Chips have tolerances which means there's a spread on how fast they'll run. Binning is not overclocking, if Intel finds a i7-4770K that can run 100MHz above the rated speed they won't sell it now. They'll put it in storage and wait until they have enough of them then launch a new model i7-4790K (coming to you in Q2). People analogy, if you select the best people to go into elite forces and the rest in the regular army you've binned, but not overclocked. That'd be more like putting them on drugs to amplify their combat ability at the long time cost of their health.
On the other hand, think of all the fucked up shit people live through - people who could have killed themselves, but don't - and ask yourself if you're absolutely certain she'd want to die. I had a close relative with Alzheimer, in the end she didn't even recognize her own children. She was of course confused and scared, but I don't know - she never seemed to be in the kind of pain and misery you'd need to be suicidal, I think she lost that level of introspection and more or less drifted off into her own world. I think it was worse watching her mentally fall apart for us on the outside, at least in the end.
I agree that the war on drugs is stupid and causes more harm than good. However, the counter argument that "people should be allowed to do things that only hurts themselves" is pretty poor in the case of most addictions (including but definitely not limited to drugs). Personally, I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as there's no adverse affects to those around them. Unfortunately, most people only think of the immediate physical effects (e.g. secondhand smoke) and don't think of the more long-term effects, especially those which are harder to quantify.
If you just make it broad and vague enough practically everything will have some adverse effect on something. Or if not with certainty then with for some of the people some of the time and the increased risk meaning an increased risk. Or it's not by itself harmful but is somehow a gateway or stepping stone to something which might have adverse effects.
For example, take alcohol and let's forget all the health effects. Alcohol drinking is probably the leading cause of public urination which is clearly some form of adverse effect. It's also known that it lowers the inhibitions to violence in some people, so in the wrong situation it can clearly lead to adverse consequences. And obviously drinking is a prerequisite to drunk driving, which we all agree is bad so it's a gateway to adverse consequences. If you start putting enough bullshit like that together you can make almost anything seem bad. And I just wanted a beer.
If you preemtively need to take everyone's freedom away to avoid the risk that they'll someone infringe on someone else's freedom you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If I want to get drunk, I should be able to get drunk. If I'm becoming drunk and disorderly, drunk and violent or drunk and driving then you can stop me. And even assuming I've got an addiction and is borderline alcoholic, what good does being a borderline alcoholic and a criminal help me? No, I disagree with you it's my life and my right to fuck it up. If I want to go to McD and supersize it every day until I'm 500 pounds and die from obesity that should be my choice.
As for covering the costs of public healthcare, well I'd rather pay it rather than have the health nazi police trying to measure how healthy I'm living and metering out an appropriate tax/insurance premium. A truly "fair" distribution of costs would also involve a truly invasive surveillance society where I couldn't enjoy the pleasure of drinking my own beer in my own house without somebody recording it and adjusting my risk profile. But hey, I'm willing to put that to a vote if you are...
This is like "A book is a secret until someone reads it." It is trivially easy to trace back an exchange. Unlike, for example, cash.
If you go to an exchange like Mt.Gox, possibly. But what if I just offer to do some sort of service for you, anything I could do over an open wifi and have you deposit BTC directly into my wallet? Assuming I use a single purpose deposit address and don't mix it with identifiable BTC there's no name attached to that account. And bitcoin to bitcoin transactions are anonymous. If I just transfer something to a different account, nobody can prove whether I just exchanged bitcoins with goods and services from somebody else (possibly in real life) or if I just transferred it to another shell account of mine. Yes, if you use bitcoin almost like a traditional bank account where you have one that all your money flows in and out of that'll quickly be attached to your name and the anonymity is over. But if you want to keep a truly anonymous supply of money, you can - with some effort - do it.
Gold is strongly anti-cyclical, which means that when the economy is warming up people sell off gold to invest, when it's cooling down people sell off their investments and buy gold. It's not so much that gold itself changes but the money pumped in and out of gold causes rather large fluctuations. Particularly it was at an artifical high after the 2008 financial crisis and didn't really drop until the last two years.
If the death threats achieve the desired end, then why aren't they rational?
If the desired end is to make all Muslims look like a bunch of backwards hotheaded savages who can't tolerate the kinds of criticism and ridicule that Christians and Jews long ago learned to accept... then yes they achieved the desired end.
Nothing would please the extremists more than to cause a deep and lasting split between muslims and the rest of the world. There's 1.6 billion muslims in the world, most of them perfectly harmless. In fact, when you hear about extremists attacking girl's schools and killing everyone those children are probably muslim. The parents who sent them there are probably muslim. Many of the teachers probably are, too. The markets they attack, shops they burn, the people they threaten and harass are mostly muslim. They attack any local policemen, military and other security troops that are muslim. Terrorists want people who are afraid to control and people who are angry to join them. They don't give a fuck if the average civilian is caught between a rock and a hard place if it serves their purpose.
They're looking to start a chain reaction where the more they attack, the more the western world retaliates and the more collateral damage which produces more resentment, more extremists, more terrorists which leads to more attacks and so on. Part of that is conditioning the masses, creating the feeling that the rest of the world hates them is pretty good seeds for creating an believer/unbeliever concept just like Hitler did with über- and untermenschen. They don't need to get everybody in on it, they just need to make people too afraid to stick their neck out. Which is rather easy when you're on the "über" side of the equation, pretend to say your prayers, keep your head down and STFU and hopefully nobody comes to chop it off.
They actually mention one such case in the ruling, as long as the person claims to be a resident and the cops have good faith reason to believe it is true any incriminating evidence they find is admissable. In that particular case it was an ex-gf who had keys to the apartment and unlocked it for them, he got busted for the drug stuff they found inside. Same as if the cops think they're hearing someone getting killed and come bursting in but it's really you making a horror movie or something anything in plain sight is fair game.
Result: The cops can now sit in a van waiting for the owner to go out for milk before they knock on the door and ask the remaining weak-willed/simpleton residents to search the house.
They could always do that, a single consent to search of a shared living space is legal as long as nobody else objects. So if you're away from the house for whatever reason, tough luck. The exception to this is narrowly carved out to be when another resident is present and objecting. So if he'd not been arrested, left the house and they came back an hour later her consent would still be enough, there is no "standing objection". In short, if your GF wants to invite the police over she can do so any time you're not around. Just like the postman and the pool boy next door;)
The exception to that exception is if the police removed/tricked you away from the entrance to avoid a possible objection. However in this case from the actual ruling: "Petitioner does not contest the fact that the police had reasonable grounds for his removal or the existance of probable cause for his arrest. He was thus in the same position as an occupant absent for any other reason." And that position is that you need to be present and objecting when that other person consents.
To play Bitcoin, you have to trust your Bitcoin exchanges. (...) How do you know where "your" Bitcoins are right now?
In my wallet, which is on my machine. You can't get away from the transaction risk (that you'll send Bitcoins and not get dollars back or vice versa), but keeping it on an account they control is entirely optional and if they stopped processing transactions that'd get noticed really, really quick. Unlike real banks, you lose no interest and it's just as easy to transfer from my client as from an online website, as long as I'm on the machine where my wallet is. Of course the downside is that it's like hiding money under the mattrass, if it gets stolen or destroyed in a fire it's gone. But it still beats storing it under someone else's mattrass, which seems to be the current security level.
At some point they should notice that they've paid out twice as much as they should have, but for MtGox they didn't notice this for a long time.
Which shows they're either absurdly incompetent or complicit. Validating the books is incredibly much easier with Bitcoin than regular money because nobody can forge the blockchain. Here's how much money our system thinks we have, here's how much the blockchain says we got and we're not even talking about an audit. We're talking about somebody keeping their own bank account record on a napkin listing deposits and withdrawals without ever checking with the bank what they say the balance is. Honestly, it doesn't sound like a place you'd even want to trade Magic cards, much less "money".
I am certain that any notice that mentions that GEMA has requested the vid be blocked will not be allowed.
Which is pretty much what they were complaining about. YouTube has blocked the video because they fear - usually quite correctly - that it contains music which GEMA hasn't granted them a license for. Digging a little deeper I'm starting to agree with GEMA on this one, it seems the bad press really started when a webcam feed from the Kiev protests was blocked by YouTube's automatic scanner. If this was because copyrighted music was heard on the feed or it was just a glitch or whatever is not certain, what is certain is that GEMA got the flak for censoring this webcam even though they had never requested it nor had any knowledge of it. However the message leads everyone to believe they are to blame when it's really YouTube at fault.
Using the magical power of the internet, we can find out that a power plant burning petroleum produces 12.7 kWh per gallon. Tesla recently drove two Model S cars across the country (3,464.5 miles). The total energy consumed by both cars was 1197.8 kWh. It would take a power plant 94.3 gallons of gasoline (1197.8 kWh / 12.7 kWh / gallon) to generate the electricity used by both cars, so each car drove 3,464.5 miles on the equivalent of less than 48 gallons of gasoline. That's 72 MPG. (...) Electric cars are green, get over it and stop spreading FUD to people too lazy to google reliable sources and perform simple math.
Pot, meet kettle. If we for simplicity's sake assume the oil tanker drove as far to deliver it to the power plant as the gas station, then an apples to apples comparison needs to take into account the 93% average transmission and distribution efficiency of the US power grid and the approximately 80% charging efficiency of the Tesla. So to consume 1197.8 kWh in the car you must provide 1197.8 / 0.8 / 0.93 / 12.7 kWh = 126.8 gallons of fuel at the power station which puts it at a more modest 55 MPG. Yes, power plants are somewhat more efficient but when you include the overhead of producing it one place, sending it by wire, charging a battery wtih it then discharging it instead of just using it directly much of the advantage is lost.
Should a business be COMPELLED to accept customers in a non-discriminatory way? (...) If there is a choice between freedom or compulsion, I'd go with freedom.
So basically you want to return to before Rosa Parks where black people had to ride in the back of the bus and yield their seat to white people. Hey they should be happy they were allowed to ride on the same bus at all, right? You do an awful lot of rationalization for your racism/bigotry. I don't think anyone should be compelled to participate specifically in the acts that offend, like being forced to conduct a gay wedding. But if you want to discriminate against gays trying to buy a wedding cake, then I think that absolutely should be illegal discrimination. Clearly YMMV.
When it comes out, they're giving every player a free boost to 90 in order to get to the new content immediately. (...) They don't want to 'devalue the accomplishment of leveling.'
So... buy WoW, create lvl 1 character, buy expansion, instant level 90? Sounds to me like you don't have to accomplish much...
Generally, older generations understood that we work to live.
Well, my parents are from the WWII/early post-war generation and they're more frugal than anything. Everything downpaid, money in the bank but they keep on skimping and saving. I think they're mentally incapable of splurging and buying something friviously and out of plain luxury, I think it'd make them feel wasteful. So no, I'm not sure they know how to live much. I do know some in my generation whose expenses increase to match any income, but I'm not sure they know how to work to live either, they're mostly just financially reckless and don't have any nest egg or ability to plan for major purchases.
If you have good pay AND good benefit time then you have something worth holding on to. Keep earning that money. Put some away for retirement. Take the rest out with you during that benefit time and enjoy it!
Unless you're making so ridiculously much that you can retire very early, you'll be working for many years. I think getting "bored out" is almost as bad as getting burned out, if you just lose the spark and will to go to work in the morning then five out of seven days of the week will be rather miserable. Had a half year project like that once, just zapped the strength out of you and every evening I was in a glum and sour mood. Weekends weren't leisure time, they were battery recharge time to get past another week. Even after the project was over I realized it had snuffed out the spirit in what I was doing, so I found myself another job.
Yeah you're right I'm defintively working for the pay check. Still, if you're a reasonably attractive employee it doesn't have to be your current pay check. It's not that you live to work, it's that if I come home from a day that's been creative, challenging, learning, productive and rewarding I'm in an entirely different mood to enjoy my leisure time than one that's been stressful, pointless, boring and unappriciated. Yes, make sure you earn enough to live outside work but remember you'll spend something like 2000 hours/year there as well.
I knew, from when they changed my contact address without asking me. Made me just as pissed as when companies sign me up for newsletters I don't want just because I bought something from a site. I love to "abuse" the report spam button on those, I'm sure legally you have somehow gotten my consent but fuck you. Same with Facebook and their coup.
The Leaf has sold pretty well for them, especially in their home market of Japan
Here in Norway too, which is a fairly big market for electric cars.
Last month: Nissan Leaf: 650 cars (5.7%) Tesla Model S: 132 cars (1.2%) Last year: Nissan Leaf: 4604 cars (3.2%) Tesla Model S: 1983 cars (1.4%)
They're not competing for the same customers at all though, I don't think anyone with a Tesla would get a Leaf nor would anyone happy with a Leaf cash out for a Tesla. Cheapest Leaf: 228600 NOK, cheapest Tesla: 463800 NOK so more than double. Fully stashed Leaf: 281400 NOK, fully stashed Tesla: 829700 NOK so like triple the price. Of course Nissan is probably looking to move up and Tesla is looking to move down with their Model E, so naturally they want to figure each other out.
Formally, yes. Everything that involves bookkeeping, jobs, contracts, IP and so on must be kept separate but they are allowed to cooperate on the same level as Nokia-Microsoft did before the buyout. In practice that means that Nokia wouldn't do much of any major business decision without consulting their exclusive partner, formally they don't have to listen but if any of Nokia's managers want to have a future at Microsoft they wouldn't rock the boat. Or if they did, their manager again would probably stop them. IANAL either but I have been through a buy-out, any new development, big purchasing decisions and such were all put on hold.
Trying to drive traffic to her own blog, I guess. In short it's the same kind of snooping many corporate PCs do on your HTTPS traffic today, formalized into a protocol. Big whoop.
100 years ago, nothing supports H.264 in hardware either, yet here it is. I know, lets waste money making hardware for codecs that are not standards yet!
Well HEVC decoding does have hardware support and is rolling out to consumer devices rightnow. The shift to 4K which requires new hardware for everybody is probably the only chance at making a new standard, otherwise you'll have a non-trivial number of consumers with non-VP9 devices which means HEVC will be the de facto standard. Google has made a lot of bluster about their codec before, but YouTube still serves up video in H264. Unless they get really serious about pushing VP9 in hardware and very soon, history will repeat itself with HEVC/VP9.
Nonsense. Society benefits by having members who are healthy and well-adjusted.
It's still pure consumption, it doesn't produce any products or delivery any services. Until everything happens by magic and robots we still need people to work. Maybe I'm still struggling to make the point, if I got no basic income and the alternative was going broke and homeless I'd scrub toilets all day for minimum wage. However, if I could make a modest living without scrubbing toilets you'd have to pay me a lot for me to scrub toilets all day instead of doing what I fancy. Which means either the toilets go unscrubbed - unlikely due to health and safety regulations - or you'd have to pay someone enough to think "hey, if I scrub toilets all day I won't just be living modestly I'd have a wage that's worth it" which of course sets off a huge wage/price spiral.
The more you need to pay a lowly toilet scrubber, the less the basic income will be worth. The more you raise the basic income, the more people will demand for scrubbing toilets. And they're not converging, they're diverging. Like I said, at $0k I'd be desperate and would do it for minimum wage. At $10k basic income, maybe for $20k/year. At $20k basic income, for $50k/year. At $30k basic income, $100k+/year. The more I have, the more you'd have to pay me to wash piss and shit and puke all day. Then I'd rather share a tiny apartment and eat Ramen noodles all week. With basic income you have that choice, with no income you don't.
So when these atheist dictators banned religion and went around killing those who practiced it, that was just ONE BIG COINCIDENCE and had nothing to do with their atheism?
dictator 1. a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
How can you have absolute power when people follow religious leaders, not you? And that claim to answer to a higher authority than you? Dictators suppress and eradicate religion because it's a threat to their power, it's in the nature of a dictator not an atheist. Sharing a religion means you are both working for the same god, you might disagree on the ways and means and goals but you're in it together. Branding it as ateists makes it sounds like we're your equal and opposite, but it's not. If two people go skydiving, they have something in common. If two people don't go skydiving, they still have nothing in common.
But the fact that 99.9% of Muslims oppose terrorism doesn't seem to be swaying the terrorists.
Are you lying or just ignorant? Here's an example from a huge study showing that just in Bangladesh is 150 million * 90% muslim * 26% = 35.2 million who think suicide bombing of civilians is sometimes/often justified. In Egypt there is another 85 million * 90% muslim * 29% = 22.2 million people and the same in Pakistan with 180 million * 97% muslim * 13% = 22.7 million. Together that's over 80 million people or about 5% of muslims that DO support terrorism. And a majority of the population in Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine and Malaysia want to kill you for leaving Islam.
And they still won't be accident free, not if they're going to drive anything like humans do. If a pedestrain on the sidewalk suddenly decides to walk out into the road, there will almost certainly be an acccident. If someone comes running out from behind a tree or van or corner or doorway, there will almost certainly be an accident. If we're driving through an intersection and one of the people waiting to cross jumps into the road, there will be an accident. In short despite what the rules of the road say about having sufficient line of sight in practice we don't keep a low enough speed to prevent any and all accidents.
I'm not sure we're ready for "death by autonomous vehicle", even if we could prove that the computer drove at the posted limit, acted with superhuman reaction and applied full emergency brakes the moment that four year old came running out from behind the parked car. Take for example industrial robots, they work under extreme safety measures and even through I don't have a statistic to point to I'm absolutely positive that a lot more people have been killed in human-on-human industrial accidents than robot-on-human. We don't tend to tolerate robots with an accident rate, despite doing so with humans.
Not a problem. You go ahead and plant your ass firmly on the couch. In a year or two, you'll balloon to 800 pounds and die. Problem solved. The rest of us will be making ourselves useful. But most of the Basic Income people aim for live 'OKish' without working. To live well, you need to get a job.
Well, you can't have it both ways, either it frees up that burger flipping minimum wage earner to go on and write his masterpiece or he'll still be stuck there in his minimum wage job while it's really a bailout to those with money to boost it up but not quite rich enough to do it on their own. So I was exaggerating a little bit, but there's so many things to do that are just for personal pleasure, self-realization or as a hobby that does nobody else any good. That guy who'll instead go to the gym seven days a week becoming some sort of ultrafit triathlon athlete, is he providing anything useful to society?
For example me and a few friends like to go camping, I'm sure we'd do more of that. It's good exercise, good nature experience and a social event. The tangible output for society though? Nothing. I'd probably spend more time at the beach when it's warm and sunny instead of slaving at an office, but the only real outcomes is a tan - hopefully not a sunburn - and a good time. I think one of the people I know would be on snowboard all winter, he'd love to be a pro but simply wasn't good enough. My dad likes to fish, a friend of mine likes to brew beer but it's hobby scale and not competing with industrial scales at all.
That's on the leisure time side, on the job side sure there's jobs that are creative, interesting and meaningful but honestly - would you be making burgers and fries all day? Scrubbing the toilets? Emptying trash bins? Driving a taxi? Working a cash register and stocking shelves? I don't think so, maybe an abundance of wannabe star chefs but none of the people doing the dirty and boring bits. And even most of those star chefs probably wouldn't really want to deal with working for a gourment restaurant, which is something else entirely than doing it in your own kitchen for people you know.
Take a good, hard look at what the people who object say they'd be doing. Then try to imagine a world with basic income filled with people who'll do nothing but their dream job, and even that maybe just on the days they feel like it. I actually have a pretty nice jobs as jobs go, but really... I'm in it for the pay check. Quality of life isn't linear with money, being poor is no fun but once you have enough and start spending on nice-to-haves or outright luxuries I'd easily swap money for time. So if it's OKish money but I could enjoy it 24x7 that sounds better than being well off but trying to cram the good life into evenings and weekends. YMMV.
Slashdot Mirror
Chips have tolerances which means there's a spread on how fast they'll run. Binning is not overclocking, if Intel finds a i7-4770K that can run 100MHz above the rated speed they won't sell it now. They'll put it in storage and wait until they have enough of them then launch a new model i7-4790K (coming to you in Q2). People analogy, if you select the best people to go into elite forces and the rest in the regular army you've binned, but not overclocked. That'd be more like putting them on drugs to amplify their combat ability at the long time cost of their health.
On the other hand, think of all the fucked up shit people live through - people who could have killed themselves, but don't - and ask yourself if you're absolutely certain she'd want to die. I had a close relative with Alzheimer, in the end she didn't even recognize her own children. She was of course confused and scared, but I don't know - she never seemed to be in the kind of pain and misery you'd need to be suicidal, I think she lost that level of introspection and more or less drifted off into her own world. I think it was worse watching her mentally fall apart for us on the outside, at least in the end.
I agree that the war on drugs is stupid and causes more harm than good. However, the counter argument that "people should be allowed to do things that only hurts themselves" is pretty poor in the case of most addictions (including but definitely not limited to drugs). Personally, I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as there's no adverse affects to those around them. Unfortunately, most people only think of the immediate physical effects (e.g. secondhand smoke) and don't think of the more long-term effects, especially those which are harder to quantify.
If you just make it broad and vague enough practically everything will have some adverse effect on something. Or if not with certainty then with for some of the people some of the time and the increased risk meaning an increased risk. Or it's not by itself harmful but is somehow a gateway or stepping stone to something which might have adverse effects.
For example, take alcohol and let's forget all the health effects. Alcohol drinking is probably the leading cause of public urination which is clearly some form of adverse effect. It's also known that it lowers the inhibitions to violence in some people, so in the wrong situation it can clearly lead to adverse consequences. And obviously drinking is a prerequisite to drunk driving, which we all agree is bad so it's a gateway to adverse consequences. If you start putting enough bullshit like that together you can make almost anything seem bad. And I just wanted a beer.
If you preemtively need to take everyone's freedom away to avoid the risk that they'll someone infringe on someone else's freedom you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If I want to get drunk, I should be able to get drunk. If I'm becoming drunk and disorderly, drunk and violent or drunk and driving then you can stop me. And even assuming I've got an addiction and is borderline alcoholic, what good does being a borderline alcoholic and a criminal help me? No, I disagree with you it's my life and my right to fuck it up. If I want to go to McD and supersize it every day until I'm 500 pounds and die from obesity that should be my choice.
As for covering the costs of public healthcare, well I'd rather pay it rather than have the health nazi police trying to measure how healthy I'm living and metering out an appropriate tax/insurance premium. A truly "fair" distribution of costs would also involve a truly invasive surveillance society where I couldn't enjoy the pleasure of drinking my own beer in my own house without somebody recording it and adjusting my risk profile. But hey, I'm willing to put that to a vote if you are...
This is like "A book is a secret until someone reads it." It is trivially easy to trace back an exchange. Unlike, for example, cash.
If you go to an exchange like Mt.Gox, possibly. But what if I just offer to do some sort of service for you, anything I could do over an open wifi and have you deposit BTC directly into my wallet? Assuming I use a single purpose deposit address and don't mix it with identifiable BTC there's no name attached to that account. And bitcoin to bitcoin transactions are anonymous. If I just transfer something to a different account, nobody can prove whether I just exchanged bitcoins with goods and services from somebody else (possibly in real life) or if I just transferred it to another shell account of mine. Yes, if you use bitcoin almost like a traditional bank account where you have one that all your money flows in and out of that'll quickly be attached to your name and the anonymity is over. But if you want to keep a truly anonymous supply of money, you can - with some effort - do it.
Gold is strongly anti-cyclical, which means that when the economy is warming up people sell off gold to invest, when it's cooling down people sell off their investments and buy gold. It's not so much that gold itself changes but the money pumped in and out of gold causes rather large fluctuations. Particularly it was at an artifical high after the 2008 financial crisis and didn't really drop until the last two years.
If the death threats achieve the desired end, then why aren't they rational?
If the desired end is to make all Muslims look like a bunch of backwards hotheaded savages who can't tolerate the kinds of criticism and ridicule that Christians and Jews long ago learned to accept ... then yes they achieved the desired end.
Nothing would please the extremists more than to cause a deep and lasting split between muslims and the rest of the world. There's 1.6 billion muslims in the world, most of them perfectly harmless. In fact, when you hear about extremists attacking girl's schools and killing everyone those children are probably muslim. The parents who sent them there are probably muslim. Many of the teachers probably are, too. The markets they attack, shops they burn, the people they threaten and harass are mostly muslim. They attack any local policemen, military and other security troops that are muslim. Terrorists want people who are afraid to control and people who are angry to join them. They don't give a fuck if the average civilian is caught between a rock and a hard place if it serves their purpose.
They're looking to start a chain reaction where the more they attack, the more the western world retaliates and the more collateral damage which produces more resentment, more extremists, more terrorists which leads to more attacks and so on. Part of that is conditioning the masses, creating the feeling that the rest of the world hates them is pretty good seeds for creating an believer/unbeliever concept just like Hitler did with über- and untermenschen. They don't need to get everybody in on it, they just need to make people too afraid to stick their neck out. Which is rather easy when you're on the "über" side of the equation, pretend to say your prayers, keep your head down and STFU and hopefully nobody comes to chop it off.
They actually mention one such case in the ruling, as long as the person claims to be a resident and the cops have good faith reason to believe it is true any incriminating evidence they find is admissable. In that particular case it was an ex-gf who had keys to the apartment and unlocked it for them, he got busted for the drug stuff they found inside. Same as if the cops think they're hearing someone getting killed and come bursting in but it's really you making a horror movie or something anything in plain sight is fair game.
Result: The cops can now sit in a van waiting for the owner to go out for milk before they knock on the door and ask the remaining weak-willed/simpleton residents to search the house.
They could always do that, a single consent to search of a shared living space is legal as long as nobody else objects. So if you're away from the house for whatever reason, tough luck. The exception to this is narrowly carved out to be when another resident is present and objecting. So if he'd not been arrested, left the house and they came back an hour later her consent would still be enough, there is no "standing objection". In short, if your GF wants to invite the police over she can do so any time you're not around. Just like the postman and the pool boy next door ;)
The exception to that exception is if the police removed/tricked you away from the entrance to avoid a possible objection. However in this case from the actual ruling: "Petitioner does not contest the fact that the police had reasonable grounds for his removal or the existance of probable cause for his arrest. He was thus in the same position as an occupant absent for any other reason." And that position is that you need to be present and objecting when that other person consents.
To play Bitcoin, you have to trust your Bitcoin exchanges. (...) How do you know where "your" Bitcoins are right now?
In my wallet, which is on my machine. You can't get away from the transaction risk (that you'll send Bitcoins and not get dollars back or vice versa), but keeping it on an account they control is entirely optional and if they stopped processing transactions that'd get noticed really, really quick. Unlike real banks, you lose no interest and it's just as easy to transfer from my client as from an online website, as long as I'm on the machine where my wallet is. Of course the downside is that it's like hiding money under the mattrass, if it gets stolen or destroyed in a fire it's gone. But it still beats storing it under someone else's mattrass, which seems to be the current security level.
At some point they should notice that they've paid out twice as much as they should have, but for MtGox they didn't notice this for a long time.
Which shows they're either absurdly incompetent or complicit. Validating the books is incredibly much easier with Bitcoin than regular money because nobody can forge the blockchain. Here's how much money our system thinks we have, here's how much the blockchain says we got and we're not even talking about an audit. We're talking about somebody keeping their own bank account record on a napkin listing deposits and withdrawals without ever checking with the bank what they say the balance is. Honestly, it doesn't sound like a place you'd even want to trade Magic cards, much less "money".
I am certain that any notice that mentions that GEMA has requested the vid be blocked will not be allowed.
Which is pretty much what they were complaining about. YouTube has blocked the video because they fear - usually quite correctly - that it contains music which GEMA hasn't granted them a license for. Digging a little deeper I'm starting to agree with GEMA on this one, it seems the bad press really started when a webcam feed from the Kiev protests was blocked by YouTube's automatic scanner. If this was because copyrighted music was heard on the feed or it was just a glitch or whatever is not certain, what is certain is that GEMA got the flak for censoring this webcam even though they had never requested it nor had any knowledge of it. However the message leads everyone to believe they are to blame when it's really YouTube at fault.
Using the magical power of the internet, we can find out that a power plant burning petroleum produces 12.7 kWh per gallon. Tesla recently drove two Model S cars across the country (3,464.5 miles). The total energy consumed by both cars was 1197.8 kWh. It would take a power plant 94.3 gallons of gasoline (1197.8 kWh / 12.7 kWh / gallon) to generate the electricity used by both cars, so each car drove 3,464.5 miles on the equivalent of less than 48 gallons of gasoline. That's 72 MPG. (...) Electric cars are green, get over it and stop spreading FUD to people too lazy to google reliable sources and perform simple math.
Pot, meet kettle. If we for simplicity's sake assume the oil tanker drove as far to deliver it to the power plant as the gas station, then an apples to apples comparison needs to take into account the 93% average transmission and distribution efficiency of the US power grid and the approximately 80% charging efficiency of the Tesla. So to consume 1197.8 kWh in the car you must provide 1197.8 / 0.8 / 0.93 / 12.7 kWh = 126.8 gallons of fuel at the power station which puts it at a more modest 55 MPG. Yes, power plants are somewhat more efficient but when you include the overhead of producing it one place, sending it by wire, charging a battery wtih it then discharging it instead of just using it directly much of the advantage is lost.
Should a business be COMPELLED to accept customers in a non-discriminatory way? (...) If there is a choice between freedom or compulsion, I'd go with freedom.
So basically you want to return to before Rosa Parks where black people had to ride in the back of the bus and yield their seat to white people. Hey they should be happy they were allowed to ride on the same bus at all, right? You do an awful lot of rationalization for your racism/bigotry. I don't think anyone should be compelled to participate specifically in the acts that offend, like being forced to conduct a gay wedding. But if you want to discriminate against gays trying to buy a wedding cake, then I think that absolutely should be illegal discrimination. Clearly YMMV.
When it comes out, they're giving every player a free boost to 90 in order to get to the new content immediately. (...) They don't want to 'devalue the accomplishment of leveling.'
So... buy WoW, create lvl 1 character, buy expansion, instant level 90? Sounds to me like you don't have to accomplish much...
Generally, older generations understood that we work to live.
Well, my parents are from the WWII/early post-war generation and they're more frugal than anything. Everything downpaid, money in the bank but they keep on skimping and saving. I think they're mentally incapable of splurging and buying something friviously and out of plain luxury, I think it'd make them feel wasteful. So no, I'm not sure they know how to live much. I do know some in my generation whose expenses increase to match any income, but I'm not sure they know how to work to live either, they're mostly just financially reckless and don't have any nest egg or ability to plan for major purchases.
If you have good pay AND good benefit time then you have something worth holding on to. Keep earning that money. Put some away for retirement. Take the rest out with you during that benefit time and enjoy it!
Unless you're making so ridiculously much that you can retire very early, you'll be working for many years. I think getting "bored out" is almost as bad as getting burned out, if you just lose the spark and will to go to work in the morning then five out of seven days of the week will be rather miserable. Had a half year project like that once, just zapped the strength out of you and every evening I was in a glum and sour mood. Weekends weren't leisure time, they were battery recharge time to get past another week. Even after the project was over I realized it had snuffed out the spirit in what I was doing, so I found myself another job.
Yeah you're right I'm defintively working for the pay check. Still, if you're a reasonably attractive employee it doesn't have to be your current pay check. It's not that you live to work, it's that if I come home from a day that's been creative, challenging, learning, productive and rewarding I'm in an entirely different mood to enjoy my leisure time than one that's been stressful, pointless, boring and unappriciated. Yes, make sure you earn enough to live outside work but remember you'll spend something like 2000 hours/year there as well.
I knew, from when they changed my contact address without asking me. Made me just as pissed as when companies sign me up for newsletters I don't want just because I bought something from a site. I love to "abuse" the report spam button on those, I'm sure legally you have somehow gotten my consent but fuck you. Same with Facebook and their coup.
Population of Japan: 128 million
Population of Norway: 5 million
Nice troll, AC. "In 2013, 13,021 LEAFs were sold in Japan, which is a new record." With 4,604 sold sold in same period Norway is large.
The Leaf has sold pretty well for them, especially in their home market of Japan
Here in Norway too, which is a fairly big market for electric cars.
Last month:
Nissan Leaf: 650 cars (5.7%)
Tesla Model S: 132 cars (1.2%)
Last year:
Nissan Leaf: 4604 cars (3.2%)
Tesla Model S: 1983 cars (1.4%)
They're not competing for the same customers at all though, I don't think anyone with a Tesla would get a Leaf nor would anyone happy with a Leaf cash out for a Tesla. Cheapest Leaf: 228600 NOK, cheapest Tesla: 463800 NOK so more than double. Fully stashed Leaf: 281400 NOK, fully stashed Tesla: 829700 NOK so like triple the price. Of course Nissan is probably looking to move up and Tesla is looking to move down with their Model E, so naturally they want to figure each other out.
Formally, yes. Everything that involves bookkeeping, jobs, contracts, IP and so on must be kept separate but they are allowed to cooperate on the same level as Nokia-Microsoft did before the buyout. In practice that means that Nokia wouldn't do much of any major business decision without consulting their exclusive partner, formally they don't have to listen but if any of Nokia's managers want to have a future at Microsoft they wouldn't rock the boat. Or if they did, their manager again would probably stop them. IANAL either but I have been through a buy-out, any new development, big purchasing decisions and such were all put on hold.
Trying to drive traffic to her own blog, I guess. In short it's the same kind of snooping many corporate PCs do on your HTTPS traffic today, formalized into a protocol. Big whoop.
100 years ago, nothing supports H.264 in hardware either, yet here it is. I know, lets waste money making hardware for codecs that are not standards yet!
Well HEVC decoding does have hardware support and is rolling out to consumer devices right now. The shift to 4K which requires new hardware for everybody is probably the only chance at making a new standard, otherwise you'll have a non-trivial number of consumers with non-VP9 devices which means HEVC will be the de facto standard. Google has made a lot of bluster about their codec before, but YouTube still serves up video in H264. Unless they get really serious about pushing VP9 in hardware and very soon, history will repeat itself with HEVC/VP9.
Nonsense. Society benefits by having members who are healthy and well-adjusted.
It's still pure consumption, it doesn't produce any products or delivery any services. Until everything happens by magic and robots we still need people to work. Maybe I'm still struggling to make the point, if I got no basic income and the alternative was going broke and homeless I'd scrub toilets all day for minimum wage. However, if I could make a modest living without scrubbing toilets you'd have to pay me a lot for me to scrub toilets all day instead of doing what I fancy. Which means either the toilets go unscrubbed - unlikely due to health and safety regulations - or you'd have to pay someone enough to think "hey, if I scrub toilets all day I won't just be living modestly I'd have a wage that's worth it" which of course sets off a huge wage/price spiral.
The more you need to pay a lowly toilet scrubber, the less the basic income will be worth. The more you raise the basic income, the more people will demand for scrubbing toilets. And they're not converging, they're diverging. Like I said, at $0k I'd be desperate and would do it for minimum wage. At $10k basic income, maybe for $20k/year. At $20k basic income, for $50k/year. At $30k basic income, $100k+/year. The more I have, the more you'd have to pay me to wash piss and shit and puke all day. Then I'd rather share a tiny apartment and eat Ramen noodles all week. With basic income you have that choice, with no income you don't.
So when these atheist dictators banned religion and went around killing those who practiced it, that was just ONE BIG COINCIDENCE and had nothing to do with their atheism?
dictator
1. a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
How can you have absolute power when people follow religious leaders, not you? And that claim to answer to a higher authority than you? Dictators suppress and eradicate religion because it's a threat to their power, it's in the nature of a dictator not an atheist. Sharing a religion means you are both working for the same god, you might disagree on the ways and means and goals but you're in it together. Branding it as ateists makes it sounds like we're your equal and opposite, but it's not. If two people go skydiving, they have something in common. If two people don't go skydiving, they still have nothing in common.
But the fact that 99.9% of Muslims oppose terrorism doesn't seem to be swaying the terrorists.
Are you lying or just ignorant? Here's an example from a huge study showing that just in Bangladesh is 150 million * 90% muslim * 26% = 35.2 million who think suicide bombing of civilians is sometimes/often justified. In Egypt there is another 85 million * 90% muslim * 29% = 22.2 million people and the same in Pakistan with 180 million * 97% muslim * 13% = 22.7 million. Together that's over 80 million people or about 5% of muslims that DO support terrorism. And a majority of the population in Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine and Malaysia want to kill you for leaving Islam.
And they still won't be accident free, not if they're going to drive anything like humans do. If a pedestrain on the sidewalk suddenly decides to walk out into the road, there will almost certainly be an acccident. If someone comes running out from behind a tree or van or corner or doorway, there will almost certainly be an accident. If we're driving through an intersection and one of the people waiting to cross jumps into the road, there will be an accident. In short despite what the rules of the road say about having sufficient line of sight in practice we don't keep a low enough speed to prevent any and all accidents.
I'm not sure we're ready for "death by autonomous vehicle", even if we could prove that the computer drove at the posted limit, acted with superhuman reaction and applied full emergency brakes the moment that four year old came running out from behind the parked car. Take for example industrial robots, they work under extreme safety measures and even through I don't have a statistic to point to I'm absolutely positive that a lot more people have been killed in human-on-human industrial accidents than robot-on-human. We don't tend to tolerate robots with an accident rate, despite doing so with humans.
Not a problem. You go ahead and plant your ass firmly on the couch. In a year or two, you'll balloon to 800 pounds and die. Problem solved. The rest of us will be making ourselves useful. But most of the Basic Income people aim for live 'OKish' without working. To live well, you need to get a job.
Well, you can't have it both ways, either it frees up that burger flipping minimum wage earner to go on and write his masterpiece or he'll still be stuck there in his minimum wage job while it's really a bailout to those with money to boost it up but not quite rich enough to do it on their own. So I was exaggerating a little bit, but there's so many things to do that are just for personal pleasure, self-realization or as a hobby that does nobody else any good. That guy who'll instead go to the gym seven days a week becoming some sort of ultrafit triathlon athlete, is he providing anything useful to society?
For example me and a few friends like to go camping, I'm sure we'd do more of that. It's good exercise, good nature experience and a social event. The tangible output for society though? Nothing. I'd probably spend more time at the beach when it's warm and sunny instead of slaving at an office, but the only real outcomes is a tan - hopefully not a sunburn - and a good time. I think one of the people I know would be on snowboard all winter, he'd love to be a pro but simply wasn't good enough. My dad likes to fish, a friend of mine likes to brew beer but it's hobby scale and not competing with industrial scales at all.
That's on the leisure time side, on the job side sure there's jobs that are creative, interesting and meaningful but honestly - would you be making burgers and fries all day? Scrubbing the toilets? Emptying trash bins? Driving a taxi? Working a cash register and stocking shelves? I don't think so, maybe an abundance of wannabe star chefs but none of the people doing the dirty and boring bits. And even most of those star chefs probably wouldn't really want to deal with working for a gourment restaurant, which is something else entirely than doing it in your own kitchen for people you know.
Take a good, hard look at what the people who object say they'd be doing. Then try to imagine a world with basic income filled with people who'll do nothing but their dream job, and even that maybe just on the days they feel like it. I actually have a pretty nice jobs as jobs go, but really... I'm in it for the pay check. Quality of life isn't linear with money, being poor is no fun but once you have enough and start spending on nice-to-haves or outright luxuries I'd easily swap money for time. So if it's OKish money but I could enjoy it 24x7 that sounds better than being well off but trying to cram the good life into evenings and weekends. YMMV.