Saying that the "greater something" is more important than individual rights is leftist now? "You are nothing, your people is everything" and all that?
Wow, and they told me at school that Fascism was a right wing ideology...
Please understand finally that extremism wants to take your liberties. Left or right doesn't really matter here, any extremist ideology puts the ideology over your personal freedoms.
The system is actually closer to what central Europe has than what's going on in Venezuela. And we're currently stress testing whether the system works when thousands over thousands of people flock into it...
Yes, the people trying to make a living with streams and videos will certainly increase. But I doubt that the low paying jobs will go. Rather, they will get cheaper for the employers and you will deal with a LOT higher fluctuation. Which isn't really a problem because, well, how much training time do you need for someone who sweeps your floors or stocks your shelves?
What you'll have is people who want to buy something and need money for it that they don't have with UBI alone, so they'll go and work for a week or two. As an employer, you'll probably have to pay less, too, because now they only want "extra" money from you, not the money they need to sustain themselves.
You would likely be able to do just that. Because there is no reason anymore to uphold a minimum wage law.
The main argument of minwage proponents is that any employer is in a much stronger position and could pressure people into accepting any job for any payment, because there's bills to pay and little money is still better than no money.
You risk getting fined out the wazoo, essentially to give whoever employs you a free ride so he can dodge taxes, while you have exactly zero benefit out of it.
There is (in most civilized countries, I don't know about red states to be honest) already a law against raping. It is illegal. And there are obviously people who don't give a fuck about that law and actually rape women.
You think someone willing to break that law, which is, and I can hope we can agree on that, a much worse transgression than dressing up as a woman and using the woman's bathroom, would give half a fuck about such a law?
There isn't really any way you could spin this that makes it sound like you really give a shit about women being raped.
My point is that people will probably not really care WHO did the music as long as it's good. Yes, there are a few memorable scores but I bet you anything you want that you will find more people who can instantly identify the Imperial March hearing less than two bars than people who can name the composer.
That's basically also the point of the article. Computers today (allegedly, seeing, respectively hearing, is believing) can create interesting and emotional musical cues for movies, and the article claims that what's holding it back is that the audience would be put off by reading "Score: Some computer program".
My argument is that they don't care, as long as the music is enjoyable and "works" within the context of the movie.
I agree, and personally I would prefer a compelling story and interesting character development to loud explosions and wiggling tits, but I guess that's not the mass appeal anymore.
Yes, more and more high level programming languages abstract away more and more complexity by offering standard libraries. That doesn't mean that you needn't understand what's going on under the hood, though, if you want to write secure code.
The question "does it work" can easily be determined even by a novice programmer. Run the program, see if the output matches the expected output, if yes, it works. The question "is it secure" is more tricky, for if you don't know what would make it insecure, if you do not understand the implication of, say, creating a static character array on the stack and fill it with variable user input, you cannot even determine whether it is safe. Actually, you cannot even define a test case that could determine whether it is.
It's not like that's something new. Nor is it new that those that do it are not really the ones that will become the 7-digit-earners at Google or found million dollar startups.
All we get is more code monkey squeezing out insecure code. Or in the terms used by IT security consultants, job security.
That's exactly what I was going to ask. Screw cores, what periphery will it support? And, as you point out, more importantly, what will the castrated versions be like?
Time and again we've found that it's actually better to buy a once-been flagship of an older generation rather than one of the cut-back variants of the latest and greatest.
What do you think will happen to the i7s now that i9s hit the market?
Every time a new processor generation hit the market, the former generations got cheaper. Who cares about i9s, cheap i5s is what I want. Hell, even i7s might become a financially interesting option.
A browser that supports the top-100 Alexa pages by definition supports pretty much any and all pages out there with a mass appeal, for the same reason that until about 5-10 years ago creating your webpage for IE meant that everyone could use it, because everyone has to follow the market leader to stay compatible. If your webpage is using the same technologies that YouTube uses, you can rest assured that every browser will support it, even if it is not a W3C standard, simply because if BrowserA doesn't support a feature that YouTube demands (or it doesn't work), people will instantly switch to BrowserB because the average person out there doesn't give a shit whether their browser says IE, Firefox, Chrome or Huhlahje somewhere in its "about" box that nobody cares about.
This is why supporting the top100 Alexa is enough. Because everyone will follow whatever they put forth as the de facto standard. And those pages are in the Alexa top100 because that's what most people use when it comes to the internet. The whole shit is a huge circle-jerk that is self perpetuating.
And no, to answer that other question, there is no reason to use Firefox over Chrome (or the other way around). And there is exactly nothing you can do to create one. Most people have rather low requirements when it comes to what they expect from their browser, so what you could do, technically, is to go for the niche users that require certain features, and this is where you hit the 80/20 problem, which is more a 99/1 problem here: To get 1% more user, you have to shift 99% of your manpower to attract that user. All the while risking that you fall behind in the far easier to maintain 99%, of which you can only hope to attract (100/$number_browsers) percent of the users, because these users don't give a shit which browser to use - as long as every browser does what they want from it. And all the browsers do that.
Slashdot Mirror
Saying that the "greater something" is more important than individual rights is leftist now? "You are nothing, your people is everything" and all that?
Wow, and they told me at school that Fascism was a right wing ideology...
Please understand finally that extremism wants to take your liberties. Left or right doesn't really matter here, any extremist ideology puts the ideology over your personal freedoms.
The system is actually closer to what central Europe has than what's going on in Venezuela. And we're currently stress testing whether the system works when thousands over thousands of people flock into it...
Yes, the people trying to make a living with streams and videos will certainly increase. But I doubt that the low paying jobs will go. Rather, they will get cheaper for the employers and you will deal with a LOT higher fluctuation. Which isn't really a problem because, well, how much training time do you need for someone who sweeps your floors or stocks your shelves?
What you'll have is people who want to buy something and need money for it that they don't have with UBI alone, so they'll go and work for a week or two. As an employer, you'll probably have to pay less, too, because now they only want "extra" money from you, not the money they need to sustain themselves.
You would likely be able to do just that. Because there is no reason anymore to uphold a minimum wage law.
The main argument of minwage proponents is that any employer is in a much stronger position and could pressure people into accepting any job for any payment, because there's bills to pay and little money is still better than no money.
That isn't the case anymore with UBI.
Why, though?
You risk getting fined out the wazoo, essentially to give whoever employs you a free ride so he can dodge taxes, while you have exactly zero benefit out of it.
Why not? If you don't have to earn a title anymore to use it, why aim low?
Try to imagine a world outside the United States of America. Believe it or not, it does exist.
*sniff*
No. I wasn't. I even went to a catholic school and still ... nothing.
Thanks for digging up those horrible memories of rejection, asshole!
Not really. We just don't go apeshit over every dick and nipple.
So the lesson here is to not tell Facebook when someone you know dies.
I feel the same way about religious people, but hey, you can't always get what you want.
Are you really that delusional?
There is (in most civilized countries, I don't know about red states to be honest) already a law against raping. It is illegal. And there are obviously people who don't give a fuck about that law and actually rape women.
You think someone willing to break that law, which is, and I can hope we can agree on that, a much worse transgression than dressing up as a woman and using the woman's bathroom, would give half a fuck about such a law?
There isn't really any way you could spin this that makes it sound like you really give a shit about women being raped.
My point is that people will probably not really care WHO did the music as long as it's good. Yes, there are a few memorable scores but I bet you anything you want that you will find more people who can instantly identify the Imperial March hearing less than two bars than people who can name the composer.
That's basically also the point of the article. Computers today (allegedly, seeing, respectively hearing, is believing) can create interesting and emotional musical cues for movies, and the article claims that what's holding it back is that the audience would be put off by reading "Score: Some computer program".
My argument is that they don't care, as long as the music is enjoyable and "works" within the context of the movie.
I agree, and personally I would prefer a compelling story and interesting character development to loud explosions and wiggling tits, but I guess that's not the mass appeal anymore.
The audience really cares who makes the music? Aside of a few memorable scores, I couldn't even say who did it for most movies.
And producers? I am pretty sure you can convince them with "It's as good as human work but cheaper".
Sorry. No.
Yes, more and more high level programming languages abstract away more and more complexity by offering standard libraries. That doesn't mean that you needn't understand what's going on under the hood, though, if you want to write secure code.
The question "does it work" can easily be determined even by a novice programmer. Run the program, see if the output matches the expected output, if yes, it works. The question "is it secure" is more tricky, for if you don't know what would make it insecure, if you do not understand the implication of, say, creating a static character array on the stack and fill it with variable user input, you cannot even determine whether it is safe. Actually, you cannot even define a test case that could determine whether it is.
In a consulting environment I can make sure that his boss notices that the dud should be fired. Out of a cannon, preferably.
It's not like that's something new. Nor is it new that those that do it are not really the ones that will become the 7-digit-earners at Google or found million dollar startups.
All we get is more code monkey squeezing out insecure code. Or in the terms used by IT security consultants, job security.
A little from column A, and a little from column B...
And me without modpoints...
That's exactly what I was going to ask. Screw cores, what periphery will it support? And, as you point out, more importantly, what will the castrated versions be like?
Time and again we've found that it's actually better to buy a once-been flagship of an older generation rather than one of the cut-back variants of the latest and greatest.
What do you think will happen to the i7s now that i9s hit the market?
Every time a new processor generation hit the market, the former generations got cheaper. Who cares about i9s, cheap i5s is what I want. Hell, even i7s might become a financially interesting option.
Virtualization.
That alone is enough of a reason to give this one a pass.
Hardware I cannot own is simply unattractive.
A browser that supports the top-100 Alexa pages by definition supports pretty much any and all pages out there with a mass appeal, for the same reason that until about 5-10 years ago creating your webpage for IE meant that everyone could use it, because everyone has to follow the market leader to stay compatible. If your webpage is using the same technologies that YouTube uses, you can rest assured that every browser will support it, even if it is not a W3C standard, simply because if BrowserA doesn't support a feature that YouTube demands (or it doesn't work), people will instantly switch to BrowserB because the average person out there doesn't give a shit whether their browser says IE, Firefox, Chrome or Huhlahje somewhere in its "about" box that nobody cares about.
This is why supporting the top100 Alexa is enough. Because everyone will follow whatever they put forth as the de facto standard. And those pages are in the Alexa top100 because that's what most people use when it comes to the internet. The whole shit is a huge circle-jerk that is self perpetuating.
And no, to answer that other question, there is no reason to use Firefox over Chrome (or the other way around). And there is exactly nothing you can do to create one. Most people have rather low requirements when it comes to what they expect from their browser, so what you could do, technically, is to go for the niche users that require certain features, and this is where you hit the 80/20 problem, which is more a 99/1 problem here: To get 1% more user, you have to shift 99% of your manpower to attract that user. All the while risking that you fall behind in the far easier to maintain 99%, of which you can only hope to attract (100/$number_browsers) percent of the users, because these users don't give a shit which browser to use - as long as every browser does what they want from it. And all the browsers do that.
"Why do you pick up the phone?" would be my first question.
The next ones would deal with questioning your mental health...