And, of course, there's the problem that no electronic payment anything is as close to anonymous as cash is.perhaps not *AS* anonymous... but still pretty darn anonymous, owing to the "needle in a haystack" principle.
Production plants don't spring up overnight... even if Apple were to do this, by the time the production plants in the USA were ready, consumer demand for Apple products would have long since completely acclimated to the increased cost a, and the price wouldn't suddenly go back down just because they are building in the USA... given that the USA does not have the ability to produce some things as cheaply as China can, it is unlikely that even if they COULD move production to America overnight, prices would still probably not go down (and may very well increase).
Trump's apparent objective to make America great at everything while other countries will continue to specialize will result in the USA dividing its own resources too finely across too many industries to continue to be the best at anything.
One of the biggest reasons I've heard that places don't take cash is because by not having any cash on premises, the safety of the workers is increased. If would-be thieves know in advance that there isn't any cash on site, then they aren't going to threaten an employee there to empty their cash box in the first place. One could argue that as long as people insist on using cash, they are endorsing to continue to put such workers in harm's way.
I'd actually be willing to cut them some slack on this one... they only appear to say they will throttle when the network is congested. As long as that's the only time they throttle, it doesn't matter how much or how fast you personally might use the system, the only thing that determines whether they will throttle is overall demand.
Which is, by the way, not too dissimilar from what you'd get with no throttling at all, because the physical infrastructure can still only handle so much bandwidth at once. At that point, however, the quality of service is going to totally blow for the lower demand connections while the high demand connections dominate the network, so they might be actively throttling before network usage reaches that point only so that their average QoS remains steady for the largest number of subscribers.
The difference is whether or not the throttling against you is because of *YOUR* usage as opposed to what they have determined gives their network the best level of service. This would imply, also, that if they are throttling you, then they are also throttling everyone else on the same node to the same cap. That seems fair, in my view... because I believe that they are entitled to try and maximize their overall service level for the largest number of people.
With such a large disparity there is no reason to believe it would consider us worth keeping around.
Only if we were a nuisance to it. We don't after all, tend to go out of our way to exterminate all ants everywhere... we only go after them when they are actively interfering in our own affairs.
So what do you imagine these AI's trying to do that humans are interfering with that it would want to destroy us?
Well yes, to be honest... because AI stands for "Aritificial Intelligence", and if it doesn't think for itself, then it's not actually intelligent, is it?
AI, separate from bullshit passing as AI to today, is nothing more than what it says: intelligence that happens to be artificial.
There is even less of a reason to fear it than there is to fear anything else man made, because with other man made things, the thing to fear is not the thing itself, but the person who might use that thing with nefarious intent.
AI, however, should think for itself... and so could not be used by anybody for any purpose that it did not itself think was appropriate. There is no more of a reason to fear it than there is to fear having children because of the possibility that one of them might grow up to be a mass murderer.
What, does everyone in the entire state vote at the same physical location? That seems like it is logistically infeasible.
Obviously you have one polling station for every 5 to 10 thousand or so registered voters... and you have maybe 10 to 20 ballot boxes at any single polling station. In couple the times I've worked for elections Canada to man a ballot box, I've never seen an election box that was actually full, and the number of ballots in each box seemed to be no more than a couple of hundred, often much less.
It shouldn't... you have to register to vote in the first place and that generally requires identification... the only reason you need to have identification to pick up a ballot is to make sure that you are the person whose name is on the voter registration card (and that you didn't swipe somebody else's so that you could try and vote more than once). In general, one just has to present the same ID that they used to register to vote in the first place.
It's even possible to vote without having received a voter registration card, but there's a special line for that, and the processing can take a lot longer, depending on what forms of ID the person has. In my observed experience, the lineups for that are shorter than the lineups for regular voting, but then after processing the person has to get into the regular voting lineup anyway, so there's no potential gain to be had.
Well, I was talking about AI in the sense of being something that is actually recognizable as intelligence. The only difference between it and us would be that it was artificially created instead of something that naturally exists. In reality, it should be no more frightening in comparison to natural intelligence than the most advanced artificial limbs are scarier than natural limbs.
Here in Canada you need to provide proof of identification as well. Government issued photo ID such as a driver's license or is best because it's generally just a show-it-and-go, but others can be accepted... there's just some extra paperwork involved, and one might need to have multiple ID's.
Can someone please explain to me why artificial intelligence is supposedly somehow any more terrifying than natural intelligence already is when the latter is applied to nefarious ends, and why it should ever be assumed that any general purpose AI would be somehow likely to have an agenda that we would actually consider to be corrupt or wrong?
Make a simple mark on a paper ballot indicating your vote, fold it, put it in a box.
done
Now theoretically you could bribe people who do the counting, but you'd have to bribe a *LOT* of people to make any kind of difference because each individual ballot box with the folded ballots contains but a tiny fraction of the number of votes, and nobody ever counts the ballots from more than one or sometimes two different boxes.
Undermining presidential authority is a decision, of course... but that's not what the post to which I responded said. Let me remind you of Snufu's post to which I had responded:
"...that is detrimental to the health of our republic"
You don't get to decide that.
My point is that what they quoted and said that the person doesn't get to decide that wasn't actually any kind of decision at all, it was a belief.
Now if they had actually meant to say that the person doesn't get to decide to *ACT* on such beliefs without going through the appropriate legal process, then they would most certainly be talking about a decision, but that's not what he wrote at that point... mention of actions came later in the comment, but at that point was not contextually relevant to the comment of "you don't get to decide that", where "that" appears to refer to the comment that was quoted, not what would end up appearing not before at least a couple of sentences into the following paragraph.
Okay.... let's take it from the top: A person who doesn't make a living wage receives government benefits that the company would actually have to pay for, effectively raising the amount that this person costs the company. This effectively creates a disincentive against hiring people with dependents, who would receive more benefits than those without.
However, by the proposal mentioned above, however, a person with a spouse who cannot work gets an exemption, so that the company does not discriminate against people with a dependent spouse because they might have more benefits that the company would have to pay for. This would mean that the person with a dependent spouse does not cost the company as much money, creating an incentive to hire those people over those who are single.
Get what I'm saying now?
There's literally no way to win here with Sanders' proposal. if the government charges the company any extra money over their wage for an employee, then they create a disincentive against hiring that employee when the option exists for the company to pay someone the same wage while still being charged less for the benefits they receive because they happen to have dependents that would make them exempt from the subsidies requirements.
I think that the solution, of course, is to not tax them 100% as Sanders proposed, but to tax them on a scale depending upon how many dependents they have, so that even if an employee is receiving more benefits because of dependents, it does not cost the company any more money... This effectively raises the minimum wage for the company to some amount such that for a single person with no dependents, they would not receive any subsidies, effectively making minimum wage = living wage for a single person. The only sticking point left is that living wage, however, can vary considerably from city to city, even in areas which would otherwise share the same minimum wage, so companies in bigger cities with a higher living wage would have more taxes to pay per employee than they would in a smaller city, but at least it doesn't change how much the company has to pay each employee that they otherwise have the same wage for in a given city, so there is no basis for discrimination against employees with or without dependents.
You're right, he doesn't get to decide that... but he's not deciding anything here.... he's making a comment based entirely on what has been observed so far. You are welcome to disagree, but he's as entitled to his view as you are to yours.
Maybe the time has come for the US to create a maximum pay ratio law between lowest and highest paid people working for a company (including managers and executives), which might mitigate that.
If the company isn't changing how much they pay people, and a single person still needs those government aids that the company now has to pay for, while a person with a spouse that doesn't work is exempted, then they are less likely to hire the single person.
It has less to do with whether or not you are actually desirable and more to do with how much other people *believe* you are desirable.
And what other people believe is not directly under your control... at best you might be able to influence it, but only if you actually know what a particular person needs to see or hear in order to come to that kind of conclusion
The law should waive the penalty when an employee has a spouse who is unable to work, however, as that contributes to poverty but is not the fault of the employer---and we don't want employers to have an incentive for discriminating against people whose partners are sick/disabled.
And instead, give them an incentive to discriminate against people who are single... nice.
If you don't think you're being paid enough, find another job.
Looking for another job takes time that is often better spent earning whatever you can *actually* make, because even not making enough is better than not making anything until you are lucky enough to find something else that does pay what you want... a journey that one has no real way to control how long it will take, or even if they will necessarily reach their destination.
Seriously, this is news to me.. I heard they were among the highest paying companies in North America. Wasn't their high wages coupled with the sheer number of employees they had what drove up housing prices in Seattle?
Slashdot Mirror
Production plants don't spring up overnight... even if Apple were to do this, by the time the production plants in the USA were ready, consumer demand for Apple products would have long since completely acclimated to the increased cost a, and the price wouldn't suddenly go back down just because they are building in the USA... given that the USA does not have the ability to produce some things as cheaply as China can, it is unlikely that even if they COULD move production to America overnight, prices would still probably not go down (and may very well increase).
Trump's apparent objective to make America great at everything while other countries will continue to specialize will result in the USA dividing its own resources too finely across too many industries to continue to be the best at anything.
One of the biggest reasons I've heard that places don't take cash is because by not having any cash on premises, the safety of the workers is increased. If would-be thieves know in advance that there isn't any cash on site, then they aren't going to threaten an employee there to empty their cash box in the first place. One could argue that as long as people insist on using cash, they are endorsing to continue to put such workers in harm's way.
It's my understanding that you are simply charged for whatever you leave the store with, so that there's no actual checkout process.
I'd actually be willing to cut them some slack on this one... they only appear to say they will throttle when the network is congested. As long as that's the only time they throttle, it doesn't matter how much or how fast you personally might use the system, the only thing that determines whether they will throttle is overall demand.
Which is, by the way, not too dissimilar from what you'd get with no throttling at all, because the physical infrastructure can still only handle so much bandwidth at once. At that point, however, the quality of service is going to totally blow for the lower demand connections while the high demand connections dominate the network, so they might be actively throttling before network usage reaches that point only so that their average QoS remains steady for the largest number of subscribers.
The difference is whether or not the throttling against you is because of *YOUR* usage as opposed to what they have determined gives their network the best level of service. This would imply, also, that if they are throttling you, then they are also throttling everyone else on the same node to the same cap. That seems fair, in my view... because I believe that they are entitled to try and maximize their overall service level for the largest number of people.
No... but neither do we go and try to exterminate all ants everywhere, even when they are not otherwise in the way of what we might wish to achieve.
So what do you imagine AI's wanting to do that humans might be in the way for?
Only if we were a nuisance to it. We don't after all, tend to go out of our way to exterminate all ants everywhere... we only go after them when they are actively interfering in our own affairs.
So what do you imagine these AI's trying to do that humans are interfering with that it would want to destroy us?
Well yes, to be honest... because AI stands for "Aritificial Intelligence", and if it doesn't think for itself, then it's not actually intelligent, is it?
AI, separate from bullshit passing as AI to today, is nothing more than what it says: intelligence that happens to be artificial.
There is even less of a reason to fear it than there is to fear anything else man made, because with other man made things, the thing to fear is not the thing itself, but the person who might use that thing with nefarious intent.
AI, however, should think for itself... and so could not be used by anybody for any purpose that it did not itself think was appropriate. There is no more of a reason to fear it than there is to fear having children because of the possibility that one of them might grow up to be a mass murderer.
What, does everyone in the entire state vote at the same physical location? That seems like it is logistically infeasible.
Obviously you have one polling station for every 5 to 10 thousand or so registered voters... and you have maybe 10 to 20 ballot boxes at any single polling station. In couple the times I've worked for elections Canada to man a ballot box, I've never seen an election box that was actually full, and the number of ballots in each box seemed to be no more than a couple of hundred, often much less.
It shouldn't... you have to register to vote in the first place and that generally requires identification... the only reason you need to have identification to pick up a ballot is to make sure that you are the person whose name is on the voter registration card (and that you didn't swipe somebody else's so that you could try and vote more than once). In general, one just has to present the same ID that they used to register to vote in the first place.
It's even possible to vote without having received a voter registration card, but there's a special line for that, and the processing can take a lot longer, depending on what forms of ID the person has. In my observed experience, the lineups for that are shorter than the lineups for regular voting, but then after processing the person has to get into the regular voting lineup anyway, so there's no potential gain to be had.
Well, I was talking about AI in the sense of being something that is actually recognizable as intelligence. The only difference between it and us would be that it was artificially created instead of something that naturally exists. In reality, it should be no more frightening in comparison to natural intelligence than the most advanced artificial limbs are scarier than natural limbs.
Why, if they are supposedly "intelligent" are they incapable of recognizing that the war is over?
Here in Canada you need to provide proof of identification as well. Government issued photo ID such as a driver's license or is best because it's generally just a show-it-and-go, but others can be accepted... there's just some extra paperwork involved, and one might need to have multiple ID's.
Can someone please explain to me why artificial intelligence is supposedly somehow any more terrifying than natural intelligence already is when the latter is applied to nefarious ends, and why it should ever be assumed that any general purpose AI would be somehow likely to have an agenda that we would actually consider to be corrupt or wrong?
Make a simple mark on a paper ballot indicating your vote, fold it, put it in a box.
done
Now theoretically you could bribe people who do the counting, but you'd have to bribe a *LOT* of people to make any kind of difference because each individual ballot box with the folded ballots contains but a tiny fraction of the number of votes, and nobody ever counts the ballots from more than one or sometimes two different boxes.
My point is that what they quoted and said that the person doesn't get to decide that wasn't actually any kind of decision at all, it was a belief.
Now if they had actually meant to say that the person doesn't get to decide to *ACT* on such beliefs without going through the appropriate legal process, then they would most certainly be talking about a decision, but that's not what he wrote at that point... mention of actions came later in the comment, but at that point was not contextually relevant to the comment of "you don't get to decide that", where "that" appears to refer to the comment that was quoted, not what would end up appearing not before at least a couple of sentences into the following paragraph.
Okay.... let's take it from the top: A person who doesn't make a living wage receives government benefits that the company would actually have to pay for, effectively raising the amount that this person costs the company. This effectively creates a disincentive against hiring people with dependents, who would receive more benefits than those without.
However, by the proposal mentioned above, however, a person with a spouse who cannot work gets an exemption, so that the company does not discriminate against people with a dependent spouse because they might have more benefits that the company would have to pay for. This would mean that the person with a dependent spouse does not cost the company as much money, creating an incentive to hire those people over those who are single.
Get what I'm saying now?
There's literally no way to win here with Sanders' proposal. if the government charges the company any extra money over their wage for an employee, then they create a disincentive against hiring that employee when the option exists for the company to pay someone the same wage while still being charged less for the benefits they receive because they happen to have dependents that would make them exempt from the subsidies requirements.
I think that the solution, of course, is to not tax them 100% as Sanders proposed, but to tax them on a scale depending upon how many dependents they have, so that even if an employee is receiving more benefits because of dependents, it does not cost the company any more money... This effectively raises the minimum wage for the company to some amount such that for a single person with no dependents, they would not receive any subsidies, effectively making minimum wage = living wage for a single person. The only sticking point left is that living wage, however, can vary considerably from city to city, even in areas which would otherwise share the same minimum wage, so companies in bigger cities with a higher living wage would have more taxes to pay per employee than they would in a smaller city, but at least it doesn't change how much the company has to pay each employee that they otherwise have the same wage for in a given city, so there is no basis for discrimination against employees with or without dependents.
You're right, he doesn't get to decide that... but he's not deciding anything here.... he's making a comment based entirely on what has been observed so far. You are welcome to disagree, but he's as entitled to his view as you are to yours.
Maybe the time has come for the US to create a maximum pay ratio law between lowest and highest paid people working for a company (including managers and executives), which might mitigate that.
If the company isn't changing how much they pay people, and a single person still needs those government aids that the company now has to pay for, while a person with a spouse that doesn't work is exempted, then they are less likely to hire the single person.
It has less to do with whether or not you are actually desirable and more to do with how much other people *believe* you are desirable.
And what other people believe is not directly under your control... at best you might be able to influence it, but only if you actually know what a particular person needs to see or hear in order to come to that kind of conclusion
And instead, give them an incentive to discriminate against people who are single... nice.
Looking for another job takes time that is often better spent earning whatever you can *actually* make, because even not making enough is better than not making anything until you are lucky enough to find something else that does pay what you want... a journey that one has no real way to control how long it will take, or even if they will necessarily reach their destination.
Seriously, this is news to me.. I heard they were among the highest paying companies in North America. Wasn't their high wages coupled with the sheer number of employees they had what drove up housing prices in Seattle?