Actually, the total number of stores also increased by about 8% in 2016 compared to 2015, which suggests that their rate of hiring did not diminish despite increases in automation.
Actually, the number of stores also increased that year by about the same percentage, indicating that automation did not reduce their rate of hiring, as might have otherwise been predicted.
I'm not sure why the government wouldn't just take the property, regardless of what owners want, compensatiing the owners based strictly on objectively assessed value, if they did not accept the initial financial offer.
The government wouldn't have to spend anything on lawyers. It's peculiar that they think hiring a lawyer who specializes in eminent domain would help matters when it's eminent domain that would cause such a case to be open-and-shut for the government. Regardless of how much CaH spends on their lawyers.
Eminent domain enables the government, under certain conditions (which the plans for this wall would happen to easily satisfy), to appropriate absolutely any person's private property that is within their borders, with compensation to be determined by the court, and usually based only on assessed value, rather than on what the person may personally happen to want for such property. And there's dick-all that a person can do about it except take the money and go live elsewhere.
If the government want this badly enough, they will get it... and it will not be anywhere nearly as expensive for them as the folks at CaH want it to be.... unless they are quite literally prepared to take the matter into full-on armed warfare where actual human lives will be lost.
Imagine what would happen to a tip jar at a restaurant if donors weren't allowed to put anything into it without paying an additional fee to an administrator who managed the jar.
They wouldn't need to. The ISP could keep a small cache of recently visited IP addresses per subscriber, and any time a packet comes out for an IP that isn't in the list, or else was last accessed more than a certain amount of time ago (probably on the order of several minutes or even hours), the ISP does a reverse DNS lookup on the IP from their servers to see if it is in an accepted domain. If it isn't, the packet is refused with a NRtH message, and if it is, then the IP is cached, dropping the least recently used IP from its cache if the cache is full. Any packets targeting an IP address that is currently being looked up for the subscriber, before the ISP has retrieved its DNS entry, would be silently dropped. This would introduce a small slowdown when a user first connects to an IP, as I mentioned before, impact only residential subscribers (commercial subscribers, who are paying more anyways, would likely not be impacted by this).
If it wasn't checked in years, and all of the permutations of possible passwords don't work, maybe somebody hacked it in the interim, and the coins are gone anyways.
Yes... that's what I was saying. they could just block everything that isn't explicitly whitelisted. VPN's won't get around it unless the VPN's IP is in the subscriber's whitelist (which it likely wouldn't be).
You seem to misunderstand my point... that "whack-a-mole" game is not something that is going to be remotely economical for ISP's to want to get involved in.
They will, as I said, probably just block access to any IP that is not explicitly whitelisted for the customer to communicate with. Then there's no game of catch-up that the ISP's have to play because the subscriber can't connect to anything that wasn't expressly allowed by their subscription plan in the first place.
The subscriber's only option at that point is to switch ISP's... but often a consumer has a very limited choice of ISP's, depending on their region. More than likely, there will be a "business class" tier that will bypass all of this, but then you could be looking at paying far more for your internet connection than you are now.
Sure.... but that only works until a person switches to a less popular VPN... it's a game of whack-a-mole that the ISP's will never be able to be caught up in.
I think, as I said, it is more likely that they will utilize an IP whitelist, and disallow access to any IP's that are not included in the subscriber's plan so that they can't work around the limitations the ISP is imposing at all.
As this matter is one that I directly dealt with only a few months ago, I can positively assert that Alexa has most definitely *NOT* ever been available in Canada.... and although I've heard workarounds exist, they are not officially supported. As of the time that I'm writing this, it is still not available here, and I've heard of no indication of when it will be, if ever.
How will they know which IP addresses correspond to a VPN?
I think it is more likely that if they were to impose such a pricing structure, they would have such fees attached to data for all packets whose IP they cannot identify as being included with whatever bundle package the subscriber was supposed to receive as part of their base rate.
Even more likely, I suspect, is that they will not allow such data packets to get through at all.
You can't exactly tunnel through VPN if your ISP won't let you route anything to IP addresses that are not expressly whitelisted and your VPN's IP is not on that whitelist.
I highly doubt that ISP's that are going to go along with this are going to care that it breaks the internet for almost everybody that doesn't just use whatever the most popular internet flavors happen to be be.
Obviously you have to have your device voltage at a rating high enough to offer sufficient power at whatever amperage is applicable to the physical attributes of the device, but in general one is probably not going to go too much higher than that. The more voltage you have to cut out from your main power source as you drop the voltage down to the actual required voltage level, the more energy you are going to tend to waste as heat when it passes through the voltage regulator circuitry, which drastically shortens the useful life of the affected electronics.
Fair point, although charge density in a portable device is typically more going to be more reflective of energy density in something than its voltage, even though energy is actually the product of both voltage rating and charge. In general, I would expect that manufacturers would not want to use higher voltage batteries than the minimum necessary to power consumer electronics devices anyways, in particular because it would almost certainly tend to be wasteful, and would probably also make the end-product less portable.
I didn't suggest that acoustic phenomenon could not produce debilitating results, not did I suggest that sonic weapons don't exist. I said there are no known kinds of acoustic phenomena that can produce the precise combination of symptoms that are being seen here. Especially the brain damage.
Are there things that can cause this kinds of damage? Obviously... but caused by sound? Not so much.
I have been saying it ever since this story broke... it is a mistake to presume it is a weapon until you can actually at least establish a working theory of a weapon that both actually exists in the real world, and not simply on paper, and actually produces the effects we are seeing here.
Until we know what happened, the people who were affected by this are probably going to be under close scientific scrutiny in the interim... up to the remainder of their entire life.
It's not a crime to say that we don't know what happened, even if the results were life-threatening and serious. It means that we need to study it closely, and maybe, with a bit of luck, figure it out.
I have a feeling that we will not, however, unless it should happen again.
Sure, but I find it weird that they would be restricting bags with non-removable batteries that are otherwise small enough to be carried on from being brought on board but not having similar restrictions for absolutely anything with non-removable batteries.
Considering there is zero precedent for any kind acoustic phenomenon to cause symptoms like this, I'd suggest that the allegation that it was a sonic weapon is no less of an extraordinary claim than anything else that might be proposed.
I don't know what it is... Nobody who's investigated this has any idea what it is, because these symptoms have never been seen before.
I'm not claiming that anything extraordinary happened here either, only something unknown.
No. Copyright is the right to *control* who may make copies. It is an artificial extension of the natural right that would have existed if the creator had never published it in the first place, and a public concession to respect copyright is required in order for it to work as intended, so that theoretically, creators rely on copyright to protect their works for some finite amount of tune and the general public is enriched by the infusion of creative works, instead of publishers resorting to self censorship to protect their interests that they might otherwise do in absence of copyright, DRM, by the way, is a perfect example of a modern form of self censorship that can arise when creators lose confidence in copyright alone.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the total number of stores also increased by about 8% in 2016 compared to 2015, which suggests that their rate of hiring did not diminish despite increases in automation.
It may have escaped your attention that you saying that something "isn't possible" has no bearing on whether or not it actually happens.
Which is kind of funny, because it does.
Actually, the number of stores also increased that year by about the same percentage, indicating that automation did not reduce their rate of hiring, as might have otherwise been predicted.
That is, after all, what eminent domain entails.
The government wouldn't have to spend anything on lawyers. It's peculiar that they think hiring a lawyer who specializes in eminent domain would help matters when it's eminent domain that would cause such a case to be open-and-shut for the government. Regardless of how much CaH spends on their lawyers.
Eminent domain enables the government, under certain conditions (which the plans for this wall would happen to easily satisfy), to appropriate absolutely any person's private property that is within their borders, with compensation to be determined by the court, and usually based only on assessed value, rather than on what the person may personally happen to want for such property. And there's dick-all that a person can do about it except take the money and go live elsewhere.
If the government want this badly enough, they will get it... and it will not be anywhere nearly as expensive for them as the folks at CaH want it to be.... unless they are quite literally prepared to take the matter into full-on armed warfare where actual human lives will be lost.
Imagine what would happen to a tip jar at a restaurant if donors weren't allowed to put anything into it without paying an additional fee to an administrator who managed the jar.
I was under the impression that the *donor* would be charged this additional fee, over and above whatever their pledge amount was.
They wouldn't need to. The ISP could keep a small cache of recently visited IP addresses per subscriber, and any time a packet comes out for an IP that isn't in the list, or else was last accessed more than a certain amount of time ago (probably on the order of several minutes or even hours), the ISP does a reverse DNS lookup on the IP from their servers to see if it is in an accepted domain. If it isn't, the packet is refused with a NRtH message, and if it is, then the IP is cached, dropping the least recently used IP from its cache if the cache is full. Any packets targeting an IP address that is currently being looked up for the subscriber, before the ISP has retrieved its DNS entry, would be silently dropped. This would introduce a small slowdown when a user first connects to an IP, as I mentioned before, impact only residential subscribers (commercial subscribers, who are paying more anyways, would likely not be impacted by this).
If it wasn't checked in years, and all of the permutations of possible passwords don't work, maybe somebody hacked it in the interim, and the coins are gone anyways.
Yes... that's what I was saying. they could just block everything that isn't explicitly whitelisted. VPN's won't get around it unless the VPN's IP is in the subscriber's whitelist (which it likely wouldn't be).
The expression sounds kind of silly when "all the rest" is pretty much exclusively one thing.
You seem to misunderstand my point... that "whack-a-mole" game is not something that is going to be remotely economical for ISP's to want to get involved in.
They will, as I said, probably just block access to any IP that is not explicitly whitelisted for the customer to communicate with. Then there's no game of catch-up that the ISP's have to play because the subscriber can't connect to anything that wasn't expressly allowed by their subscription plan in the first place.
The subscriber's only option at that point is to switch ISP's... but often a consumer has a very limited choice of ISP's, depending on their region. More than likely, there will be a "business class" tier that will bypass all of this, but then you could be looking at paying far more for your internet connection than you are now.
Sure.... but that only works until a person switches to a less popular VPN... it's a game of whack-a-mole that the ISP's will never be able to be caught up in.
I think, as I said, it is more likely that they will utilize an IP whitelist, and disallow access to any IP's that are not included in the subscriber's plan so that they can't work around the limitations the ISP is imposing at all.
As this matter is one that I directly dealt with only a few months ago, I can positively assert that Alexa has most definitely *NOT* ever been available in Canada.... and although I've heard workarounds exist, they are not officially supported. As of the time that I'm writing this, it is still not available here, and I've heard of no indication of when it will be, if ever.
How will they know which IP addresses correspond to a VPN?
I think it is more likely that if they were to impose such a pricing structure, they would have such fees attached to data for all packets whose IP they cannot identify as being included with whatever bundle package the subscriber was supposed to receive as part of their base rate.
Even more likely, I suspect, is that they will not allow such data packets to get through at all.
I highly doubt that ISP's that are going to go along with this are going to care that it breaks the internet for almost everybody that doesn't just use whatever the most popular internet flavors happen to be be.
Obviously you have to have your device voltage at a rating high enough to offer sufficient power at whatever amperage is applicable to the physical attributes of the device, but in general one is probably not going to go too much higher than that. The more voltage you have to cut out from your main power source as you drop the voltage down to the actual required voltage level, the more energy you are going to tend to waste as heat when it passes through the voltage regulator circuitry, which drastically shortens the useful life of the affected electronics.
Fair point, although charge density in a portable device is typically more going to be more reflective of energy density in something than its voltage, even though energy is actually the product of both voltage rating and charge. In general, I would expect that manufacturers would not want to use higher voltage batteries than the minimum necessary to power consumer electronics devices anyways, in particular because it would almost certainly tend to be wasteful, and would probably also make the end-product less portable.
I didn't suggest that acoustic phenomenon could not produce debilitating results, not did I suggest that sonic weapons don't exist. I said there are no known kinds of acoustic phenomena that can produce the precise combination of symptoms that are being seen here. Especially the brain damage.
Are there things that can cause this kinds of damage? Obviously... but caused by sound? Not so much.
I have been saying it ever since this story broke... it is a mistake to presume it is a weapon until you can actually at least establish a working theory of a weapon that both actually exists in the real world, and not simply on paper, and actually produces the effects we are seeing here.
Until we know what happened, the people who were affected by this are probably going to be under close scientific scrutiny in the interim... up to the remainder of their entire life.
It's not a crime to say that we don't know what happened, even if the results were life-threatening and serious. It means that we need to study it closely, and maybe, with a bit of luck, figure it out.
I have a feeling that we will not, however, unless it should happen again.
Sure, but I find it weird that they would be restricting bags with non-removable batteries that are otherwise small enough to be carried on from being brought on board but not having similar restrictions for absolutely anything with non-removable batteries.
Shouldn't they be disallowing anything with a non-removable battery, perhaps anything rated above a certain number of milliamp-hours?
Considering there is zero precedent for any kind acoustic phenomenon to cause symptoms like this, I'd suggest that the allegation that it was a sonic weapon is no less of an extraordinary claim than anything else that might be proposed.
I don't know what it is... Nobody who's investigated this has any idea what it is, because these symptoms have never been seen before.
I'm not claiming that anything extraordinary happened here either, only something unknown.
I'm not sure if you're subtly pointing out how I mistyped "time" as "tune", or if you thought I didn't mention it.
No. Copyright is the right to *control* who may make copies. It is an artificial extension of the natural right that would have existed if the creator had never published it in the first place, and a public concession to respect copyright is required in order for it to work as intended, so that theoretically, creators rely on copyright to protect their works for some finite amount of tune and the general public is enriched by the infusion of creative works, instead of publishers resorting to self censorship to protect their interests that they might otherwise do in absence of copyright, DRM, by the way, is a perfect example of a modern form of self censorship that can arise when creators lose confidence in copyright alone.
Is it open source?