They don't have to monetize it at all.In fact, by not monetizing it, they can claim North Korean Economics in the process, in a double slam. Screw the commie bastards.
Taking that many pictures of "life" events, unless you're a photographer professionally, is completely void of meaning. The problem is, if your too busy taking pictures, you are NOT participating. Personally, I take a few pictures, to remind me, and then participate, which provides me with way more satisfaction than if I were sitting on the sidelines snapping hundreds of photos.
Foreign threats capable of reaching the east coast would already be detected, being launched from across the Atlantic. Threats being launched from under water, close to shore, I'm pretty sure this would mostly be useless (sonar would be better suited).
No, this is about controlling the people of the United States. There is no other legitimate purpose.
From what little I know, the NSA doesn't actually spy on US citizens en mass. Instead, it has contracted other extra-national agencies to do it, specifically to get around the letter of the law. These are quid pro quo arraignments with agencies like Britain's MI6. We monitor them, they monitor us, and we exchange data.
So technically, they don't spy on us, but the result is the same.
Mexico's Immigration requirements are what we should all aim for. But if we did what Mexico does, we would be labeled "racists" by La Raza (literally "the Race") crowd who want unfettered and open boarders to America, but not the inverse where Americans could invade Mexico. BTW, poor Mexico also has VOTER ID requirements that make America's whining about having to get off their lazy asses so that they can vote. It is pathetic.
The US and Canada, have a much more polite (thanks Canadians!) relationship.
Teeth or Beaks are binary in nature, we don't see any creatures with both. Your rant about binary nature is flawed, because while nature isn't binary, sometimes the results are.
I've found that properly adjusted mirrors, and active monitoring of traffic via all the mirrors is enough to avoid rubber necking the blind spot. The problem is, most people don't have their mirrors set correctly.
Tata could pass the Japanese brands for quality in a few years.
It takes about 15 years of steady progress to get from "shitty ______ car" to "I'd consider ______ cars these days"
The Korean cars are very acceptable in quality, and the price difference between them and the Japanese of similar models is almost enough to make the switch.
Animals have A or B, but AB is not evolutionary advantageous to survive. This is not goal, it is a simple statement of what exists. The explanation is that A moves to B along an evolutionary line, where none of the AB survive long term. This is a result, not a goal. Further evidenced by lack of any animals that progressed from B back to A (result, not goal).
As I said, A has advantages, B has advantages, but AB appears to have neither, due to lack of any remaining AB hybrids. A mutates and starts progressing towards B, it either stops and reverts at some point, staying A or it continues to B. However, the AB stage is temporary, thus indicating long term viability of AB is limited if it exists at all.
Again, you keep insisting goal driven results of advantages.
Do you understand the difference between goal and result? Goals require intelligence, results simply exists. Advantages lead to certain results. Disadvantages lead to different results, but results none the less. Evolution is all about results of traits towards viability. Viability is the "goal";) In my sentance, I clearly show that A progress towards B in such a way that AB doesn't remain behind. That is a result, not a goal. The viability of AB is what I am questioning, since there is no such thing long term. Viability of half stages is in question.
The Term Superiority is one of resultant progression. As far as I know, B never revered back to A.
Dogs and wolves are both Canines, and not enough differences exist to support your hypothesis. I've seen tamed wolves and wild dogs, to the point where the wild dogs were more dangerous to humans than tamed wolves.;)
upply and demand curves are unrealistic in that they do not take into account competition, captured markets, shortages of raw material, labor shortages, lack of capital, disruptive technologies
Supply / Demand curves do explain all those things. The problem is, there are so many intersecting supplies (labor, goods, capital) that it gets very complex very quickly.
and they assume instant information exchange
No, actually they don't require instant anything. The only assumption is, that information is known eventually. Those that have access to more information can make better buying/production/selling choices and be more efficient. The whole supply / demand thing is not about maximizing profits, or lowering costs or anything else like that. It is about efficiency of capital/resources in production. Econ 101 is about gaining efficiencies in the marketplace to move the supply or demand curves along their axis.
disruptive technologies
Disruptive technologies are simply large changes in efficiencies within a market. We call them disruptive because of the effect on marketplace inefficiencies. I learned this almost 20 years ago, when the cost to do something is too expensive, you do not do it. Often we don't do things not because they are impossible, but rather they are too expensive. The issue is that we call those things "impossible" or "cost prohibitive", but when changes in technology vastly improve efficiencies they disrupt whole markets.
Take a look at 3D printers, which are changing ALL sorts of industries. I had a plastic clip in my car break when I was fixing something else. The only place I could find the clip, was at the dealership, and they wanted $20 for $.10 worth of plastic. Disruptive technology allows me to print the thing (printer is sunk cost) for the price of electricity and materials. And my replacement is actually better than the part that was there (modified improvements). Do enough of that, and my $500 3D printer pays for itself.
Evolution is results driven, not goal driven that is true. Now figure out how the results of two partial stages has an advantage over surviving that doesn't last for any length of time.
Stage A has advantages, as experienced in animals having A Stage B has advantages, as experienced in animals having B
No animals have A and B, but somehow we are supposed to believe that animals having A/B existed and had enough advantage to beat out those having A, on their way to having B, but the A/B didn't beat out those who ended up B only. This would indicate that B is evolutionary superior(advantageous) to A, such that many animals starting at A, and developing B, ended up at B, while completely replacing the A/B combinations.
The problem is, there are no evolutionary advantage to A/B or else we would see more examples in nature. This would simply mean that A/B is not viable long term. Requiring evolutionary process from A to B to be relatively quick, so that A exists (and stays A) and B exists (and stays that way) but A/B doesn't exist very long.
"I can't figure out how evolution could have worked, ergo it must be impossible."
Actually, having a brain causes me to think about such things. I do understand evolution. And if it were an advantage, at all, some species would likely to have both. But none exist. So having half teeth and half beak wasn't so good after all, but apparently it was good enough to get from teeth to beak for all birds, and not just some.
I always thought that they should build two layered freeways, bottom layer for the shorter routes, and the top layer with VERY limited on and off choices for mid/long range commuters. The number one reason for traffic problems is people weaving in and out of lanes to hit their offramp.
Because weaving in and out of traffic gets you there a whole minute faster!
Price equilibrium is the hallmark of capitalism. The thing that people often miss, because of how much government interferes with pricing models is that Supply will meet Demand at a price point that makes sense for the economics to work. People like the author have almost no experience looking at Econ 101 style supply demand graphs, so they have no idea how economics really works.
Eventually, Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar will all be priced about the same, for the same kind of ride. Sidecar is interesting, because it is demand side (Customers) driven, and Lyft and Uber are supply side driven. Eventually, these two sides will end up being about the same price.
The real problem I see, are the people crying for "Regulation" simply because they don't like the new models. My answer is, you have a regulated industry (Cabs), use them and stop complaining about the others. If the others can't compete, then there is a problem with their economic model that depends upon Government regulation to keep prices artificially high.
The problem with macro evolution is the inherent issues with the "in between" stages that are mostly useless, being neither good for one thing they are coming from or good for the thing they are changing into.
The example I use is Butterflies, which change from a crawling creature to one that flies, mid life. Incredible "random" feat if you ask me.
I dunno, people kill for governments all the time, yet we don't call those people deranged. I know plenty of people who are atheists that are deranged, the fact that they don't have a unifying cause behind them is only temporary.
IRA was as much about Nationalism as it was about religion, making it hard not to conflate the two. The fact that England is protestant and Ireland is Catholic makes it hard to distinguish between the motivations.
Before Sony got hacked, they hadn't had a big breach. Past performance means little. The scale of Sony Breach is largely unprecedented. I reject your assessment on the grounds that "best indicator" is a meaningless phrase, and probably completely untrue. Best indicator are the perpetual steps being taken by IT staff to secure the data. I can assure you, from the little I know about the breach ( which is very little) I can assure you that the data was not secured properly.
But, seriously, companies are now expected to keep growing quarterly, or they're seen as stagnating by the stock market.
In mature markets, growth slows. This is normal. It is unreasonable to have unreasonable expectations of fast growth in markets that are mature. And companies chasing after unreasonable growth tend end up failing.
I'm in IT, but not in a CIO type level. However, I take the view that our data is NOT secure, even after I have made painstaking effort to assure that it is actually secure. Why? Because invariably, I am wrong whenever I assume that I am secure.
The result is that I am always securing, making more secure, ensuring existing policies and procedures are up to industry best. I also realize that is never good enough. The weakest link in all of the security I employ is always the people. Always.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't have to monetize it at all.In fact, by not monetizing it, they can claim North Korean Economics in the process, in a double slam. Screw the commie bastards.
Taking that many pictures of "life" events, unless you're a photographer professionally, is completely void of meaning. The problem is, if your too busy taking pictures, you are NOT participating. Personally, I take a few pictures, to remind me, and then participate, which provides me with way more satisfaction than if I were sitting on the sidelines snapping hundreds of photos.
Canada is invading?
Foreign threats capable of reaching the east coast would already be detected, being launched from across the Atlantic. Threats being launched from under water, close to shore, I'm pretty sure this would mostly be useless (sonar would be better suited).
No, this is about controlling the people of the United States. There is no other legitimate purpose.
From what little I know, the NSA doesn't actually spy on US citizens en mass. Instead, it has contracted other extra-national agencies to do it, specifically to get around the letter of the law. These are quid pro quo arraignments with agencies like Britain's MI6. We monitor them, they monitor us, and we exchange data.
So technically, they don't spy on us, but the result is the same.
I consider it a sad fact of reality that most tech execs are completely delusional
Any sufficient level of incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
Are you sure they are incompetent? My guess, is that they don't care about what functions, just as long as they get their toys.
Mexico's Immigration requirements are what we should all aim for. But if we did what Mexico does, we would be labeled "racists" by La Raza (literally "the Race") crowd who want unfettered and open boarders to America, but not the inverse where Americans could invade Mexico. BTW, poor Mexico also has VOTER ID requirements that make America's whining about having to get off their lazy asses so that they can vote. It is pathetic.
The US and Canada, have a much more polite (thanks Canadians!) relationship.
Teeth or Beaks are binary in nature, we don't see any creatures with both. Your rant about binary nature is flawed, because while nature isn't binary, sometimes the results are.
I've found that properly adjusted mirrors, and active monitoring of traffic via all the mirrors is enough to avoid rubber necking the blind spot. The problem is, most people don't have their mirrors set correctly.
Tata could pass the Japanese brands for quality in a few years.
It takes about 15 years of steady progress to get from "shitty ______ car" to "I'd consider ______ cars these days"
The Korean cars are very acceptable in quality, and the price difference between them and the Japanese of similar models is almost enough to make the switch.
Again, evolution is not goal driven.
Animals have A or B, but AB is not evolutionary advantageous to survive. This is not goal, it is a simple statement of what exists. The explanation is that A moves to B along an evolutionary line, where none of the AB survive long term. This is a result, not a goal. Further evidenced by lack of any animals that progressed from B back to A (result, not goal).
As I said, A has advantages, B has advantages, but AB appears to have neither, due to lack of any remaining AB hybrids. A mutates and starts progressing towards B, it either stops and reverts at some point, staying A or it continues to B. However, the AB stage is temporary, thus indicating long term viability of AB is limited if it exists at all.
Again, you keep insisting goal driven results of advantages.
Do you understand the difference between goal and result? Goals require intelligence, results simply exists. Advantages lead to certain results. Disadvantages lead to different results, but results none the less. Evolution is all about results of traits towards viability. Viability is the "goal" ;) In my sentance, I clearly show that A progress towards B in such a way that AB doesn't remain behind. That is a result, not a goal. The viability of AB is what I am questioning, since there is no such thing long term. Viability of half stages is in question.
The Term Superiority is one of resultant progression. As far as I know, B never revered back to A.
Dogs and wolves are both Canines, and not enough differences exist to support your hypothesis. I've seen tamed wolves and wild dogs, to the point where the wild dogs were more dangerous to humans than tamed wolves. ;)
upply and demand curves are unrealistic in that they do not take into account competition, captured markets, shortages of raw material, labor shortages, lack of capital, disruptive technologies
Supply / Demand curves do explain all those things. The problem is, there are so many intersecting supplies (labor, goods, capital) that it gets very complex very quickly.
and they assume instant information exchange
No, actually they don't require instant anything. The only assumption is, that information is known eventually. Those that have access to more information can make better buying/production/selling choices and be more efficient. The whole supply / demand thing is not about maximizing profits, or lowering costs or anything else like that. It is about efficiency of capital/resources in production. Econ 101 is about gaining efficiencies in the marketplace to move the supply or demand curves along their axis.
disruptive technologies
Disruptive technologies are simply large changes in efficiencies within a market. We call them disruptive because of the effect on marketplace inefficiencies. I learned this almost 20 years ago, when the cost to do something is too expensive, you do not do it. Often we don't do things not because they are impossible, but rather they are too expensive. The issue is that we call those things "impossible" or "cost prohibitive", but when changes in technology vastly improve efficiencies they disrupt whole markets.
Take a look at 3D printers, which are changing ALL sorts of industries. I had a plastic clip in my car break when I was fixing something else. The only place I could find the clip, was at the dealership, and they wanted $20 for $.10 worth of plastic. Disruptive technology allows me to print the thing (printer is sunk cost) for the price of electricity and materials. And my replacement is actually better than the part that was there (modified improvements). Do enough of that, and my $500 3D printer pays for itself.
Evolution is results driven, not goal driven that is true. Now figure out how the results of two partial stages has an advantage over surviving that doesn't last for any length of time.
Stage A has advantages, as experienced in animals having A
Stage B has advantages, as experienced in animals having B
No animals have A and B, but somehow we are supposed to believe that animals having A/B existed and had enough advantage to beat out those having A, on their way to having B, but the A/B didn't beat out those who ended up B only. This would indicate that B is evolutionary superior(advantageous) to A, such that many animals starting at A, and developing B, ended up at B, while completely replacing the A/B combinations.
The problem is, there are no evolutionary advantage to A/B or else we would see more examples in nature. This would simply mean that A/B is not viable long term. Requiring evolutionary process from A to B to be relatively quick, so that A exists (and stays A) and B exists (and stays that way) but A/B doesn't exist very long.
Not really. The chick doesn't wrap itself up in an egg shell.
The ability for adult insects to fly evolved gradually.
Explain the stages where it sort of flew.
"I can't figure out how evolution could have worked, ergo it must be impossible."
Actually, having a brain causes me to think about such things. I do understand evolution. And if it were an advantage, at all, some species would likely to have both. But none exist. So having half teeth and half beak wasn't so good after all, but apparently it was good enough to get from teeth to beak for all birds, and not just some.
I always thought that they should build two layered freeways, bottom layer for the shorter routes, and the top layer with VERY limited on and off choices for mid/long range commuters. The number one reason for traffic problems is people weaving in and out of lanes to hit their offramp.
Because weaving in and out of traffic gets you there a whole minute faster!
Exactly my point. Half Beak, Half Teeth doesn't make sense.
Price equilibrium is the hallmark of capitalism. The thing that people often miss, because of how much government interferes with pricing models is that Supply will meet Demand at a price point that makes sense for the economics to work. People like the author have almost no experience looking at Econ 101 style supply demand graphs, so they have no idea how economics really works.
Eventually, Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar will all be priced about the same, for the same kind of ride. Sidecar is interesting, because it is demand side (Customers) driven, and Lyft and Uber are supply side driven. Eventually, these two sides will end up being about the same price.
The real problem I see, are the people crying for "Regulation" simply because they don't like the new models. My answer is, you have a regulated industry (Cabs), use them and stop complaining about the others. If the others can't compete, then there is a problem with their economic model that depends upon Government regulation to keep prices artificially high.
The problem with macro evolution is the inherent issues with the "in between" stages that are mostly useless, being neither good for one thing they are coming from or good for the thing they are changing into.
The example I use is Butterflies, which change from a crawling creature to one that flies, mid life. Incredible "random" feat if you ask me.
Heretic!
I dunno, people kill for governments all the time, yet we don't call those people deranged. I know plenty of people who are atheists that are deranged, the fact that they don't have a unifying cause behind them is only temporary.
IRA was as much about Nationalism as it was about religion, making it hard not to conflate the two. The fact that England is protestant and Ireland is Catholic makes it hard to distinguish between the motivations.
Before Sony got hacked, they hadn't had a big breach. Past performance means little. The scale of Sony Breach is largely unprecedented. I reject your assessment on the grounds that "best indicator" is a meaningless phrase, and probably completely untrue. Best indicator are the perpetual steps being taken by IT staff to secure the data. I can assure you, from the little I know about the breach ( which is very little) I can assure you that the data was not secured properly.
But, seriously, companies are now expected to keep growing quarterly, or they're seen as stagnating by the stock market.
In mature markets, growth slows. This is normal. It is unreasonable to have unreasonable expectations of fast growth in markets that are mature. And companies chasing after unreasonable growth tend end up failing.
I'm in IT, but not in a CIO type level. However, I take the view that our data is NOT secure, even after I have made painstaking effort to assure that it is actually secure. Why? Because invariably, I am wrong whenever I assume that I am secure.
The result is that I am always securing, making more secure, ensuring existing policies and procedures are up to industry best. I also realize that is never good enough. The weakest link in all of the security I employ is always the people. Always.