Finally another simple, cheap thing that was working perfectly fine, replaced by something expensive that consumes needless energy. Can't wait until my phone goes flat so I can't get into my house. Or maybe I will have to pay a monthly subscription, or upgrade the locks in my house because apple no longer provide support for that version of lock. I simply love the fact I have to pay $400 to replace a key for my car right now.
It you are going to include other costs of money, you should do it for bit coin too. Include the cost of each computer the portion of each house taken to store that computer. Security for computers if you are storing millions of dollars on it they too should probably be stored in a safe. Cost of disposal of old hardware. Cost of bit coin exchanges. I would not be surprised combined hardware for mining bitcoin far surpassed that of banks, and probably replaced more frequently, since banks don't buy cheap servers where consumers do.
There are 500,000 (/charts/n-transaction) bit coin transactions per day there are 1,900,000,000 (reports/noncash) non-cash transactions. That is 3800 times more, say we linearly scaled up.5% energy use to cover all transactions leaving out things like creating and storage, cooling of the computers the miners would need to run on. That would be 1,900% of the current power used. I don't care what you throw in to the equation managing money doesn't use that much.
What studies show you can't legislate morality? What study shows virtually anything that brings jobs will bring crime? I would of thought the higher employment the less crime.
I do agree that the law probably won't make people moral, it should be there to protect people from being taken advantage of. Although there will always be people who break the law, and laws that are flawed and perhaps should be broken, they provide a guide as to what society deems acceptable. Most people follow the law most of the time.
If you own a domain you can do it easily, I would also think it is possible to register for a service where you own a subdomain. e.g. mydomain.subdomainservice.com
They can all be directed to 1 email address and you can just filter out any that you don't want
I actually don't get why this is not instantaneous, in order for you to connect via USB data the phone should be unlocked. The phone disconnect data until the USB is unplugged.
I think android even asks if you want to connect data, so you have unlock to confirm. This is a sight hassle and I have been caught out as to why I can't connect data, but makes sense from a security standpoint.
I don't have a iphone, so I could be missing something.
Just because you find 98% sex preponderance to be odd doesn't mean squat, I agree discrimination happens, but it happens against everyone. First impressions are important because that is the way we are, me make decisions from very little information because we have to, we simply don't have time to get to know everyone in detail before we form opinions about them, a few seconds is enough.
You have no idea what proportion of men/women want to be directors, or have the drive or talent to do so. Neither do I. Picking a statistic and saying it doesn't look right means nothing, much more unbiased analysis needs to be done, to find out why it is the case. Going in with the opinion it must be sexism is not going to lead to an unbiased result.
Potential reason: It maybe that a perceived reward for being a director is that you get have sex with lots of actors, and women are just not as interested in that reward.
Do you understand what the word force means? If you pay a prostitute and she needs the money to live are forcing her to have sex with you? Arguable you are forcing them much more than someone needing to advance there acting career. May people do no make it as actors, if you want pick a career with a high likelihood of success acting is not for you. On the other hand you have no obligation to give any money at all to the prostitute so she can just die, then you are being a good guy?
Of course the best option is to live in a society that scenario does not happen, but unfortunately we don't.
Is Weinstein a good guy, Hell NO. He abused his power for his own benefit, in this case sexual. But most people in power abuse their power. I actually find him a sad pathetic little man that probably will not find any love in his life, he seems addicted to sex and can't seem to stop himself. I find the people that knew about this took advantage of his failings for financial gains, much more distasteful.
Do prostitutes like being prostitutes or do they do it because it makes them money? The have became insanely wealthy because of it. Who's dick can I look at to earn $100,000.
As women they had more opportunity than the men because they had the option of sleeping with Weinstein.
Ok female actors should be able to do there jobs without harassment, and in a perfect world they would be selected purely on acting skill. And same with almost every other profession, unfortunately life isn't fair for anyone.
In a world where people die of starvation (Even in the US), children can't afford shoes. You have to excuse me when some women where occasionally exposed Weinstein's junk, and made more money than I would make in a year because of, doesn't invoke much empathy.
These women are not innocent little angles they knew exactly what they where doing, the real sexism here is treating women like they so fragile that the mere thought of someones penis can scare them for life. I don't know any women like that do you?
governments suppressing their people, electric grid is very exposed to both humans hacking
You know that requires random numbers right, large quantities that even if humans where good at generating random numbers they wouldn't be able to do fast enough.
But humans are terrible at generating random numbers, say to someone pick a number and my guess is it will generally be between 1 and 10, and whole. Even then there I the distribution will not be even. https://www.education.com/scie...
if free will did not exist, then it seems apparent that we should not be capable of imagining what we think that actual free
Seems apparent, is not a proof, may things that seem apparent are not true, if you have a rope are around the circumference of the earth and the you increase the diameter by 1m can you fit a cat under it. The answer is you increase the distance above the earth by 1/(2pi)m everywhere which is about 16cm. Or add 15% then take off 15% you do not end up with the same number.
There is no way to prove we have free will. Take for example I can control your every thought and action therefore you have no free will. I can put into your head the belief that you have free will and you would not know any different or even think to question it. Or I could allow you to question it is my choice and whatever you think and whatever proof you come up with I can control and make you think it is correct.
Personally I think believing we are special and have free will is an important evolutionary trait, if we didn't have that innate feeling why even try to survive, we are just machines like a spoon or a can opener. Sometimes being wrong is more useful than being right.
Perhaps they shouldn't call it autopilot? The term is clearly a marketing term that makes you think it is going to automatically pilot the car. Call it advanced cruise control, or lane assistance.
Also if the car can detect your hands are off the wheel, and it is not capable of guiding itself when your hands are off the wheel then shouldn't it immediately warn you when you do so and come to a safe stop? At what point when the car is moving and you are driving safely are your hands off the wheel.
From the exchange: I think this point is a bit pathetic. If you visit the facebook site, they collect your ip/mac address so they can tell if you are accessing an unreasonably large number of pages, or trying to brute force someone's password. Big deal. Don't visit the facebook site if you don't want that data collected.
On the other hand if it is more than that, like building up a profile of you from third party sites or intentionally building a profile from what other people post about you then that is bad. Clearly they have data about you if other people post information about you.
Sure there is. Do you believe in no taxation without representation?
Maybe but they are represented with or without contributions the owners can still vote, if I make a trust that gets taxed do I get 2 votes, if I make 99 do I get 100 votes?
Do you believe in 1 person 1 vote?
What I really don't believe in is spending money is free speech, talk all you want the internet now allows any moron to say whatever they want for almost nothing. There is no need to spend billions to get your ideas across.
Why do you think that? Unions carry many more votes than the people who own corporations. If a large union said we are going to vote this way that should have much more sway than the CEO of company doing so.
You are not going to get smarter voters. Human nature is not going to change any time soon. The cap for political contributions should be 0, any sane person would call that a bribe. The company I work for has a strict no gifts policy, how can the people run the country not have the same.
The argument against it do you want to pay it through taxes, to me the answer is a clear YES, because in the long run I will cost the people more not to. I also someone should not win an election based on the size of their wallet but on their ideas.
I also want politicians to spend time governing not fund raising https://www.termlimits.com/con... in fact if you spent more than have your time at work raising money for yourself you would probably be fired.
I very much doubt you create more content than you consume, if you just count this story how many words did you read? how many did you write?
Even if you are prolific programmer, do you really think the amount of code you have written exceeds amount of code in the operating system?
Or create movies what director (assuming the director is considered to have created the whole movie alone) has created more movies than they have watched.
Apart from absurdity of the comment that you have created more content than you have consumed, do you really think if you post something you will own the rights?
The terms and conditions of the site will clearly state that the site owns the right, and if you don't like don't post.
The right balance is not where return to copyright holders is maximized it is when the return to society is maximized.
You may need to reward copyright holders in order for them to produce stuff, so there is a balance. But the goal is a better society not make a few people rich.
So what if they are similar to invented words? If someone invents a word does it mean no one can use that word without paying the inventor royalties? I have used words most of my life, not once have I paid someone for using one, even though I am sure every one was made up by someone.
You may point to trademarks but they are different I can say Coke as much as I like, as long as I don't call my product Coke, which is basically deception.
Allowing homeless people to use your bathroom while you're at work, or allowing non-car people to borrow your car for some chore or fun ride is also efficient (similar to "more competition"). But who's gonna allow this? No one.
I would allow this in a heart beat, as long as it costs me nothing. And by cost I don't mean potential income I might get by renting out my toilet or car.
For my car: if it is available when where I need it, maintenance is performed, any damaged is fixed immediately with no inconvenience to me. It is just impractical to do so, but if self driving cars it may become possible.
For the toilet: as long it was cleaned, I can guarantee nothing in my house was damaged or stolen, and me and my family are no less safe. In fact it would be preferable than them doing it on my street. In fact if someone knocked on my door and asked to use my toilet as long as I wasn't intimidated by them I would say yes.
People pick up hitchhikers don't they? And I would say the main reason more people don't is safety not that you paid for the car and gas so the other person has to suffer.
No a villain couldn't. A villain could not control the type of AI they are talking about, since that AI could think for itself. They would have no idea of what this AI would do.
A true AI would be useless to anyone trying to perform a crime, for any personal gain. The only type of villain that might try this is a complete lunatic.
Who is saying racism is a thing of the past? It is not never has been and probably never will be it is human nature, I is definetly no limited to white males, we need to be constantly vigilant. Discrimination against minorities and women makes front page news all the time, or have you been living in a cave. What people are saying is that discrimination against anyone is wrong against anyone, there is nothing in raising that issue. If you say I don't care about discrimination against men what is wrong with men saying I don't care about discrimination against women.
All we will accomplish by this is more division and more hate, just look at the revival the right, people need to feel that they are not going to be discriminated against or we will violence and everyone will suffer.
People state you can't prove a negative all the time it is simply not true. Proof by contradiction is proving a negative. You assume something show that something leads to contradiction, therefore you have proved the original statement is false.
In your reindeer cannot fly the problem is not the negative but you there exists at no reindeer that can fly. In your positive example just because you showed n reindeer could fly doesn't prove all reindeer can fly. You could prove not all reindeer can fly.
Me being pedantic, you could prove no reindeer could fly by throwing every last one off a cliff. If they all fell to the deaths then you have proven it, even if they where willing to die to hide their ability, they are all dead now so the can't fly.
A scientific proof, is not the same as mathematical proof you can never be 100% certain anything about the real world is right, at the very least there could be some entity with superior knowledge manipulating your results. You have no way of disproving that because any proof could be a manipulation. The best science can do is make do experiments and make the best implications from it can.
Nonsense if laws where well defined then you wouldn't need courts to make a ruling, and you would never get an appeal court overturning the laws. Courts are able to make legal rulings because they are people. People are capable of coming to conclusions from 1 minute of news article, it doesn't mean that their conclusion is right. Take for example people not even reading the article on slashdot. When have you ever heard of a ruling where the judge says I am just not sure of what the law is so I can't make up my mind?
Making something long and complicated very rarely makes it clear, the longer and more complicated something gets the more open to interpretation it gets.
In the end of the day courts are just a few people making a judgment on what they interpret the laws to be.
The problem lies right there, 250,000 patent every year, how often do you hear about a revolutionary idea, that would be newsworthy not even once a year, but let say once a year.
That means 249,999 patents are for minor improvements, which every business should be checking so as not to violate anybodies patents and have to implement work arounds if they don't want to pay a licensing fee. I would not be surprised if most patents where just violated by accident. In this system the cost of the system is far higher than the benefit it affords.
A better solution would be scrap patents, if you want to keep it secret do so. If someone can copy it then your idea wasn't that innovative in the first place, you know what capitalists always want, less government intervention.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally another simple, cheap thing that was working perfectly fine, replaced by something expensive that consumes needless energy. Can't wait until my phone goes flat so I can't get into my house. Or maybe I will have to pay a monthly subscription, or upgrade the locks in my house because apple no longer provide support for that version of lock. I simply love the fact I have to pay $400 to replace a key for my car right now.
It you are going to include other costs of money, you should do it for bit coin too. Include the cost of each computer the portion of each house taken to store that computer. Security for computers if you are storing millions of dollars on it they too should probably be stored in a safe. Cost of disposal of old hardware. Cost of bit coin exchanges. I would not be surprised combined hardware for mining bitcoin far surpassed that of banks, and probably replaced more frequently, since banks don't buy cheap servers where consumers do.
There are 500,000 (/charts/n-transaction) bit coin transactions per day there are 1,900,000,000 (reports/noncash) non-cash transactions. That is 3800 times more, say we linearly scaled up .5% energy use to cover all transactions leaving out things like creating and storage, cooling of the computers the miners would need to run on. That would be 1,900% of the current power used. I don't care what you throw in to the equation managing money doesn't use that much.
What studies show you can't legislate morality? What study shows virtually anything that brings jobs will bring crime? I would of thought the higher employment the less crime.
I do agree that the law probably won't make people moral, it should be there to protect people from being taken advantage of. Although there will always be people who break the law, and laws that are flawed and perhaps should be broken, they provide a guide as to what society deems acceptable. Most people follow the law most of the time.
If you own a domain you can do it easily, I would also think it is possible to register for a service where you own a subdomain. e.g. mydomain.subdomainservice.com
They can all be directed to 1 email address and you can just filter out any that you don't want
I actually don't get why this is not instantaneous, in order for you to connect via USB data the phone should be unlocked. The phone disconnect data until the USB is unplugged.
I think android even asks if you want to connect data, so you have unlock to confirm. This is a sight hassle and I have been caught out as to why I can't connect data, but makes sense from a security standpoint.
I don't have a iphone, so I could be missing something.
Just because you find 98% sex preponderance to be odd doesn't mean squat, I agree discrimination happens, but it happens against everyone. First impressions are important because that is the way we are, me make decisions from very little information because we have to, we simply don't have time to get to know everyone in detail before we form opinions about them, a few seconds is enough.
You have no idea what proportion of men/women want to be directors, or have the drive or talent to do so. Neither do I. Picking a statistic and saying it doesn't look right means nothing, much more unbiased analysis needs to be done, to find out why it is the case. Going in with the opinion it must be sexism is not going to lead to an unbiased result.
Potential reason:
It maybe that a perceived reward for being a director is that you get have sex with lots of actors, and women are just not as interested in that reward.
Do you understand what the word force means? If you pay a prostitute and she needs the money to live are forcing her to have sex with you? Arguable you are forcing them much more than someone needing to advance there acting career. May people do no make it as actors, if you want pick a career with a high likelihood of success acting is not for you. On the other hand you have no obligation to give any money at all to the prostitute so she can just die, then you are being a good guy?
Of course the best option is to live in a society that scenario does not happen, but unfortunately we don't.
Is Weinstein a good guy, Hell NO. He abused his power for his own benefit, in this case sexual. But most people in power abuse their power. I actually find him a sad pathetic little man that probably will not find any love in his life, he seems addicted to sex and can't seem to stop himself. I find the people that knew about this took advantage of his failings for financial gains, much more distasteful.
Do prostitutes like being prostitutes or do they do it because it makes them money? The have became insanely wealthy because of it. Who's dick can I look at to earn $100,000.
As women they had more opportunity than the men because they had the option of sleeping with Weinstein.
Ok female actors should be able to do there jobs without harassment, and in a perfect world they would be selected purely on acting skill. And same with almost every other profession, unfortunately life isn't fair for anyone.
In a world where people die of starvation (Even in the US), children can't afford shoes. You have to excuse me when some women where occasionally exposed Weinstein's junk, and made more money than I would make in a year because of, doesn't invoke much empathy.
These women are not innocent little angles they knew exactly what they where doing, the real sexism here is treating women like they so fragile that the mere thought of someones penis can scare them for life. I don't know any women like that do you?
governments suppressing their people, electric grid is very exposed to both humans hacking
You know that requires random numbers right, large quantities that even if humans where good at generating random numbers they wouldn't be able to do fast enough.
But humans are terrible at generating random numbers, say to someone pick a number and my guess is it will generally be between 1 and 10, and whole. Even then there I the distribution will not be even. https://www.education.com/scie...
if free will did not exist, then it seems apparent that we should not be capable of imagining what we think that actual free
Seems apparent, is not a proof, may things that seem apparent are not true, if you have a rope are around the circumference of the earth and the you increase the diameter by 1m can you fit a cat under it. The answer is you increase the distance above the earth by 1/(2pi)m everywhere which is about 16cm. Or add 15% then take off 15% you do not end up with the same number.
There is no way to prove we have free will. Take for example I can control your every thought and action therefore you have no free will. I can put into your head the belief that you have free will and you would not know any different or even think to question it. Or I could allow you to question it is my choice and whatever you think and whatever proof you come up with I can control and make you think it is correct.
Personally I think believing we are special and have free will is an important evolutionary trait, if we didn't have that innate feeling why even try to survive, we are just machines like a spoon or a can opener. Sometimes being wrong is more useful than being right.
Perhaps they shouldn't call it autopilot? The term is clearly a marketing term that makes you think it is going to automatically pilot the car. Call it advanced cruise control, or lane assistance.
Also if the car can detect your hands are off the wheel, and it is not capable of guiding itself when your hands are off the wheel then shouldn't it immediately warn you when you do so and come to a safe stop? At what point when the car is moving and you are driving safely are your hands off the wheel.
From the exchange:
I think this point is a bit pathetic. If you visit the facebook site, they collect your ip/mac address so they can tell if you are accessing an unreasonably large number of pages, or trying to brute force someone's password. Big deal. Don't visit the facebook site if you don't want that data collected.
On the other hand if it is more than that, like building up a profile of you from third party sites or intentionally building a profile from what other people post about you then that is bad. Clearly they have data about you if other people post information about you.
Sure there is. Do you believe in no taxation without representation?
Maybe but they are represented with or without contributions the owners can still vote, if I make a trust that gets taxed do I get 2 votes, if I make 99 do I get 100 votes?
Do you believe in 1 person 1 vote?
What I really don't believe in is spending money is free speech, talk all you want the internet now allows any moron to say whatever they want for almost nothing. There is no need to spend billions to get your ideas across.
Why do you think that? Unions carry many more votes than the people who own corporations. If a large union said we are going to vote this way that should have much more sway than the CEO of company doing so.
You are not going to get smarter voters. Human nature is not going to change any time soon. The cap for political contributions should be 0, any sane person would call that a bribe. The company I work for has a strict no gifts policy, how can the people run the country not have the same.
The argument against it do you want to pay it through taxes, to me the answer is a clear YES, because in the long run I will cost the people more not to. I also someone should not win an election based on the size of their wallet but on their ideas.
I also want politicians to spend time governing not fund raising https://www.termlimits.com/con... in fact if you spent more than have your time at work raising money for yourself you would probably be fired.
I very much doubt you create more content than you consume, if you just count this story how many words did you read? how many did you write?
Even if you are prolific programmer, do you really think the amount of code you have written exceeds amount of code in the operating system?
Or create movies what director (assuming the director is considered to have created the whole movie alone) has created more movies than they have watched.
Apart from absurdity of the comment that you have created more content than you have consumed, do you really think if you post something you will own the rights?
The terms and conditions of the site will clearly state that the site owns the right, and if you don't like don't post.
The right balance is not where return to copyright holders is maximized it is when the return to society is maximized.
You may need to reward copyright holders in order for them to produce stuff, so there is a balance. But the goal is a better society not make a few people rich.
So what if they are similar to invented words? If someone invents a word does it mean no one can use that word without paying the inventor royalties? I have used words most of my life, not once have I paid someone for using one, even though I am sure every one was made up by someone.
You may point to trademarks but they are different I can say Coke as much as I like, as long as I don't call my product Coke, which is basically deception.
Allowing homeless people to use your bathroom while you're at work, or allowing non-car people to borrow your car for some chore or fun ride is also efficient (similar to "more competition"). But who's gonna allow this? No one.
I would allow this in a heart beat, as long as it costs me nothing. And by cost I don't mean potential income I might get by renting out my toilet or car.
For my car: if it is available when where I need it, maintenance is performed, any damaged is fixed immediately with no inconvenience to me. It is just impractical to do so, but if self driving cars it may become possible.
For the toilet: as long it was cleaned, I can guarantee nothing in my house was damaged or stolen, and me and my family are no less safe. In fact it would be preferable than them doing it on my street. In fact if someone knocked on my door and asked to use my toilet as long as I wasn't intimidated by them I would say yes.
People pick up hitchhikers don't they? And I would say the main reason more people don't is safety not that you paid for the car and gas so the other person has to suffer.
No a villain couldn't. A villain could not control the type of AI they are talking about, since that AI could think for itself. They would have no idea of what this AI would do.
A true AI would be useless to anyone trying to perform a crime, for any personal gain. The only type of villain that might try this is a complete lunatic.
Probably because people can't afford to live there.
Who is saying racism is a thing of the past? It is not never has been and probably never will be it is human nature, I is definetly no limited to white males, we need to be constantly vigilant. Discrimination against minorities and women makes front page news all the time, or have you been living in a cave. What people are saying is that discrimination against anyone is wrong against anyone, there is nothing in raising that issue. If you say I don't care about discrimination against men what is wrong with men saying I don't care about discrimination against women.
All we will accomplish by this is more division and more hate, just look at the revival the right, people need to feel that they are not going to be discriminated against or we will violence and everyone will suffer.
2 wrongs do not make a right.
People state you can't prove a negative all the time it is simply not true. Proof by contradiction is proving a negative. You assume something show that something leads to contradiction, therefore you have proved the original statement is false.
In your reindeer cannot fly the problem is not the negative but you there exists at no reindeer that can fly. In your positive example just because you showed n reindeer could fly doesn't prove all reindeer can fly. You could prove not all reindeer can fly.
Me being pedantic, you could prove no reindeer could fly by throwing every last one off a cliff. If they all fell to the deaths then you have proven it, even if they where willing to die to hide their ability, they are all dead now so the can't fly.
A scientific proof, is not the same as mathematical proof you can never be 100% certain anything about the real world is right, at the very least there could be some entity with superior knowledge manipulating your results. You have no way of disproving that because any proof could be a manipulation. The best science can do is make do experiments and make the best implications from it can.
Nonsense if laws where well defined then you wouldn't need courts to make a ruling, and you would never get an appeal court overturning the laws. Courts are able to make legal rulings because they are people. People are capable of coming to conclusions from 1 minute of news article, it doesn't mean that their conclusion is right. Take for example people not even reading the article on slashdot. When have you ever heard of a ruling where the judge says I am just not sure of what the law is so I can't make up my mind?
Making something long and complicated very rarely makes it clear, the longer and more complicated something gets the more open to interpretation it gets.
In the end of the day courts are just a few people making a judgment on what they interpret the laws to be.
250,000 patents issued, every year
The problem lies right there, 250,000 patent every year, how often do you hear about a revolutionary idea, that would be newsworthy not even once a year, but let say once a year.
That means 249,999 patents are for minor improvements, which every business should be checking so as not to violate anybodies patents and have to implement work arounds if they don't want to pay a licensing fee. I would not be surprised if most patents where just violated by accident. In this system the cost of the system is far higher than the benefit it affords.
A better solution would be scrap patents, if you want to keep it secret do so. If someone can copy it then your idea wasn't that innovative in the first place, you know what capitalists always want, less government intervention.