialist leanings, I would posiitvely *NOT* advocate a UBI in our current society. I can imagine it may ultimately become necessary at some point in time, but I think that if it does, society itself will have already changed in whatever major ways were necessary for it to actually work. Not that I know precisely what these ways are, but I know that we are not there yet, and I doubt we will be even in my grandchildren's lifetime, let alone mine.
Which leaves one to wonder, which companies didn't comply?
If a job is so menial that it doesn't justify paying a person to do it a decent wage if they are doing it full time, then it's not a job that should be done by people at all.
If that's not an option, then if society still needs the job to be done, then it follows that it must be worth paying someone a decent wage to do it... and how mundane anyone else might find that job to be is irrelevant.
To suggest otherwise is to treat people who work at such low paying jobs as less than human.
No, if they accept it, it more likely means that it's the best that they are able to do because everyone else is too cheap to pay them a decent wage in the first place, and the only way to force people to pay better is to mandate it, by law.
Wrong answer.
Of course... and the solution to this is to start actually paying people fairly, not to compound the problem by not paying them right just because it might cause a momentary dip in the highest paid's bottom line who could afford it anyways. In the long run, the improvements in productivity that result from better wages more than make up for the financial losses. Ford figured that out a century ago.
He didn't have a deal lined up, but what is the reason for thinking that he might not have *believed* that he could have a deal lined up?
As I said before... it's stupid, but being stupid is not the same thing as trying to commit fraud. It's not an excuse to avoid consequences, but it certainly should be an excuse to avoid being accused of doubting a person's integrity or intentions, and the legal definition of fraud most definitely includes having an *intent*.
The defense he would have to truthfully use in court is that he was being a stupid shit when he said those things.
But being stupid and willfully committing fraud are two entirely different things.
Minimum wage hikes do cost some jobs, but most people who get laid off find employment again within 6 months, and for minimum wage workers, at a better rate of pay on account of the minimum wage hike.
Or do you think that it's right to pay people that work full time hours anything less than a wage that is enough to actually live on?
You couldn't be more wrong. Read this.