Not really. The device in my pocket is called a "smartphone" but the fact that it makes phone calls is fairly incidental to its utility for myself and most people. It's really just a small personal computer with the ability to make phone calls added in. I probably use the phone capability less than 5% of the time I'm using the device and I think I'm pretty typical these days. If you use yours primarily to make calls that makes you something of an outlier.
You won't catch me gaming on my phone or doing other things the screen is just too small.
And why do we care? You be you. If gaming isn't your brand of vodka that's fine but lots of people who own smartphones find it to be a very significant feature for them. I don't do a lot of gaming on mine either but I don't think that fact in any way defines what a smartphone is or how it should be used.
You think sports cars and yachts just look good and aren't actually a pleasure to use too?
In a lot of cases they are only good to look at and definitely not a pleasure to use. Have you ever actually driven a Lamborghini Countach? I have and it SUCKED. Looks pretty as hell and is fast in a straight line but James May said it far more eloquently than I could about why it's a terrible car.
Just because something looks good and has a high price tag doesn't necessarily mean it is something you'll enjoy owning.
It seems to me that owning an iPhone shows that you are more concerned about image over function/capability.
No that's just your confirmation bias talking. The primary attraction of most Android phones is simply price. (which is very reasonable) The features are a secondary concern at best for most users. If you are arguing that iPhones aren't functional you are crazy. Most buyers of these devices aren't worried about using every last feature and just want something that works. For most users iPhones are primarily about function (they mostly work great), reliability, and not image at all. My parent's are a perfect example. They don't give a shit about what phone they own, they just want one that works and that lets them get pictures of the grandkids with minimal hassle. They use a last generation iPhone which they got at a reasonable price. As a bonus they can use an iPad too and not have to learn anything new. Could they use an Android device? Sure, but it wouldn't have any benefit to them over an iPhone - certainly not from any features or capability.
Fact is that the difference in capabilities between similar market tier Android phones versus iPhones is pretty much negligible for most people, even those who are highly geeky. Maybe you need/want some particular feature of a particular phone and that's cool (you be you), but for most users the differences are more a matter of taste than capability. I've used current generation Android phones too and they have no must-have advantages for me or most people over current generation iPhones. Both would work fine for me and probably for most people reading this. People buy them because they have a particular preference or because of price. The only ones fussing over feature lists are the sorts of people who read slashdot.
As someone who needs surgery in the deranged health care system in Quebec, anything that can remove these arrogant human doctors from the loop and make surgery perhaps a nurse-practitioner thing is GOOD.
Tell me that again when you are coding on the operating table. You don't need a surgeon for many routine surgeries. That's not why you want a surgeon. The value of a surgeon is for when something unexpected or particularly serious happens. And the fun thing about operations is that you never quite know when that is going to happen. So go right ahead and have someone less qualified do your surgery and pray nothing goes wrong. Frankly I think the arrogant one here is you.
I've had it with the arrogant ignorant incompetent condescending doctors that fill the system here and anything that can threaten their hegemony is GOOD.
As opposed to the arrogant, know nothing, rude patients that think they know more about medicine than the people actually trained in the practice of it. Let me guess, some doctor had the nerve to actually tell you you were wrong about something or *gasp* made a mistake. Medicine is one of the most difficult and complicated human endeavors and we've been wildly successful at it. No doctors aren't perfect and it is unreasonable to expect them to be, particularly if you have a challenging condition. The human body is too complicated and our technology is too primitive for that to be a realistic expectation.
Bring on the AI diagnosis, remote-viewed autosurgery please.
How about a Star Trek tricoder while you are invoking science fiction?
It is okay. That's called "freedom of choice." It may or may not be a good business move, but they're free to do that.
The concern is that it ceases to be a choice. We almost had that unfortunate state of affairs with Internet Explorer before Firefox came along and it wasn't good. If Google manages to make Chrome a de-facto standard then they effectively can push all other browers out of the market and start establishing "standards" at will that favor them and them alone. This is not an idle or trivial concern.
I hate Google. That's why I don't use their products. That's my choice. You have the same option.
I have better things to do than to waste my time hating a company. I tried that in the past and it was a waste of time. Google is fine as long as you understand what they are and what their motivations are. I use some of their products but refuse to tie myself to them (or anyone else) exclusively. Their search engine works very well and their email services are pretty useful. I sometimes use their maps applications. All of those have alternatives if I become dissatisfied with any of them. Many people like Android and that's fine too if it suits your needs.
There is no requirement for well regulated or anything.
There is if you want it to actually work in the real world. Dictionary definitions are pretty much useless here. There is nothing wrong with private ownership and profit motives and they routinely benefit society greatly. That said, we have centuries of evidence that in more than a few cases we have to make and enforce some rules to keep things moving smoothly. Anyone who denies this fact is either clueless or has ulterior motives.
Concretely, pure capitalism seems to lead to monopolies.
Only in some cases. Monopolies are not universally a bad thing - in some contexts they can be quite helpful. Utilities for example actually have the lowest costs when there is a monopoly. In some industries achieving a monopoly would be a good approximation of impossible even with no regulation of any kind. But in all cases any monopoly needs to be examined closely and regulated to some degree. I can think of no case where an unregulated monopoly has been a good thing for society.
Why LibreOffice over OpenOffice? (Serious question, I never knew which to choose, so I just flipped a coin.)
Because LibreOffice is being actively developed and OpenOffice not so much. Basically Sun (later Oracle) didn't put serious effort into the project for a while and it forked into LibreOffice. If you have to pick one generally LibreOffice is the one you want to use.
As for why we're specifically doing business with ZTE and agreeing to import their stuff again, that might have something to do with the patents that were issued at the same time for Ivanka's products.
Trademarks, not patents. Plus you can drop the "might have something to do with" qualifier and replace it with "has a lot to do with".
that phones nearing that $1k price tag don't seem to sell so well.
Really? It's been Apple's best selling device every single week last quarter. To be clear they sold 52.2 MILLION phones and the iPhone X was the best seller among those.
If that's your idea of "not selling well" give me some of that kind of "failure"...
However, is it just me or does no one really give a damn about the " new " iPhones / Androids that come out every year with not a whole lot of anything to get excited about ?
It's just you. Apple literally sells tens of millions of them and Android devices collectively sell even more units so obviously people give a damn. If it's not your particular brand of vodka I don't have any quarrel with you on that but don't pretend no one cares about the smartphone upgrades.
I talk to recruiters almost daily as a part of my job. Furthermore my sister works as a recruiter. I probably can tell you more about what they are looking for than most of the people here. And recruiters are almost always looking for that perfect fit candidate who nails all the right key words and they won't spend a minute with you if you aren't that person. They are nothing more than outsourced HR. They work for the company doing the hiring, not for the person seeking a job. If you are getting a lot of recruiter attention then you are fortunate to work in an industry where the recruiter's job is relatively easy. A lot of IT work falls into this category and that's great. But never make the mistake of thinking a recruiter is working for you.
They should have a list of both contract and full-time positions that local companies are trying to fill.
Of course they do. That doesn't mean any of those opportunities are a fit for any particular person. Speaking for myself it's actually kind of hard to find the sort of work I do. I'm both an engineer and an accountant (and have the appropriate degrees and experience in both) which you would think would make it easy but it doesn't. My skill set is that of a generalist. I tend to fall into a challenging area where nobody wants to hire me for specialist jobs (they either think I'm overqualified or that I don't have enough experience in that specific task) and generalist skill set jobs are actually hard to find and get, particularly in large companies. I've worked with a lot of recruiters over the years and the number of full time jobs I've gotten through them is precisely one in the last 20 years.
Doesn't make a difference. The only thing that changes is which sound bites work. There is no evidence to suggest that EU voters are substantially let vulnerable to sound bites and lazy journalism than those in the US. Not as if Europe hasn't had their share of breathtakingly horrible leaders within the last century either. Personally I think England and the US voters keep trying to outdo each other in a contest to see who can do the dumbest thing possible.
GB: "Let's exit this EU thing at huge cost to our economy" US: "Hold my beer..." *elects Donald Trump*
That's not a roll out in any meaningful sense. I cannot call it to where I am, give it an arbitrary destination and have it take me there safely. That system is nothing more than a glorified airport shuttle on a fixed route and fixed destinations. Not even close to something that could replace my car and certainly not a replacement for a taxi.
If you obsess over the word "pirate" Then your support was never available anyway and not needed.
It's that sort of idiotic and arrogant attitude that resulted folks like Trump getting elected despite spouting breathtakingly idiotic sound bites. Believe it or not, copyright is pretty far down the list of things most people obsess over so a well placed sound bit or two can make a LOT of difference. They don't give a shit about nuance or abstract concepts. In politics you have to play the game and sound bites are part of the game. Calling themselves "pirates" makes it REALLY easy for the opposition to gain votes among the lazy and credulous who comprise a LOT of the voting public.
Anyone so easily swayed would never manage to resist propaganda.
Evidently you haven't noticed that vast swaths of the voting public fall into that category.
"Pirate party" definitely does make a stupid first impression.
In a sound bite obsessed media culture and a lazy electorate that's probably the only impression you are going to get to make. Sad but true. A complex nuanced argument like copyright is going to be won by the best soundbite with the biggest megaphone even if that argument is breathtakingly wrong.
I only need a car once or twice a year, so I just rent one. Seems pointless to own a car.
If you live in the US then I'm guessing you live somewhere in or near NYC because that's one of the few places in the US you can actually get away with not owning a car. In fact owning a car there is actually kind of pointless. There are a few other places in the US where a car doesn't make sense but not very many of them.
How Much Americans Could Save by Ridesharing Driverless Cars Over Owning
In my particular case the answer is a good approximation of zero with a hell of a lot of added aggravation. I don't live in a dense urban area so pretty much any place that isn't a densely populated city doesn't make much sense for "ride sharing". I would need the vehicle at roughly the same time as everyone else (work commute) so using it when I need it most will be a competitive bidding situation and probably not save me a penny. Plus I have to schedule and/or wait for the ride to arrive.
Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to have access to driverless cars but it's going to be a good long while before they make any kind of practical sense.
The reality is that the first fully autonomous cars will be very pricey and beyond the reach of most Americans.
So what? That's true of every new technology. As production ramps up the costs will naturally fall. The rich get the fanciest toys first just like they always have.
Manufacturers expect the early buyers will be businesses and the very wealthy. One developer says prices won't start coming down enough for most families and individuals to buy them until 2025 or beyond.
They think autonomous cars will be a widespread thing as soon as 2025? HAHAHAHAHA... cough, sniff... Ummm, no they won't. I have confidence they will become a thing eventually but it just isn't going to happen that fast. The legal framework and insurance alone is going to take longer than that even if the technology was ready today. And the technology is no where near ready for the General Public today. Best case I'd imagine you'll see rollout start at the earliest sometime in the 2030s with lots of testing and pilot programs over then next 10-15 years. Then it will take a few decades to really start gaining large amounts of market share presuming everything goes well up to that point and there are no showstopper technology or political problems.
According to Esurance research, in the best-case scenario, a family that gives up its car in favor of driverless ridesharing could save $4,100 in annual transportation costs.
Maybe if you live near NYC where the cost of owning a car is prohibitive, travel distances are short, and where the infrastructure is set up already to support using vehicles you don't own. Basically if you live in a place where taxis are a routine thing it probably makes sense. Doesn't really work for the majority of the US and in places like Europe which already have decent public transportation there really isn't so much added value. As much as I'd like to have a driverless car (or decent public transit) to take the wheel for my morning commute I don't see it as a likely thing before I retire.
The law would have put a greater responsibility on individual websites to check for copyright infringements.
Rather a substantial understatement there...
Opponents greeted the decision as a victory. Julia Reda, a Pirate Party MEP who had campaigned against the legislation tweeted: "Great success: Your protests have worked!
You know calling yourself the "Pirate Party" doesn't really boost your credibility when it comes to issues like copyright infringement. I'm not saying they are wrong but the optics of it aren't super helpful to those who are less invested in the issue - namely most of the general public.
"We respect the decision... we will work with MEPs over the next weeks to explain how the proposed directive will benefit not just European creativity, but also internet users and the technology sector."
Translation: "If it wasn't for those meddling kids we would have gotten away with it too!"
When I put my resume up on Indeed a month or so ago, I got multiple contacts within 24 hours, including cold calls from recruiters who somehow had my telephone number.
That is great but that sort of response isn't the norm. In my line of work (manufacturing operations) such a vigorous response would be almost unheard of no matter how attractive your resume. I think this speaks more to industry and company culture than anything else but just posting your resume will rarely land you interviews that easily in my industry. Your mileage may vary of course. In my wife's line of work she gets calls out of the blue all the time because there simply aren't a lot of people who do what she does.
But as soon as you say "online submission" all is lost. I've never known anyone who got a call back from submitting their resume through a company web site. Perhaps it has happened somewhere in the world, but it must be quite rare.
There is a reason for that. It's because the HR folks get absolute bombarded with resumes so the odds you you actually getting a response unless you are EXACTLY what they are looking for is a good approximation of zero if the company has any size to it at all. Big companies are doing keyword searches and throwing out 99% of the resumes they actually do read. Chances are you'll get at most 30-60 seconds of consideration if you are lucky and the odds of a response are ridiculously low. Those systems are set up to weed out resumes and ward off lawsuits than they are to actually setting up interviews. You are quite right that getting a response that way will be quite unusual.
If your resume isn't attractive enough that recruiters reach out to you, that sucks.
The vast majority of people fall into that category.
At least get some help prettying up your resume, and you may need to consider moving to where your job is hot.
Sometimes it doesn't matter how "pretty" your resume is. And people often cannot move for a variety of good reasons.
Is the lack of trust on a central organization (bank, card payment system), even protected by heavy economic & financial laws, sufficient to justify the huge energy cost of Bitcoin?
Easy answer to that question. Which is more expensive? Transaction infrastructure (including trust related ones) and processing costs money. The currency that will win is the currency with the lowest all-in transaction costs. Right now that is clearly NOT bitcoin outside of a few corner cases (mostly for illegal goods). Risk adjusted transaction costs for bitcoin are substantially higher than for the lowest priced alternatives. I see no credible evidence of that changing any time soon. Find a way to make bitcoin transactions actually cost less than using dollars as a general proposition and then it can be a discussion.
I'm sorry, but did you just try to argue that medicine was subject to normal market dynamics?
Of course medicine is subject to normal market dynamics just like any other industry. The laws of economics are not suspended just for medicine. It tends to be regulated precisely because of the ease with which price gouging can (and does) occur but supply and demand still applies to medicine. This very fact is why those who argue against government involvement in health care are so very wrong. Normal market dynamics work but they often function in a way contrary to the benefit of society and individuals.
Price gouging occurs when access to a product is restricted, either through an emergency, or entirely artificial constraints.
While your are quite correct that those are the most common times we see the practice it is by no means limited to those two conditions. Price gouging can occur any time there is a breakdown in a competitive market. The constraints do not have to be artificial nor does there necessarily need to be an emergency. It often is used to describe the practices of a coercive monopoly. (before you respond, monopolies do not have to be artificially constructed) It also can happen with suppliers taking advantage of short term changes in the demand curve.
So which one is it: price gouging, or legitimate supply and demand?
Those are not mutually exclusive. You can have situations where normal market dynamics of supply and demand allow for price gouging. Happens all the time in medicine. It also would happen in certain other industries like utilities where there is a monopoly if the vendors weren't regulated. While you can certainly argue that drug prices are a function of legitimate supply and demand, the fact is that price gouging routinely occurs as well because they are taking advantage of people who have a weak BATNA. Any time you need (not want but actually need) something and there is a bottleneck on supply controlled by someone else there is a strong chance of price gouging occurring. Particularly when discriminatory pricing is not prohibited.
You mean you're going to pay to have other people track you?
Do you have a smartphone? Then you are already doing that. The real question here is why you would pay someone additional to track you in exchange for no discernible benefit to you.
If they want to track you so bad why not just make them pay?
Ahh now you are on to it. If they want to track you then they can pay you cash money for the privilege. I probably wouldn't do it anyway but at least then it is an idea worth entertaining instead of just rejecting immediately.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends what you think the function of a phone is
Not really. The device in my pocket is called a "smartphone" but the fact that it makes phone calls is fairly incidental to its utility for myself and most people. It's really just a small personal computer with the ability to make phone calls added in. I probably use the phone capability less than 5% of the time I'm using the device and I think I'm pretty typical these days. If you use yours primarily to make calls that makes you something of an outlier.
You won't catch me gaming on my phone or doing other things the screen is just too small.
And why do we care? You be you. If gaming isn't your brand of vodka that's fine but lots of people who own smartphones find it to be a very significant feature for them. I don't do a lot of gaming on mine either but I don't think that fact in any way defines what a smartphone is or how it should be used.
You think sports cars and yachts just look good and aren't actually a pleasure to use too?
In a lot of cases they are only good to look at and definitely not a pleasure to use. Have you ever actually driven a Lamborghini Countach? I have and it SUCKED. Looks pretty as hell and is fast in a straight line but James May said it far more eloquently than I could about why it's a terrible car.
Just because something looks good and has a high price tag doesn't necessarily mean it is something you'll enjoy owning.
It seems to me that owning an iPhone shows that you are more concerned about image over function/capability.
No that's just your confirmation bias talking. The primary attraction of most Android phones is simply price. (which is very reasonable) The features are a secondary concern at best for most users. If you are arguing that iPhones aren't functional you are crazy. Most buyers of these devices aren't worried about using every last feature and just want something that works. For most users iPhones are primarily about function (they mostly work great), reliability, and not image at all. My parent's are a perfect example. They don't give a shit about what phone they own, they just want one that works and that lets them get pictures of the grandkids with minimal hassle. They use a last generation iPhone which they got at a reasonable price. As a bonus they can use an iPad too and not have to learn anything new. Could they use an Android device? Sure, but it wouldn't have any benefit to them over an iPhone - certainly not from any features or capability.
Fact is that the difference in capabilities between similar market tier Android phones versus iPhones is pretty much negligible for most people, even those who are highly geeky. Maybe you need/want some particular feature of a particular phone and that's cool (you be you), but for most users the differences are more a matter of taste than capability. I've used current generation Android phones too and they have no must-have advantages for me or most people over current generation iPhones. Both would work fine for me and probably for most people reading this. People buy them because they have a particular preference or because of price. The only ones fussing over feature lists are the sorts of people who read slashdot.
As someone who needs surgery in the deranged health care system in Quebec, anything that can remove these arrogant human doctors from the loop and make surgery perhaps a nurse-practitioner thing is GOOD.
Tell me that again when you are coding on the operating table. You don't need a surgeon for many routine surgeries. That's not why you want a surgeon. The value of a surgeon is for when something unexpected or particularly serious happens. And the fun thing about operations is that you never quite know when that is going to happen. So go right ahead and have someone less qualified do your surgery and pray nothing goes wrong. Frankly I think the arrogant one here is you.
I've had it with the arrogant ignorant incompetent condescending doctors that fill the system here and anything that can threaten their hegemony is GOOD.
As opposed to the arrogant, know nothing, rude patients that think they know more about medicine than the people actually trained in the practice of it. Let me guess, some doctor had the nerve to actually tell you you were wrong about something or *gasp* made a mistake. Medicine is one of the most difficult and complicated human endeavors and we've been wildly successful at it. No doctors aren't perfect and it is unreasonable to expect them to be, particularly if you have a challenging condition. The human body is too complicated and our technology is too primitive for that to be a realistic expectation.
Bring on the AI diagnosis, remote-viewed autosurgery please.
How about a Star Trek tricoder while you are invoking science fiction?
It is okay. That's called "freedom of choice." It may or may not be a good business move, but they're free to do that.
The concern is that it ceases to be a choice. We almost had that unfortunate state of affairs with Internet Explorer before Firefox came along and it wasn't good. If Google manages to make Chrome a de-facto standard then they effectively can push all other browers out of the market and start establishing "standards" at will that favor them and them alone. This is not an idle or trivial concern.
I hate Google. That's why I don't use their products. That's my choice. You have the same option.
I have better things to do than to waste my time hating a company. I tried that in the past and it was a waste of time. Google is fine as long as you understand what they are and what their motivations are. I use some of their products but refuse to tie myself to them (or anyone else) exclusively. Their search engine works very well and their email services are pretty useful. I sometimes use their maps applications. All of those have alternatives if I become dissatisfied with any of them. Many people like Android and that's fine too if it suits your needs.
There is no requirement for well regulated or anything.
There is if you want it to actually work in the real world. Dictionary definitions are pretty much useless here. There is nothing wrong with private ownership and profit motives and they routinely benefit society greatly. That said, we have centuries of evidence that in more than a few cases we have to make and enforce some rules to keep things moving smoothly. Anyone who denies this fact is either clueless or has ulterior motives.
Concretely, pure capitalism seems to lead to monopolies.
Only in some cases. Monopolies are not universally a bad thing - in some contexts they can be quite helpful. Utilities for example actually have the lowest costs when there is a monopoly. In some industries achieving a monopoly would be a good approximation of impossible even with no regulation of any kind. But in all cases any monopoly needs to be examined closely and regulated to some degree. I can think of no case where an unregulated monopoly has been a good thing for society.
Why LibreOffice over OpenOffice? (Serious question, I never knew which to choose, so I just flipped a coin.)
Because LibreOffice is being actively developed and OpenOffice not so much. Basically Sun (later Oracle) didn't put serious effort into the project for a while and it forked into LibreOffice. If you have to pick one generally LibreOffice is the one you want to use.
How about not logging me off twice a day (if not more often) on Office365?
Not a problem with LibreOffice. Come on in the water's nice. No log ins required nor any subscription fees.
As for why we're specifically doing business with ZTE and agreeing to import their stuff again, that might have something to do with the patents that were issued at the same time for Ivanka's products.
Trademarks, not patents. Plus you can drop the "might have something to do with" qualifier and replace it with "has a lot to do with".
that phones nearing that $1k price tag don't seem to sell so well.
Really? It's been Apple's best selling device every single week last quarter. To be clear they sold 52.2 MILLION phones and the iPhone X was the best seller among those.
If that's your idea of "not selling well" give me some of that kind of "failure"...
However, is it just me or does no one really give a damn about the " new " iPhones / Androids that come out every year with not a whole lot of anything to get excited about ?
It's just you. Apple literally sells tens of millions of them and Android devices collectively sell even more units so obviously people give a damn. If it's not your particular brand of vodka I don't have any quarrel with you on that but don't pretend no one cares about the smartphone upgrades.
It _was_ a new low, but now the lead story is that microsoft discovered dark colors.
I guess that makes Microsoft into DC versus Apple's Marvel...
You need to talk to a recruiter in your area.
I talk to recruiters almost daily as a part of my job. Furthermore my sister works as a recruiter. I probably can tell you more about what they are looking for than most of the people here. And recruiters are almost always looking for that perfect fit candidate who nails all the right key words and they won't spend a minute with you if you aren't that person. They are nothing more than outsourced HR. They work for the company doing the hiring, not for the person seeking a job. If you are getting a lot of recruiter attention then you are fortunate to work in an industry where the recruiter's job is relatively easy. A lot of IT work falls into this category and that's great. But never make the mistake of thinking a recruiter is working for you.
They should have a list of both contract and full-time positions that local companies are trying to fill.
Of course they do. That doesn't mean any of those opportunities are a fit for any particular person. Speaking for myself it's actually kind of hard to find the sort of work I do. I'm both an engineer and an accountant (and have the appropriate degrees and experience in both) which you would think would make it easy but it doesn't. My skill set is that of a generalist. I tend to fall into a challenging area where nobody wants to hire me for specialist jobs (they either think I'm overqualified or that I don't have enough experience in that specific task) and generalist skill set jobs are actually hard to find and get, particularly in large companies. I've worked with a lot of recruiters over the years and the number of full time jobs I've gotten through them is precisely one in the last 20 years.
Please notice the TFA is about the EU.
Doesn't make a difference. The only thing that changes is which sound bites work. There is no evidence to suggest that EU voters are substantially let vulnerable to sound bites and lazy journalism than those in the US. Not as if Europe hasn't had their share of breathtakingly horrible leaders within the last century either. Personally I think England and the US voters keep trying to outdo each other in a contest to see who can do the dumbest thing possible.
GB: "Let's exit this EU thing at huge cost to our economy"
US: "Hold my beer..." *elects Donald Trump*
You'd be wrong. Roll out started back in 2017
That's not a roll out in any meaningful sense. I cannot call it to where I am, give it an arbitrary destination and have it take me there safely. That system is nothing more than a glorified airport shuttle on a fixed route and fixed destinations. Not even close to something that could replace my car and certainly not a replacement for a taxi.
If you obsess over the word "pirate" Then your support was never available anyway and not needed.
It's that sort of idiotic and arrogant attitude that resulted folks like Trump getting elected despite spouting breathtakingly idiotic sound bites. Believe it or not, copyright is pretty far down the list of things most people obsess over so a well placed sound bit or two can make a LOT of difference. They don't give a shit about nuance or abstract concepts. In politics you have to play the game and sound bites are part of the game. Calling themselves "pirates" makes it REALLY easy for the opposition to gain votes among the lazy and credulous who comprise a LOT of the voting public.
Anyone so easily swayed would never manage to resist propaganda.
Evidently you haven't noticed that vast swaths of the voting public fall into that category.
"Pirate party" definitely does make a stupid first impression.
In a sound bite obsessed media culture and a lazy electorate that's probably the only impression you are going to get to make. Sad but true. A complex nuanced argument like copyright is going to be won by the best soundbite with the biggest megaphone even if that argument is breathtakingly wrong.
I only need a car once or twice a year, so I just rent one. Seems pointless to own a car.
If you live in the US then I'm guessing you live somewhere in or near NYC because that's one of the few places in the US you can actually get away with not owning a car. In fact owning a car there is actually kind of pointless. There are a few other places in the US where a car doesn't make sense but not very many of them.
How Much Americans Could Save by Ridesharing Driverless Cars Over Owning
In my particular case the answer is a good approximation of zero with a hell of a lot of added aggravation. I don't live in a dense urban area so pretty much any place that isn't a densely populated city doesn't make much sense for "ride sharing". I would need the vehicle at roughly the same time as everyone else (work commute) so using it when I need it most will be a competitive bidding situation and probably not save me a penny. Plus I have to schedule and/or wait for the ride to arrive.
Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to have access to driverless cars but it's going to be a good long while before they make any kind of practical sense.
The reality is that the first fully autonomous cars will be very pricey and beyond the reach of most Americans.
So what? That's true of every new technology. As production ramps up the costs will naturally fall. The rich get the fanciest toys first just like they always have.
Manufacturers expect the early buyers will be businesses and the very wealthy. One developer says prices won't start coming down enough for most families and individuals to buy them until 2025 or beyond.
They think autonomous cars will be a widespread thing as soon as 2025? HAHAHAHAHA... cough, sniff... Ummm, no they won't. I have confidence they will become a thing eventually but it just isn't going to happen that fast. The legal framework and insurance alone is going to take longer than that even if the technology was ready today. And the technology is no where near ready for the General Public today. Best case I'd imagine you'll see rollout start at the earliest sometime in the 2030s with lots of testing and pilot programs over then next 10-15 years. Then it will take a few decades to really start gaining large amounts of market share presuming everything goes well up to that point and there are no showstopper technology or political problems.
According to Esurance research, in the best-case scenario, a family that gives up its car in favor of driverless ridesharing could save $4,100 in annual transportation costs.
Maybe if you live near NYC where the cost of owning a car is prohibitive, travel distances are short, and where the infrastructure is set up already to support using vehicles you don't own. Basically if you live in a place where taxis are a routine thing it probably makes sense. Doesn't really work for the majority of the US and in places like Europe which already have decent public transportation there really isn't so much added value. As much as I'd like to have a driverless car (or decent public transit) to take the wheel for my morning commute I don't see it as a likely thing before I retire.
The law would have put a greater responsibility on individual websites to check for copyright infringements.
Rather a substantial understatement there...
Opponents greeted the decision as a victory. Julia Reda, a Pirate Party MEP who had campaigned against the legislation tweeted: "Great success: Your protests have worked!
You know calling yourself the "Pirate Party" doesn't really boost your credibility when it comes to issues like copyright infringement. I'm not saying they are wrong but the optics of it aren't super helpful to those who are less invested in the issue - namely most of the general public.
"We respect the decision... we will work with MEPs over the next weeks to explain how the proposed directive will benefit not just European creativity, but also internet users and the technology sector."
Translation: "If it wasn't for those meddling kids we would have gotten away with it too!"
How many times do we need to repeat this story?
One more time as always.
When I put my resume up on Indeed a month or so ago, I got multiple contacts within 24 hours, including cold calls from recruiters who somehow had my telephone number.
That is great but that sort of response isn't the norm. In my line of work (manufacturing operations) such a vigorous response would be almost unheard of no matter how attractive your resume. I think this speaks more to industry and company culture than anything else but just posting your resume will rarely land you interviews that easily in my industry. Your mileage may vary of course. In my wife's line of work she gets calls out of the blue all the time because there simply aren't a lot of people who do what she does.
But as soon as you say "online submission" all is lost. I've never known anyone who got a call back from submitting their resume through a company web site. Perhaps it has happened somewhere in the world, but it must be quite rare.
There is a reason for that. It's because the HR folks get absolute bombarded with resumes so the odds you you actually getting a response unless you are EXACTLY what they are looking for is a good approximation of zero if the company has any size to it at all. Big companies are doing keyword searches and throwing out 99% of the resumes they actually do read. Chances are you'll get at most 30-60 seconds of consideration if you are lucky and the odds of a response are ridiculously low. Those systems are set up to weed out resumes and ward off lawsuits than they are to actually setting up interviews. You are quite right that getting a response that way will be quite unusual.
If your resume isn't attractive enough that recruiters reach out to you, that sucks.
The vast majority of people fall into that category.
At least get some help prettying up your resume, and you may need to consider moving to where your job is hot.
Sometimes it doesn't matter how "pretty" your resume is. And people often cannot move for a variety of good reasons.
Is the lack of trust on a central organization (bank, card payment system), even protected by heavy economic & financial laws, sufficient to justify the huge energy cost of Bitcoin?
Easy answer to that question. Which is more expensive? Transaction infrastructure (including trust related ones) and processing costs money. The currency that will win is the currency with the lowest all-in transaction costs. Right now that is clearly NOT bitcoin outside of a few corner cases (mostly for illegal goods). Risk adjusted transaction costs for bitcoin are substantially higher than for the lowest priced alternatives. I see no credible evidence of that changing any time soon. Find a way to make bitcoin transactions actually cost less than using dollars as a general proposition and then it can be a discussion.
I'm sorry, but did you just try to argue that medicine was subject to normal market dynamics?
Of course medicine is subject to normal market dynamics just like any other industry. The laws of economics are not suspended just for medicine. It tends to be regulated precisely because of the ease with which price gouging can (and does) occur but supply and demand still applies to medicine. This very fact is why those who argue against government involvement in health care are so very wrong. Normal market dynamics work but they often function in a way contrary to the benefit of society and individuals.
Price gouging occurs when access to a product is restricted, either through an emergency, or entirely artificial constraints.
While your are quite correct that those are the most common times we see the practice it is by no means limited to those two conditions. Price gouging can occur any time there is a breakdown in a competitive market. The constraints do not have to be artificial nor does there necessarily need to be an emergency. It often is used to describe the practices of a coercive monopoly. (before you respond, monopolies do not have to be artificially constructed) It also can happen with suppliers taking advantage of short term changes in the demand curve.
So which one is it: price gouging, or legitimate supply and demand?
Those are not mutually exclusive. You can have situations where normal market dynamics of supply and demand allow for price gouging. Happens all the time in medicine. It also would happen in certain other industries like utilities where there is a monopoly if the vendors weren't regulated. While you can certainly argue that drug prices are a function of legitimate supply and demand, the fact is that price gouging routinely occurs as well because they are taking advantage of people who have a weak BATNA. Any time you need (not want but actually need) something and there is a bottleneck on supply controlled by someone else there is a strong chance of price gouging occurring. Particularly when discriminatory pricing is not prohibited.
You mean you're going to pay to have other people track you?
Do you have a smartphone? Then you are already doing that. The real question here is why you would pay someone additional to track you in exchange for no discernible benefit to you.
If they want to track you so bad why not just make them pay?
Ahh now you are on to it. If they want to track you then they can pay you cash money for the privilege. I probably wouldn't do it anyway but at least then it is an idea worth entertaining instead of just rejecting immediately.