In a few years when there are a number of solutions not in testing, these regs will really bite.
Even today, what problem does the "licensed driver" rule solve? How may people have been injured, how much property has been destroyed, by automated cars not having a driver?
Beware when a government thinks it's innovating. They aren't do-ers, they're don't-ers. When there exists no actual problem, mandating a solution is lunacy.
Mankind is on the verge of its greatest accomplishment, to be executed by the bravest and most hardworking of us. Those that go will be miserable, scraping by on unending work and luck. If they get a foothold on the first thru tenth attempt (pre-foothold colonies will be likely wiped out, every inhabitant dead), a solution may emerge for economic transit and eventually tourism. Going early won't be pleasant--that will take decades. Once it's pleasant, it will become affordable to the middle class a few years later.
Instead of celebrating these people, these children lash out, in a fit of short-sightedness, envy, and the weight of their personal failures.
FTFA: In a statement...Toyota added: “It is not our proudest piece of product placement. But it shows the Taliban are looking for the same qualities as any other truck buyer: quality and durability.”
That's a bold pivot to a positive message. Maybe the plumber can lean in and tell customers if he can put up with ISIS's shit, he can put up with theirs.
I would very much like Obama to shrug, say "you can't please everybody," and do one of those legally fuzzy executive orders to just push the thing through. The net good it does for humanity is a slam dunk.
The only thing keeping the natives from having the correct attitude about this project; i.e. immense pride in having such an important instrument built on their land, is a small-minded primitive tribalism mixed with the entitlement and egotism of an idle dependent life. You don't correct that attitude with the courts, you use the national guard.
Is he a stooge or a super genius? You're going back and forth.
This may be the first raw transcript you've seen. Raw transcripts always have wrong information and contradictions because they accurately reflect the words we say. The way people speak is a mess. It's up to a good reporter to contextualize it and report the meaning of a particular sentence rather than the exact words spoken.
Recent examples: Obama: "My muslim faith....", "we’re speeding up training of ISIL forces..."
A good reporter looks at that transcript, figures out that, in this context, he's talking about borders and a beefing up of terrorist watch lists. He's dodging and playing coy with the more explosive "muslim watch list". A shitty reporter (or one blinded by ideology) calls that a confirmation. A good reporter knows he doesn't have anything and moves on. A shitty reporter thinks he just made his career.
There was some question about what was said, what he meant, etc. So, he tweeted today that he was talking about a watch list, while the reporter was talking about an all-muslim database. Why disbelieve him? There is a simple explanation here, but you choose to believe a wild conspiracy theory in which Trump has a secret plan that he accidentally tells everyone twice.
Simple, obvious, and in line with all the rest of the facts. I don't like Trump, but I don't hate him enough to stop thinking when his name is uttered.
Totally agree. WaPo editorial board really thinks they can say anything they want.
The irony of this is that it will fuel Trump. He will (correctly) say the press is out to get him, and the press won't have any credibility when they print actual dumb stuff Trump says.
There is nothing political about the simplicity of this exchange. To people familiar with the campaign coverage, this is trivial to unravel.
Don't like the question? Spin it to familiar ground, hit your talking points. The reporter keeps trying to talk about muslim registration, but Trump just wants to talk about the border. Or federal mismanagement in general. Or watching out for radical clerics.
Recall that this is a verbal exchange in a crowded room. He's even carrying on multiple conversations at the same time. He isn't paying attention to the reporter, so he's just kind of rattling off lines from his stump speech. There is literally zero content in this exchange, but Hillyard is jizzing himself because he thinks he's caught Trump in an all-timer of a gotcha.
This thread should have been a one-and-done with your comment. An overwhelmingly political (and vacuous) piece on slashdot is annoying, but one that repeats obvious and quickly-verifiable misinformation is inexcusable.
No, the transcript indicates the story is being reported inaccurately.
Clear Question: Hillyard: Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?
Dodge, Pivot to safer ground: Trump: There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems. And today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what’s happening in this country happen any longer.
Follow-up, intended to force an answer to originally posed clear question: Hillyard: But that’s something your White House would want to implement?
Trump, believing he has successfully pivoted, pushes further on that line: The rest of the transcript.
It's pretty clear that he's talking about registering and tracking foreign nationals (i.e. with visas) so they don't overstay or cause trouble. This isn't controversial and plays up to his strength.
Follow-up coverage on this conversation has been very disingenuous. Trump is a terrible choice for president (IMHO), but he and his supporters are absolutely right when they complain about unfair treatment by "the media".
Yeah, simulated accomplishment is something. And it may be enough for some, particularly since the simulations are getting more and more convincing.
I think that sooner or later they'll snap out of their virtual farms and the meaninglessness of their life will hit them. Then they'll need a dose of Soma to stave away the despair.
This may upset the puritan types who think that hard work is somehow connected to morality.
When this happens, and it will, the number one social concern will be to figure out how hard work can still be incented. Without hard work, humans become listless and unhappy. As gleeful as you are to disparage Puritans, they understood this aspect of human nature well.
To use an example you're likely comfortable with, imagine those trust fund babies whose life lacking struggle results in them being intolerable douchebags.
Agreed that H1-B is a gift to employers, but I'd take it a step further:
Even if the Zuckerberg/Obama H1-B rhetoric were true, you have a politicized fed program attempting to address a market need. Markets react nearly instantly, feds react (depending on who controls House/Sen/Prez) in 2-6 years. So you have things like the antiquated $60K exemption (probably made more sense way back when rule was enacted). A "good" H1-B policy may be impossible given the way it is currently managed.
(a) includes those who go around immigration law because either (1) laws are arbitrary and unimportant, concern that is secondary to convenience (slightly democrat POV), (2) borders are arbitrary and unimportant, concern that is secondary to convenience (overwhelmingly democrat POV), or (3) USA is unjust and took the land anyway (overwhelmingly democrat POV).
Going around the law gets you much better treatment than following the law, so I'd say the numbers check out in his post.
Am I the only one who thinks this technology is shockingly under-hyped? It eliminates a 50-year old performance anchor, neutralizes the biggest challenge in Computer Science, and makes a supercomputer out of an SoC.
It came out of nowhere, but I believe Intel's claims. They wouldn't restart memory manufacturing in their own facilities if the tech wasn't ready for prime time.
The story is NOT that some jerk is doing business unethically. The story is that the FDA is preventing the market from establishing pricing. We let it slide when USPTO prevents competition because it's expensive to innovate. But exclusivity via FDA? That is not something we want.
You do realize that the ads are coming from a third party and the webmaster really doesn't have a lot of control over this.
Of course they do. The webmaster is a customer, too, and has choices on which ad delivery service to use. If he chooses one that doesn't vet for shit ads, then he doesn't deserve ad revenue.
Welcome to Chick-fil-a. I'm sorry that our sign-spinner vomited on you on the way in, but we're actually blameless because he way provided by our contractor. Why are you mad? Why are you leaving?
The left is nothing if not adaptable. Their message for 40 years was consumer protection from corporate actions in every case, for every slight (no matter how slight). Now, as corporate power-brokers themselves, it's the consumers who should fall in line for these corporate angels. A little "four legs bad, two legs good" in the 21st century, all with the same hysterical tone that voiced the opposite just a few years earlier.
Slashdot Mirror
In a few years when there are a number of solutions not in testing, these regs will really bite.
Even today, what problem does the "licensed driver" rule solve? How may people have been injured, how much property has been destroyed, by automated cars not having a driver?
Beware when a government thinks it's innovating. They aren't do-ers, they're don't-ers. When there exists no actual problem, mandating a solution is lunacy.
Mankind is on the verge of its greatest accomplishment, to be executed by the bravest and most hardworking of us. Those that go will be miserable, scraping by on unending work and luck. If they get a foothold on the first thru tenth attempt (pre-foothold colonies will be likely wiped out, every inhabitant dead), a solution may emerge for economic transit and eventually tourism. Going early won't be pleasant--that will take decades. Once it's pleasant, it will become affordable to the middle class a few years later.
Instead of celebrating these people, these children lash out, in a fit of short-sightedness, envy, and the weight of their personal failures.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/66d1d3ec-2f19-11e0-88ec-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3uLdcGolO
FTFA:
In a statement...Toyota added: “It is not our proudest piece of product placement. But it shows the Taliban are looking for the same qualities as any other truck buyer: quality and durability.”
That's a bold pivot to a positive message. Maybe the plumber can lean in and tell customers if he can put up with ISIS's shit, he can put up with theirs.
Yikes that did get Trumpy.
I would very much like Obama to shrug, say "you can't please everybody," and do one of those legally fuzzy executive orders to just push the thing through. The net good it does for humanity is a slam dunk.
What a shitty false equivalence.
2 Billion adherents have 1000+ year old temples covering one hill so they call it off limits.
vs
~5 million adherents calling every empty hill off limits.
The only thing keeping the natives from having the correct attitude about this project; i.e. immense pride in having such an important instrument built on their land, is a small-minded primitive tribalism mixed with the entitlement and egotism of an idle dependent life. You don't correct that attitude with the courts, you use the national guard.
...is that we lack the measurement tools to discern the brain structures that influence macro phenomena.
interesting...interesting.. [reads "..using drugs to cope with poverty.."]. oh, he's one of those. snooze. pass.
Is he a stooge or a super genius? You're going back and forth.
This may be the first raw transcript you've seen. Raw transcripts always have wrong information and contradictions because they accurately reflect the words we say. The way people speak is a mess. It's up to a good reporter to contextualize it and report the meaning of a particular sentence rather than the exact words spoken.
Recent examples:
Obama: "My muslim faith....", "we’re speeding up training of ISIL forces..."
A good reporter looks at that transcript, figures out that, in this context, he's talking about borders and a beefing up of terrorist watch lists. He's dodging and playing coy with the more explosive "muslim watch list". A shitty reporter (or one blinded by ideology) calls that a confirmation. A good reporter knows he doesn't have anything and moves on. A shitty reporter thinks he just made his career.
Alright, let's try it this way:
There was some question about what was said, what he meant, etc. So, he tweeted today that he was talking about a watch list, while the reporter was talking about an all-muslim database. Why disbelieve him? There is a simple explanation here, but you choose to believe a wild conspiracy theory in which Trump has a secret plan that he accidentally tells everyone twice.
Simple, obvious, and in line with all the rest of the facts. I don't like Trump, but I don't hate him enough to stop thinking when his name is uttered.
Totally agree. WaPo editorial board really thinks they can say anything they want.
The irony of this is that it will fuel Trump. He will (correctly) say the press is out to get him, and the press won't have any credibility when they print actual dumb stuff Trump says.
There is nothing political about the simplicity of this exchange. To people familiar with the campaign coverage, this is trivial to unravel.
Don't like the question? Spin it to familiar ground, hit your talking points. The reporter keeps trying to talk about muslim registration, but Trump just wants to talk about the border. Or federal mismanagement in general. Or watching out for radical clerics.
Recall that this is a verbal exchange in a crowded room. He's even carrying on multiple conversations at the same time. He isn't paying attention to the reporter, so he's just kind of rattling off lines from his stump speech. There is literally zero content in this exchange, but Hillyard is jizzing himself because he thinks he's caught Trump in an all-timer of a gotcha.
This thread should have been a one-and-done with your comment. An overwhelmingly political (and vacuous) piece on slashdot is annoying, but one that repeats obvious and quickly-verifiable misinformation is inexcusable.
No, the transcript indicates the story is being reported inaccurately.
Clear Question: Hillyard: Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?
Dodge, Pivot to safer ground: Trump: There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems. And today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what’s happening in this country happen any longer.
Follow-up, intended to force an answer to originally posed clear question: Hillyard: But that’s something your White House would want to implement?
Trump, believing he has successfully pivoted, pushes further on that line: The rest of the transcript.
It's pretty clear that he's talking about registering and tracking foreign nationals (i.e. with visas) so they don't overstay or cause trouble. This isn't controversial and plays up to his strength.
Follow-up coverage on this conversation has been very disingenuous. Trump is a terrible choice for president (IMHO), but he and his supporters are absolutely right when they complain about unfair treatment by "the media".
Yeah, simulated accomplishment is something. And it may be enough for some, particularly since the simulations are getting more and more convincing.
I think that sooner or later they'll snap out of their virtual farms and the meaninglessness of their life will hit them. Then they'll need a dose of Soma to stave away the despair.
Have you met any humans? Try it some time. They're a strange bunch.
This may upset the puritan types who think that hard work is somehow connected to morality.
When this happens, and it will, the number one social concern will be to figure out how hard work can still be incented. Without hard work, humans become listless and unhappy. As gleeful as you are to disparage Puritans, they understood this aspect of human nature well.
To use an example you're likely comfortable with, imagine those trust fund babies whose life lacking struggle results in them being intolerable douchebags.
Agreed that H1-B is a gift to employers, but I'd take it a step further:
Even if the Zuckerberg/Obama H1-B rhetoric were true, you have a politicized fed program attempting to address a market need. Markets react nearly instantly, feds react (depending on who controls House/Sen/Prez) in 2-6 years. So you have things like the antiquated $60K exemption (probably made more sense way back when rule was enacted). A "good" H1-B policy may be impossible given the way it is currently managed.
(a) includes those who go around immigration law because either (1) laws are arbitrary and unimportant, concern that is secondary to convenience (slightly democrat POV), (2) borders are arbitrary and unimportant, concern that is secondary to convenience (overwhelmingly democrat POV), or (3) USA is unjust and took the land anyway (overwhelmingly democrat POV).
Going around the law gets you much better treatment than following the law, so I'd say the numbers check out in his post.
I see that endurance spec now. DRAM appears to be safe until they can address that.
I was imagining this would create a chip w/ 1 TB of L3. I guess that's a breakthrough or two away yet.
Am I the only one who thinks this technology is shockingly under-hyped? It eliminates a 50-year old performance anchor, neutralizes the biggest challenge in Computer Science, and makes a supercomputer out of an SoC.
It came out of nowhere, but I believe Intel's claims. They wouldn't restart memory manufacturing in their own facilities if the tech wasn't ready for prime time.
Your comment is the real meat of this story. All outlets are being lazy and stupid by making the story all about this one unethical businesskid.
So many times this.
The story is NOT that some jerk is doing business unethically. The story is that the FDA is preventing the market from establishing pricing. We let it slide when USPTO prevents competition because it's expensive to innovate. But exclusivity via FDA? That is not something we want.
You do realize that the ads are coming from a third party and the webmaster really doesn't have a lot of control over this.
Of course they do. The webmaster is a customer, too, and has choices on which ad delivery service to use. If he chooses one that doesn't vet for shit ads, then he doesn't deserve ad revenue.
Welcome to Chick-fil-a. I'm sorry that our sign-spinner vomited on you on the way in, but we're actually blameless because he way provided by our contractor. Why are you mad? Why are you leaving?
The left is nothing if not adaptable. Their message for 40 years was consumer protection from corporate actions in every case, for every slight (no matter how slight). Now, as corporate power-brokers themselves, it's the consumers who should fall in line for these corporate angels. A little "four legs bad, two legs good" in the 21st century, all with the same hysterical tone that voiced the opposite just a few years earlier.