He is going to have a business with a large number of well paid workers right next door. Why would he be upset? Instead of protesting, he should clean his shop and get ready for the influx of new business.
It's more likely that Amazon will offer free haircuts as a perk, or most of those people will commute to work meaning they get haircuts near their house. Either way, his rent goes up but his clientele doesn't.
On top of that, the cops already have their guns out and aimed. Unless the guy is a quick draw expert (and those people train for precise distances and angles), they have plenty of time to verify he is actually pulling a firearm and then shoot him before he can get a shot off in their direction. At best (worst), he gets a shot off that goes right into the ground.
Hell, my employer loses 10s of thousands of dollars a month in fraud from people reselling our stuff on Amazon and Amazon refuses to do anything about it, even after we've told them repeatedly that our products are not authorized for sale on their site.
Sounds like your employer's products are underpriced if resellers can make a profit reselling them on Amazon. Either that or you need to do better inventory control.
ESPN already has a paid service with additional, exclusive content called ESPN+ so it's a good bet that it will be tied in with Disney+ in some way. Probably paying for access to Disney+ gets you access to ESPN+ to help draw in the parents even more.
I'm wondering where all these people live where there is SO much traffic every day?
Are they only polling places like D.C, L.A. , Houston?
It can take me anywhere from 1-2 hours to get home here in the ATL. Work southside, live very far northside (only good place with halfway decent housing costs and even those have skyrocketed the past 3 years). Can't move because wife works northside. Of course, the main problem here is they have 2 major highways merge through the city. If they would split the 2 highways it would reduce travel time for me because most downtown traffic is for the other main highway.
So on the one hand you are right - hunger and poverty have human causes. But, technology could conceivably fix them. For example some hunger is basically because certain dictators / warlords / etc. take the food and also steal the relief shipments other groups send in. A drone that killed off that person would likely solve that. Of course you would eventually get Skynet. But for a short time it would be solved.
That's not solving the problem. As recent events in ME/NA show, forcibly removing a strong-arm ruler often just causes more problems as the state descends into chaos and anarchy at worst, civil war at best. So instead of a state (relatively) peacefully starving, you have a state starving and at war with itself.
How many people does he think could survive on Earth without technology?
Keeping literally billions of people from dying sure seems like "solving problems".
I think the whole point is that technology is not a panacea. It helps solve problems, but deep down a lot of problems like hunger or poverty have underlying causes beyond the remedy of technology. A lot of it is simply getting past the human element: greed, corruption, stubbornness, mistrust, etc. Then you have natural causes such as simple physics, ecology, geography, etc that technology can mitigate but not effectively or realistically fully overcome. A lot of people in Silicon Valley (and tech in general) have grand ideas about changing or saving the world, and those dreams just simply aren't realistic or feasible. Limited or localized change and improvement is certainly possible and is a laudable achievement, but expectations must be realistic. And in quite a few instances, but trying to solve problems you end up only creating more.
Something something.....first hit for free.....something something. Or, the razor model: give away the handle for free/cheap, make money on the blades(skins).
Maybe not, supposedly this deal was a big issue in the Wisconsin gubernatorial election this year. So we will find out soon whether or not they keep the same bums in. The current governor was the one who really pushed the deal through.
That's okay! It's only 1 or 2 megawatts continuously for those 10 years!
That's only $21 million in electricity costs alone, and 100,000 metric tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere. Surely, that's a small price to pay to be good celestial neighbors...
So.....just the equivalent of a handful of bitcoin miners? That's not too bad.
Last election it was Clinton or Trump. Doesn't matter how well you researched either candidate's position, because it boiled down to something other than policy for many people.
Voting from an informed position only really helps if you have a range of candidates, all with a realistic chance of winning. What you actually get is a choice of two and a massive amount of disinformation.
It was? Huh, I voted for Johnson. You see, that's part of the problem. The 2 party system is broken, everyone realizes it, yet everyone says why vote for them, only the Democrat or Republican can win. It's a cliche, but Rome wasn't built in a day. If the third party candidate is the one that has policies you support, vote for them. Enough people do that and third parties get enough votes to qualify for federal funds in the next election. As they get higher vote percentages, more people will realize they are valid options and vote for them as well.
Voting should always be a right for all adult citizens barring a few exceptions (namely felons who have shown no desire or ability to live within society), as the consequences of voting affects everyone.
Can you explain the discrepancy between the two noun phrases I've highlighted?
Because a line has to be drawn somewhere? Unless you plan to let babies vote. Whoever's picture the crawl to gets their vote? "Legal adult" is a reasonable cutoff because that is also the age in which the person is extended several rights/privileges and also owes a measure of responsibility towards society (draft for example).
Voting should be a privilege and only a right for those that have earned the privilege.
Wrong. Voting should always be a right for all adult citizens barring a few exceptions (namely felons who have shown no desire or ability to live within society), as the consequences of voting affects everyone. However, like any right, it is a right that should be exercised responsibly. You have a right to free speech, but you shouldn't go around knowingly committing libel or slander or yelling fire in crowded theater or yelling obscenities to children. You have a right to protest, but you shouldn't do it in such a way that puts yourself or others in danger. You have the right to bear arms, but it's irresponsible to wave a gun around near a crowd of people or start randomly firing into the air. You have the right to vote, but you should know who and what you are voting for.
Maybe, I'm usually well educated about candidates , and tend to skip voting of races and issues I have not studied, still.
I've done that myself, and I have also specifically voted 3rd party in cases where the only ads I had ever seen from candidates was to attack their opponents-if you don't want to tell me why I should vote for and instead spend all your time attacking other people, I'm not going to vote for you.
I am often voting for the candidate least likely to make me vomit then a candidate I actually want.
I believe my sig is an appropriate reply to this. When your only choice is between the lesser of two evils, evil still always wins.
"People voting on heuristics or based on what pop singer posted is what got this country into it's current mess."
No, its elitist idiots who got us into this mess with the notion that voting was some kind of intellectual challenge that only qualified people like themselves should participate in. If everyone voted, Donald Trump wouldn't be president because the outcome wouldn't have been determined by who was motivated to vote.
You mistake my claim of "our current mess" to be primarily directed at the election of Trump, as I assume so does whoever modded me flamebait. While trump is certainly a symptom, it goes much deeper. Current Congressional approval ratings are at less than 20%, yet reelection rates are at over 90%. Why? It's easier to vote for the incumbent. Politicians no longer have to worry about getting things done: if a bill or policy put forth by the majority party fails, it's because the other side killed it or stonewalled it. Your party is now the minority party? Stonewall them because they stonewalled us. Politicians no longer try to govern, they try to get re-elected. Both parties are broken and controlled by specific interests, people know it and they complain about it, yet they refuse to look at independents or 3rd parties.
People vote on a variety of factors: it's how their parents always voted, straight party tickets, how the candidate looks, a single policy such as abortion or gun control, always for/against the incumbent, the last sign they saw pulling into the polling place, who their favorite tv or radio show said to vote for, etc. But yet none of these factors lead to good governance. People hate the government, want to fix it or change it, yet when it is time to do something about it they inevitably fall back on the same old habits then complain that nothing changed. I believe they call that insanity.
"People voting on heuristics or based on what pop singer posted is what got this country into it's current mess."
Considering the US routinely comes in the bottom of voter turnout for industrialized countries, I don't that argument is as useful as you think it is.
Just shows how much power even a few educated voters can have. All of the "go vote" programs we have, being pushed by athletes, musicians, actors, etc, don't say "go out and learn about the candidates" they say "go vote". The type of people who go vote just because someone tells them to are not the type likely to research candidates. If people would go out, educate themselves about politics and candidates, and then went out and voted a lot of problems in the country would be fixed.
"I think a lot of people might vote just because they're frankly worried that their friends will find out if they didn't."
If that's your only reason for voting, then you might as well just stay home. People voting on heuristics or based on what pop singer posted is what got this country into it's current mess. If you aren't willing to make the time and effort to research candidate positions (or even who the candidates are) then you are doing more harm to good when you vote. Democracy and effective government can only exist with an informed electorate. Put pressure on our politicians to campaign on actual, thought out policies and then hold them to those policies if they are elected. Do your research yourself, go to each campaign's website, watch debates and speeches, etc-don't just listen to talking heads or what your preferred candidate says about their opponent. Voting is a right just as owning a gun is a right. Uninformed voting is the electoral equivalent of waving a gun around in the air-when exercising a right, you have a duty to exercise that right responsibly.
It's clearly an alien spacecraft that got hulled and tumbled out uncontrollably into space in a battle long ago. Over the millennia it's been floating through space it simply iced over and collected dust. Either that or the Arachnids missed us, those stupid bugs.
Why don't they just use public pages? The internet has no shortage of discussion forums, many of which must be frequented by millions of people, even in Iran and China.
MMOs. MMOs make the perfect medium for covert communication. Think about how many hundreds, if not thousands of games there are that allow communication between players, many with world-wide player bases. You have behemoths like WoW with multiple servers in multiple regions down to $2 cellphone games. Even if a country were able to go through the arduous task of figuring if or what game is being used, simple tradecraft basics make monitoring difficult. It could be coded messages, set times to meet, or even something as simple as sending/giving a player a certain item or buying/selling an item at a certain price had different or predetermined meanings. Unless a target is already under surveillance and their machine is compromised an agency would have to covertly find/add a back door or crack and track every game available (and with VPNs and other methods even games NOT available) within it's borders.
Slashdot Mirror
He is going to have a business with a large number of well paid workers right next door. Why would he be upset? Instead of protesting, he should clean his shop and get ready for the influx of new business.
It's more likely that Amazon will offer free haircuts as a perk, or most of those people will commute to work meaning they get haircuts near their house. Either way, his rent goes up but his clientele doesn't.
On top of that, the cops already have their guns out and aimed. Unless the guy is a quick draw expert (and those people train for precise distances and angles), they have plenty of time to verify he is actually pulling a firearm and then shoot him before he can get a shot off in their direction. At best (worst), he gets a shot off that goes right into the ground.
I think you can get one at McDonald's
Hell, my employer loses 10s of thousands of dollars a month in fraud from people reselling our stuff on Amazon and Amazon refuses to do anything about it, even after we've told them repeatedly that our products are not authorized for sale on their site.
Sounds like your employer's products are underpriced if resellers can make a profit reselling them on Amazon. Either that or you need to do better inventory control.
A line from a movie (that escapes me at the moment) comes to mind ....
"Sometimes ... I told you so just doesn't quite cut it ...."
I, Robot
will they force ESPN to be part of this?
ESPN already has a paid service with additional, exclusive content called ESPN+ so it's a good bet that it will be tied in with Disney+ in some way. Probably paying for access to Disney+ gets you access to ESPN+ to help draw in the parents even more.
I'm wondering where all these people live where there is SO much traffic every day?
Are they only polling places like D.C, L.A. , Houston?
It can take me anywhere from 1-2 hours to get home here in the ATL. Work southside, live very far northside (only good place with halfway decent housing costs and even those have skyrocketed the past 3 years). Can't move because wife works northside. Of course, the main problem here is they have 2 major highways merge through the city. If they would split the 2 highways it would reduce travel time for me because most downtown traffic is for the other main highway.
So on the one hand you are right - hunger and poverty have human causes. But, technology could conceivably fix them. For example some hunger is basically because certain dictators / warlords / etc. take the food and also steal the relief shipments other groups send in. A drone that killed off that person would likely solve that. Of course you would eventually get Skynet. But for a short time it would be solved.
That's not solving the problem. As recent events in ME/NA show, forcibly removing a strong-arm ruler often just causes more problems as the state descends into chaos and anarchy at worst, civil war at best. So instead of a state (relatively) peacefully starving, you have a state starving and at war with itself.
Seriously? This guy runs Google?
How many people does he think could survive on Earth without technology?
Keeping literally billions of people from dying sure seems like "solving problems".
I think the whole point is that technology is not a panacea. It helps solve problems, but deep down a lot of problems like hunger or poverty have underlying causes beyond the remedy of technology. A lot of it is simply getting past the human element: greed, corruption, stubbornness, mistrust, etc. Then you have natural causes such as simple physics, ecology, geography, etc that technology can mitigate but not effectively or realistically fully overcome. A lot of people in Silicon Valley (and tech in general) have grand ideas about changing or saving the world, and those dreams just simply aren't realistic or feasible. Limited or localized change and improvement is certainly possible and is a laudable achievement, but expectations must be realistic. And in quite a few instances, but trying to solve problems you end up only creating more.
Something something.....first hit for free.....something something. Or, the razor model: give away the handle for free/cheap, make money on the blades(skins).
Wouldn't be surprised if it was North Korea, actually. They have to get foreign currency somehow.
Maybe not, supposedly this deal was a big issue in the Wisconsin gubernatorial election this year. So we will find out soon whether or not they keep the same bums in. The current governor was the one who really pushed the deal through.
That's okay! It's only 1 or 2 megawatts continuously for those 10 years!
That's only $21 million in electricity costs alone, and 100,000 metric tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere. Surely, that's a small price to pay to be good celestial neighbors...
So.....just the equivalent of a handful of bitcoin miners? That's not too bad.
Voting should be with a rifle at 200 yards. If you can't hit the square next to your candidates name, vote doesn't count. Iron sights.
Not good for farming subsidies then, because a lot of people couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at that range.
Last election it was Clinton or Trump. Doesn't matter how well you researched either candidate's position, because it boiled down to something other than policy for many people.
Voting from an informed position only really helps if you have a range of candidates, all with a realistic chance of winning. What you actually get is a choice of two and a massive amount of disinformation.
It was? Huh, I voted for Johnson. You see, that's part of the problem. The 2 party system is broken, everyone realizes it, yet everyone says why vote for them, only the Democrat or Republican can win. It's a cliche, but Rome wasn't built in a day. If the third party candidate is the one that has policies you support, vote for them. Enough people do that and third parties get enough votes to qualify for federal funds in the next election. As they get higher vote percentages, more people will realize they are valid options and vote for them as well.
Can you explain the discrepancy between the two noun phrases I've highlighted?
Because a line has to be drawn somewhere? Unless you plan to let babies vote. Whoever's picture the crawl to gets their vote? "Legal adult" is a reasonable cutoff because that is also the age in which the person is extended several rights/privileges and also owes a measure of responsibility towards society (draft for example).
Voting should be a privilege and only a right for those that have earned the privilege.
Wrong. Voting should always be a right for all adult citizens barring a few exceptions (namely felons who have shown no desire or ability to live within society), as the consequences of voting affects everyone. However, like any right, it is a right that should be exercised responsibly. You have a right to free speech, but you shouldn't go around knowingly committing libel or slander or yelling fire in crowded theater or yelling obscenities to children. You have a right to protest, but you shouldn't do it in such a way that puts yourself or others in danger. You have the right to bear arms, but it's irresponsible to wave a gun around near a crowd of people or start randomly firing into the air. You have the right to vote, but you should know who and what you are voting for.
Maybe, I'm usually well educated about candidates , and tend to skip voting of races and issues I have not studied, still.
I've done that myself, and I have also specifically voted 3rd party in cases where the only ads I had ever seen from candidates was to attack their opponents-if you don't want to tell me why I should vote for and instead spend all your time attacking other people, I'm not going to vote for you.
I am often voting for the candidate least likely to make me vomit then a candidate I actually want.
I believe my sig is an appropriate reply to this. When your only choice is between the lesser of two evils, evil still always wins.
"People voting on heuristics or based on what pop singer posted is what got this country into it's current mess."
No, its elitist idiots who got us into this mess with the notion that voting was some kind of intellectual challenge that only qualified people like themselves should participate in. If everyone voted, Donald Trump wouldn't be president because the outcome wouldn't have been determined by who was motivated to vote.
You mistake my claim of "our current mess" to be primarily directed at the election of Trump, as I assume so does whoever modded me flamebait. While trump is certainly a symptom, it goes much deeper. Current Congressional approval ratings are at less than 20%, yet reelection rates are at over 90%. Why? It's easier to vote for the incumbent. Politicians no longer have to worry about getting things done: if a bill or policy put forth by the majority party fails, it's because the other side killed it or stonewalled it. Your party is now the minority party? Stonewall them because they stonewalled us. Politicians no longer try to govern, they try to get re-elected. Both parties are broken and controlled by specific interests, people know it and they complain about it, yet they refuse to look at independents or 3rd parties.
People vote on a variety of factors: it's how their parents always voted, straight party tickets, how the candidate looks, a single policy such as abortion or gun control, always for/against the incumbent, the last sign they saw pulling into the polling place, who their favorite tv or radio show said to vote for, etc. But yet none of these factors lead to good governance. People hate the government, want to fix it or change it, yet when it is time to do something about it they inevitably fall back on the same old habits then complain that nothing changed. I believe they call that insanity.
"People voting on heuristics or based on what pop singer posted is what got this country into it's current mess."
Considering the US routinely comes in the bottom of voter turnout for industrialized countries, I don't that argument is as useful as you think it is.
Just shows how much power even a few educated voters can have. All of the "go vote" programs we have, being pushed by athletes, musicians, actors, etc, don't say "go out and learn about the candidates" they say "go vote". The type of people who go vote just because someone tells them to are not the type likely to research candidates. If people would go out, educate themselves about politics and candidates, and then went out and voted a lot of problems in the country would be fixed.
"I think a lot of people might vote just because they're frankly worried that their friends will find out if they didn't."
If that's your only reason for voting, then you might as well just stay home. People voting on heuristics or based on what pop singer posted is what got this country into it's current mess. If you aren't willing to make the time and effort to research candidate positions (or even who the candidates are) then you are doing more harm to good when you vote. Democracy and effective government can only exist with an informed electorate. Put pressure on our politicians to campaign on actual, thought out policies and then hold them to those policies if they are elected. Do your research yourself, go to each campaign's website, watch debates and speeches, etc-don't just listen to talking heads or what your preferred candidate says about their opponent. Voting is a right just as owning a gun is a right. Uninformed voting is the electoral equivalent of waving a gun around in the air-when exercising a right, you have a duty to exercise that right responsibly.
It's clearly an alien spacecraft that got hulled and tumbled out uncontrollably into space in a battle long ago. Over the millennia it's been floating through space it simply iced over and collected dust. Either that or the Arachnids missed us, those stupid bugs.
"The researchers used a benign virus -- dubbed AAV -- to embed the genetic blueprint of the llama antibodies..."
I saw this movie. It was called, "I Am Legend."
Vampire llamas would probably have been an improvement for that movie.
I am shocked that a new app in a new market has a higher rate of new downloads than several already entrenched apps.
Why don't they just use public pages? The internet has no shortage of discussion forums, many of which must be frequented by millions of people, even in Iran and China.
MMOs. MMOs make the perfect medium for covert communication. Think about how many hundreds, if not thousands of games there are that allow communication between players, many with world-wide player bases. You have behemoths like WoW with multiple servers in multiple regions down to $2 cellphone games. Even if a country were able to go through the arduous task of figuring if or what game is being used, simple tradecraft basics make monitoring difficult. It could be coded messages, set times to meet, or even something as simple as sending/giving a player a certain item or buying/selling an item at a certain price had different or predetermined meanings. Unless a target is already under surveillance and their machine is compromised an agency would have to covertly find/add a back door or crack and track every game available (and with VPNs and other methods even games NOT available) within it's borders.