I know that's true, but I've never been clear just how limited. What percent can be melted down and remade? What percent can be broken down into non-toxic component materials?
Well, yeah. If we want our world to work in a way consistent with our lifestyle, we have to care about the whole world. Post-WWII, that was pretty much the foreign policy of the USA, and why we intervened in most* of the world's governments at one time or another in the successive decades. Our US fingers are in every pie out there. Doesn't take much gymnastics -- it was policy! Nowadays we've become much more protectionist and want to withdraw from overseas activities, but that doesn't get us out of culpability for the situations we created, often directly.
* Seriously, most. I'm amazed looking at US foreign policy documents from the Cold War at just how far our reach extended and what we were willing to do to other countries. I assume we still do a lot of it, but more modern stuff is more heavily classified.
a) A huge percent of third-world waste is production run-off for first-world consumers, made by first-world companies working there.
b) Another large chunk is trash from first-world countries shipped to the third-world dumping grounds. The pile of waste in the photo at the top of this article is in China -- it's all dumped waste from the USA.
c) This sort of thing can happen to any city if its waste pipeline breaks down for some reason. NYC's garbage strike in 1968, for example, created similar situations. The pictures linked to by Shanghai Bill include Lebanon. Lebanon is not a third-world country, and Beirut is definitely not a third-world city. It's just a city whose dump filled up and they couldn't negotiate anyone else to take the garbage. Similar situations are developing in the USA right now because China closed its borders to our recyclable waste (see the link I included in (b) above).
It is non-zero... that's really all that matters for this number. You don't need a percentage to know that we have outright failed to kill the damn disease. We had a shot at it, but generations of hard work are being undone.
They were all attempts at "embrace, extend, extinguish". Silverlight, for example: "Let's push Silverlight while we stand in the way of an HTML5 standard by leveraging our patents."
I was just a kid back then, but what I heard bothered me, and in the years since, I've said that I think Clinton should have been prosecuted for lying under oath after he left office -- I didn't think it warranted impeachment because it wasn't a lie regarding the country or economy or anything related to the office. But, to be fair, we should forgive Trump one felony level lie. So, pick one of the 14 from the list, forgive it, and we'll only focus on the remaining 13. And the violation of the emoluments clause.
argStyopa started with a good post, but I agree with Actually -- there seems to be a gap in the argument about entitlement. In argStyopa's post, the claim is that owners are entitled to make more because they took the risk. But the failed entrepreneurs also took the risk. So the owners that succeed are only entitled if they succeeded by their own skill. If they succeeded by luck or by having an advantageous start, then they are not entitled. The US system recognizes that luck and advantageous start are the predominant reasons for why one business succeeds over another. And even when they succeed by their own skill, that skill is not necessarily in providing better service: the first guy who realized that "AAA Plumbing" got you a better position in the old phone book and thus made you the default choice for desperate customers was a business genius who legitimately out-competed, but he was not necessarily the best plumber.
"Seeing a void in the market and risking capital to fill it" does (in my opinion) justify owners having greater share of the profits, but that does not appear to be the most common basis of entrepreneurial success in US society.
True, but at least we can watch for code modifying client machines... all it takes is one vigilant user looking at what the ISP install disk does to raise the alarm. When the insertions are happening on the ISP machines without modification of the clients, that's really hard to detect and prove. The HTTPS forces the injection to be more detectable.
Poe's Law: Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the parodied views.
It is a lot harder, but it isn't necessarily impossible. With a steady enough stream of entangled pairs, statistically, you'll have some that remain coherent, potentially enough to get radar image (the decohered pairs become noise in the signal, so it becomes a noise filtering problem). I say potentially. If this tech is real, it's a significant advance, but I'd want to see independent verification before I believed it. Unless I was a stealth airplane pilot... I might decide to assume it works and proceed accordingly. Luckily, I'm not a pilot.:-)
> That is exactly what the summary is claiming is happening:
No. The article says that information is recovered. It does not say it happens faster than light. In Earth distances, light is pretty fast, so you can IN THEORY have "real-time" radar that involves quantum entanglement. This might be vaporware, but at least the summary isn't making impossible claims.
You can't use entanglement to transmit data FASTER THAN LIGHT. Slower than light is possible. This quantum radar may be vaporware, but it is at least theoretically possible.
Wrong. Her doctors said she wasn't overweight, and that's why they didn't try to diagnose her for sleep apnea.
Do please pay attention when you read so you can hurl accurate insults.
I find it impossible to believe that this is the first time any of these concerns have been brought up. Lockheed has a lot of very savvy and security-conscious engineers. Yes, the networks might be vulnerable to hacks. The question is whether that risk downside is worth the upside of these highly networked machines (say, avoiding friendly fire). I don't know what those tradeoffs are, but this article lacks any analysis of why these security risks were considered acceptable and what is done to mitigate them. Without that balancing content, this is just FUD and useless blather.
This is NOT about fooling some app. This is them having access to the *tower* data, which is always accurate regardless of how you spoof your phone because they're looking at the packets the devices send out to contact towers. You'd need a phone that didn't broadcast in order to avoid this kind of location detection.
a) Who says they never snoop on Ford? b) They snooped on Tesla because there was a specific reason to do so. If Ford was making similar claims about increasing hours, they'd have a reason to snoop on Ford.
Slashdot Mirror
> have limits to their recycle-ability.
I know that's true, but I've never been clear just how limited. What percent can be melted down and remade? What percent can be broken down into non-toxic component materials?
Well, yeah. If we want our world to work in a way consistent with our lifestyle, we have to care about the whole world. Post-WWII, that was pretty much the foreign policy of the USA, and why we intervened in most* of the world's governments at one time or another in the successive decades. Our US fingers are in every pie out there. Doesn't take much gymnastics -- it was policy! Nowadays we've become much more protectionist and want to withdraw from overseas activities, but that doesn't get us out of culpability for the situations we created, often directly.
* Seriously, most. I'm amazed looking at US foreign policy documents from the Cold War at just how far our reach extended and what we were willing to do to other countries. I assume we still do a lot of it, but more modern stuff is more heavily classified.
I believe LordWabbit2 means production of *new* plastic. Recycled plastic would be fine.
a) A huge percent of third-world waste is production run-off for first-world consumers, made by first-world companies working there.
b) Another large chunk is trash from first-world countries shipped to the third-world dumping grounds. The pile of waste in the photo at the top of this article is in China -- it's all dumped waste from the USA.
c) This sort of thing can happen to any city if its waste pipeline breaks down for some reason. NYC's garbage strike in 1968, for example, created similar situations. The pictures linked to by Shanghai Bill include Lebanon. Lebanon is not a third-world country, and Beirut is definitely not a third-world city. It's just a city whose dump filled up and they couldn't negotiate anyone else to take the garbage. Similar situations are developing in the USA right now because China closed its borders to our recyclable waste (see the link I included in (b) above).
Don't be so quick to judge.
More data adds information, no question, but the reason this statistic makes the list of interesting statistics is because of its non-zero value.
It is non-zero... that's really all that matters for this number. You don't need a percentage to know that we have outright failed to kill the damn disease. We had a shot at it, but generations of hard work are being undone.
They were all attempts at "embrace, extend, extinguish". Silverlight, for example: "Let's push Silverlight while we stand in the way of an HTML5 standard by leveraging our patents."
I was just a kid back then, but what I heard bothered me, and in the years since, I've said that I think Clinton should have been prosecuted for lying under oath after he left office -- I didn't think it warranted impeachment because it wasn't a lie regarding the country or economy or anything related to the office. But, to be fair, we should forgive Trump one felony level lie. So, pick one of the 14 from the list, forgive it, and we'll only focus on the remaining 13. And the violation of the emoluments clause.
No one has denied the booming job market. Doesnâ(TM)t change the morality of the man in the White House.
The companies still tell you, âoeYouâ(TM)re fired.â You should at least say, âoeI quit.â
argStyopa started with a good post, but I agree with Actually -- there seems to be a gap in the argument about entitlement. In argStyopa's post, the claim is that owners are entitled to make more because they took the risk. But the failed entrepreneurs also took the risk. So the owners that succeed are only entitled if they succeeded by their own skill. If they succeeded by luck or by having an advantageous start, then they are not entitled. The US system recognizes that luck and advantageous start are the predominant reasons for why one business succeeds over another. And even when they succeed by their own skill, that skill is not necessarily in providing better service: the first guy who realized that "AAA Plumbing" got you a better position in the old phone book and thus made you the default choice for desperate customers was a business genius who legitimately out-competed, but he was not necessarily the best plumber.
"Seeing a void in the market and risking capital to fill it" does (in my opinion) justify owners having greater share of the profits, but that does not appear to be the most common basis of entrepreneurial success in US society.
I walked away from one bank that was doing that. If a bank can't do security in-house, it ain't a secure bank in this day and age.
True, but at least we can watch for code modifying client machines... all it takes is one vigilant user looking at what the ISP install disk does to raise the alarm. When the insertions are happening on the ISP machines without modification of the clients, that's really hard to detect and prove. The HTTPS forces the injection to be more detectable.
Thanks.
Have a citation for that story? Iâ(TM)d like to be able to reference it in the future.
Poe's Law: Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the parodied views.
It is a lot harder, but it isn't necessarily impossible. With a steady enough stream of entangled pairs, statistically, you'll have some that remain coherent, potentially enough to get radar image (the decohered pairs become noise in the signal, so it becomes a noise filtering problem). I say potentially. If this tech is real, it's a significant advance, but I'd want to see independent verification before I believed it. Unless I was a stealth airplane pilot... I might decide to assume it works and proceed accordingly. Luckily, I'm not a pilot. :-)
> That is exactly what the summary is claiming is happening:
No. The article says that information is recovered. It does not say it happens faster than light. In Earth distances, light is pretty fast, so you can IN THEORY have "real-time" radar that involves quantum entanglement. This might be vaporware, but at least the summary isn't making impossible claims.
You can't use entanglement to transmit data FASTER THAN LIGHT. Slower than light is possible. This quantum radar may be vaporware, but it is at least theoretically possible.
Lots of information should be available to individuals. But information is money, and nobody gives away money for free.
Wrong. Her doctors said she wasn't overweight, and that's why they didn't try to diagnose her for sleep apnea.
Do please pay attention when you read so you can hurl accurate insults.
I find it impossible to believe that this is the first time any of these concerns have been brought up. Lockheed has a lot of very savvy and security-conscious engineers. Yes, the networks might be vulnerable to hacks. The question is whether that risk downside is worth the upside of these highly networked machines (say, avoiding friendly fire). I don't know what those tradeoffs are, but this article lacks any analysis of why these security risks were considered acceptable and what is done to mitigate them. Without that balancing content, this is just FUD and useless blather.
a) the surveillance is legal.
b) It could be both trolling surveillance AND illegal stock manipulation.
This is NOT about fooling some app. This is them having access to the *tower* data, which is always accurate regardless of how you spoof your phone because they're looking at the packets the devices send out to contact towers. You'd need a phone that didn't broadcast in order to avoid this kind of location detection.
a) Who says they never snoop on Ford?
b) They snooped on Tesla because there was a specific reason to do so. If Ford was making similar claims about increasing hours, they'd have a reason to snoop on Ford.