I've some background here, and I'd be...generally skeptical since about the only thing I can think of is that maybe we're talking about autoimmune diseases and honestly that seems more a reason to avoid vaccines for diseases that aren't that much of a problem. The immune system can be pretty accurately thought of as being a bored two-year-old, though we've only particularly lately realized that a germ-free environment would actually be pretty horrible.
However, honestly I'd expect just being relaxed about attempting to disinfect everything as long as the kid's actually got an immune system should counter a good amount of the damage, and there is some interesting discussion on if maybe a few of the annoying-but-harmless infectious vectors we don't get exposed to as much anymore ought to basically come out so you can be deliberately infected since it seems those may have helped train the immune system to not do things like take a sudden, virulent hate for your nervous system.
However? If these are the same people who had been going vaccines cause autism before we finally managed to slay that lich? I'd not take any medical advice from them without getting a second opinion from somebody who at least is aware that prenatal exposure to Rubella (the R in MMR) is positively linked to autism.
(In fact, most of what we've traced as causes are prenatal, if not genetic in their origins, and we have been able to push back the ability to diagnose autism to before when most vaccinations are received.)
On the flu shot, though--I've heard reports that some people have found it to be effective for multiple years, and 'effective' with vaccinations means 'your immune system recognizes and does not have to guess at how to make antibodies for this.' From what I've heard, a decent number of the problems with the flu shot can be attributed to the fact that it's based off of educated guesses of what strains will be this year's popular ones...and as I recall, at least one year practically none of the guesses were right. (The flu isn't a single virus but a slew of them, and a lot of people who think they have the flu actually have something else entirely...right up to and including bacteria instead. Generally it's not worth the testing needed to tell.)
You do realize that one of the problems is the whole 'Better living through science' meme and its offspring, right? So we've got an inherently flawed assumption that science will save us all--usually accompanied with the idea that we don't actually have to change, or that a perfect solution is obtainable.
Most of the people who are out to implement these things are motivated by what is fundamentally a religious mindset--and, sometimes, you've got a better chance of a foamy-mouthed fundamentalist follower of a traditional religion being willing to change methods that don't work. If your belief system insists that the reason your efforts are failing is a lack of enough people believing and throwing money into your solution--you just are not psychologically in the position to truly accept even the possibility that the reason your solution is failing is because your solution is simply not ever going to work.
One of the best examples I've seen is from socialist countries.
The bottom line is that for some problems, we may just have to accept that the 'ideal' solution is impossible--and sometimes no 'good' solution is possible, and we should be honest about picking 'least bad.'
And, frankly, the first problem techies probably ought to tackle is science as a religion. That lovely little meme has gotten a death toll in the millions, and that's just if you set the meme's birth to the turn of the last century. If you include its earlier formulations...
I'd say that the base level of understanding I'd want everybody to have actually could be covered at a younger age and much more simply--teach basic logic, do it early, and do it well. You can stick to mathematical logic if you want. I'd have actual coding be in optional classes, and by HS I would actually insist that no language that isn't of serious use--let's go "Live, with a compiler for it written in it, significant large projects use it" for our criteria here--be offered once you get past an intro course.
I'd also treat anything that restricts them to a walled garden or private playground like the plague carrier it is: If simplicity is the key desire, stick to either the classics or do something like use one of the open-source game engines and have everybody's goal be to get a ultra-short game done.
I was part of a pick-up team whose sole goal was to get a visual novel done in our free time in a month: we started with zilch, not even the game engine picked out yet, but got it all the way through beta in that time period...and did it pretty comfortably. (End result was even fully voiced.) The actual coding is probably less important to have everybody know than the process--and I think overall a game probably will be generally a good pick for a small, fast, and fun project with a decent chance of success, especially if you encourage them to have the mindset that if their idea is for a big game...what they're doing now is the short demo to raise funds and interest with.
You are also supposed to mention those things with your bog standard psychology papers--and in several places, including the abstract, where you cover your sample size and your alpha as well as what you got as an effect size. This doesn't really do much, though, if the entire system is skewed to encourage generally weak work.
With the neuroscience papers involved in this analysis, though, I would want to know what they're looking at. Some papers oughtn't be counted simply because the research relies on people who have neurological damage and you can't do much if you can't find that many people with that problem--well, okay, a lot can be done with carefully applied violence but it tends to get frowned upon for some reason. So, well, some of these studies are weak simply because there wasn't much else that could be done, and some are done basically to go "No seriously can we dig up more test subects?!" (If the results are sufficiently dramatic, you might manage to get more people involved in the search through haystack so you can find the 'needles' required...or, anyway, more of them.)
We need to find a way to properly incentivize security as its own end, because as I have noticed in my career, getting security resources is like pulling teeth, until someone threatens a suit or seriously damages the reputation of the company. Even then, it is usually more for window dressing.
I put in bold what might be the right way to go about it--though I'd suggest having it be criminal charges, so nobody actually has to prove they specifically got harmed, merely that the data breech happened and neglect either made it possible or made it worse. You might also make the degree of liability in civil court reflect the degree of effort put into practical security measures--a company that kept the sensitive data it had to the bare minimum & well-secured would be held less liable on the basis that they did try, while one that was a hoarder of sensitive data stored in plaintext out in the open would get slammed...regardless of the verifiable damage cause to those whose data got exposed.
Let me get this straight--if you have (limited liability) companies, you need regulation because they will take actions that externalize their real costs.
To start with, what's keeping those companies who've been successful enough to afford to do it from having the regulatory system written as to improve on the externalization of their real costs and/or get as rid of as much of their competition as possible?
Moreover, you do realize that the 'limited liability' doesn't keep the company from liability, right? It just protects the owners, and the extent to which it does that is variable. This isn't necessarily bad, either; consider how you'd feel if you were in an LLC and the sole person even trying to bother with basic efforts to secure sensitive data. Would you want to be held personally liable for your partners' irresponsibility?
I'm not sure which country either of you two is in, except apparently not the US.
In most systems the criminal courts only deal with the question of "Did J Random commit fraud?"--not the question of "How much damage may J Random have done and to whom?" beyond what might required for the specific type of fraud J Random is charged with. That part would require the law have the charges and penalties be different depending on the victim and/or financial amount defrauded. The am, from what I can tell, always defined by the value the person who committed fraud received, not how much R Smith could have made otherwise because you can prove without a doubt how much money J Random made--as has been noted elsewhere, it's a bit hard to prove that everybody who pirates something would have paid a cent for it.
Recovering damages is more a civil court issue, though it might be handled incidentally by the criminal court, especially if reparations are part of the penalty for fraud. (Consult your local legal system to know, it varies.)
I think it's worth noting that, as far as I know, normally lost sales have to be projected from actual sales figures--the assumption you see when the *AA strikes that every pirate is a lost sale when quite a few may be people who'd not buy at all or are in fact a gained sale that would not have happened if they'd not been able to watch or listen to it for free ahead of time. (Movie marketing, for example, has gotten to the point that the main useful information most trailers in the US provide is "This movie is a thing that exists." Hollywood has hit the point where I'd consider it vastly unsurprising if they produced an awesome-looking trailer for a movie that even Uwe Boll would be embarrassed to have made... I can't say if this problem is one the movie industry as a whole has.)
Actually, it's not likely to go very much of anywhere because on some disease we either have very little clue right now where those 'particular areas' are, and a decade is the minimal time needed to get a drug developed and to market...using very optimistic numbers.
It doesn't exactly help that sometimes what we may have been framing as a disease is, in point of fact, within the normal healthy range of human variation--we just don't necessarily want to admit it.
...If I thought Zuckerberg would do anything more than try to ensure the people he considered were the Right People got to arrange the metaphorical deck chairs, for as little as they're wanting to invest in a decade? The best bang for the buck would be working on countering the medicalization of deviance--but you're not curing anybody, just...admitting they weren't sick in the first place. (When politics gets involved, the actual argument tends to be along the lines of "Are we calling the right people deviants?" rather than "Shouldn't we not be doing this at all?")
Which doesn't really answer the question of how, precisely, do you propose we reward people for putting forward the time and effort to make these breakthroughs and then share them? The only thing wrong here is that you're specifically attributing this problem to capitalism, when this is a problem for any system--what incentive do I have to come up with a brilliant idea that solves one of your problems...and then share it?
The fundamental question here is: Do those who invent have less of a right to remuneration for the labor they perform in doing so?
If you answer no, you've just created an entire section of labor that no longer can trust that it will get paid.
I'm all for limited time periods for intellectual property--I've read enough of the history of what happened before that was in law to feel it's a necessary thing. I just don't believe in the current woefully incomplete comparison to real property--if we're going to treat it like physical property, then it ought to be valued and taxed like physical property...and can enter the public domain early by failure to pay those taxes. (That might even make it practical to offer the ability to extend it however long you want--but with the rate increasing with each renewal. At some point, even Disney will probably decide that that cartoon mouse's first appearance isn't worth that much...and, well, until then they can pay through the nose for the privilege.)
Actually, I think the main reason they're considered evil is because their behavior is fundamentally a legal form of extortion--it would be like if I started claiming you trespassed on my property...because your shadow happened to possibly cross just slightly into it, maybe. These are not companies that in their behavior can be distinguished from Investment Company Q which will actively do things like try to find a company to license the patent out to, or offer Companies A, B and C a chance to license X because it's actually better for the job than widget W.
This is in fact quite possible and has happened. Sometimes the reason X didn't sell in the first place has been as simple as Company Y not knowing how to sell it. Occasionally, this is a systemic and endemic problem for Company Y, and the patent ends up being sold off by Company Y's creditors who just want all of Company Y's remains sold after Y experienced the fate of any company that couldn't even sell water in a desert.
The thing that distinguishes Z from Investment Company Q? Q is making an effort ahead of time to make money off of Invention X. Z is just going to sit on the patent and wait until it can sue somebody claiming infringement, and tend to hope to get paid to just go away. As long as they figure it's cheaper for them to get bought off...
You are making the lawyers lot of money though I guess
How? Read their site -- the donated money in excess of the PTO filing fees gets paid to the prior art searchers.
Which is in and of itself a chore, given that I've seen a few patents that I'm not that sure were not in point of fact created by a very good parody generator that has been well-fed on patent applications. I can fully believe that a good prior art searcher deserves fully to be paid.
I'd also like to feel a bit more confident that you couldn't manage to get the patent office to grant a patent on a filing that is nonsensical, but I don't expect that to happen.
You...do know that jpeg, gif, and png--the image formats most often seen on the internet--all require you flatten the layers in the process of saving, right? It's only trivial to remove the black square when it's still in its own layer. Still, the easiest tool to use for applying that black square is the most simple pixel-pushing program on the machine you're using, which probably will never ever support layers. Something like GIMP or Photoshop is fussy and overkill.
Basically, it looks like the article pretty much is verifying that the KISS principle applies here: You're better off just not fussing with blurring or pixelation and going the box route. I'm more concerned for the people who didn't go on social media using this for privacy, but rather what happened is that the news outlet or reality TV show's makers thought this was a good way to protect people's privacy... (This particularly applies to those who had been promised privacy or have their identity protected by law.)
That is basically what the tragedy of the commons is about--what happened isn't like giving your kid a car, it's like giving your kid keys to the family car...and having your kid decide that hey, since it's not their car, there's nothing wrong with doing things to it that run up mechanics' and body shop bills...and rarely bringing the car home so you can see what the damage is this time.
See also 'diffusion of responsibility' and other related concepts, though honestly most places deal with this overall problem by having sessions be of explicitly limited length. (As for filters? I'd go with it only applying if you're using the free tablet--or just make it so the sole option you got for browsing on it is a lightweight text-only browser.)
Some of these are actually jobs where a skilled human is going to be still better at it than a robot well after we've gotten a decent percentage of jobs that ask for four-year degrees automated; my understanding from people who are machinists or work with machine shops is that everything that can be reasonably automated at this point has been. What is a complex task for a human is not the same as what is a complex task for a robot.
From some of the estimates I've seen that I consider reasonably likely? Some of these are actually harder problems to automate than some jobs held currently by people with 4-year degrees. (And some things are automated that we can demonstrate oughtn't be, like issuing DMCA notices.)
The problem here seems to be that the decision rules are really biased to ensure that the voices of those not in the ruling classes are silenced. Europe didn't as much give up colonialism as it lost the ability due to population loss to go impose it elsewhere.
At this point...? I am not going to say that globalization is not necessarily bad, but a lot of the international governmental bodies such as the EU are pretty much rigged (intentionally or not) to result in some type of oligarchy. It's a problem inherent in the system, and embedded in the foundations of many them. It's the government version of that OS whose core has what we realize now are some very poor decisions in essential basic structures--and how the problem gets handled from there is pretty much the same. (Except, well, politicians have less incentive than programmers to avoid the 'solution' of ignoring the problem on the theory that this will somehow cause it to fix itself.)
Depends on what sort of scaling we're talking about. If it's a completely relative scale with no reference points, then any values for a and b where b=a*.125 would be just as valid and informative. If it's a scale using a number line, with or without a definite end point, then the actual distance between the two matters, and if it's a unit like percentage then each value's distance from the ends of the scale also is significant and meaningful.
However: Most likely marketing chose the numbers using the 10s die from a pair of percentile dice, and therefore the only thing that is meaningful here is that the one with the higher number is probably intended to be seen as the more upscale model. So the right answer is that the one with the higher number is intended to be approximately 10% cooler.
I'm still trying to figure out why the feminists don't grasp that media portrayals have, in my experience, nothing much to do with why women pick STEM. Most women, in my experience, make the choice for the same reason men do...which means that if media portrayals matter at all? Then problem is that Hollywood and apparently the ruling elites can't tell science from magic, thus creating unrealistic expectations. Here, at least, they're quite right about there being no practical difference between the sexes. (Why more women don't find science fascinating has more to do with how people react to little girls who love science in direct, personal encounters with such.)
Pretty much this is the election where you probably ought to go with whomever is actually going to get impeached when they do something worthy of it--I think it's relatively safe at this point to say that with anybody with a chance of being elected this time, there's really no question on if...just what and when. (If I thought their chances of getting impeached were even, I'd pick the one likely to do the least damage...and if the impeachment chances were equally good then entertainment value would also be considered.)
I know in some areas at least the hazmat endorsements also mean that you know what you're doing--as in, you can tell if your truck got properly loaded and marked before you pull out, and you know what the risks are for what you're doing.
I'm not sure what actual benefit there is for people entering a country to share their social media accounts. It's bad security theater--especially since you'll get dummy accounts from the people it might be useful with and in general be sending an implicit but quite clear message that if you're from the 3rd world you better be from its privileged elites.
That doesn't mean necessarily that the immigration service will have noticed you leaving--but all of this could easily be handled by asking for a reliable contact method for sending status notices to, which can & likely should be automated entirely. The notices should basically go out whenever the system registers a change in your status or you getting close to overstaying--and the last at least should include a way to contact them if there's a problem, such as "I can't leave the country in the next 10 days, I left a month ago." (The reason to automate it entirely? That way, it serves as a reasonably reliable way to know if the change in your status registered in the computer systems.)
Never underestimate the capacity of 'clever' people to make stupid, stupid mistakes, either--this may be generally symptomatic of a larger problem of institutional lag, which admittedly has some benefits for everybody else since if they really don't get on an institutional level that domain name registrations must be renewed...then the only thing necessary to retrieve a domain name they seized is patience and whatever the price of re-registering happens to be.
I think the thing that really surprises me is that all my professors told me it was hard to get published, when failing to make sure your data was correctly entered into whatever spreadsheet program you used to for number crunching (and creating graphs) was one of the dead basics of working there. Yet 1 in 5 papers has notable failures here? And nobody noticed before publishing them? What kinds of major errands have gotten in, then, if basic spot checks are getting failed?
That's cute! Did you consider all the ways completely trusting the car to tell me when to recharge and where the charger is can go horribly, terribly, nightmarishly wrong? Hint! It's why we don't have ICE vehicles doing that, since we've got all the tech we would need for any car to tell us when it's running low and with a GPS unit it could easily tell us where the station is!
Let's start with potentially getting the alert that you have N range left when the nearest station is N+x away, move on to the minor fact that GPS systems are not so precise as for it to not be utterly necessary for you to be able to visually confirm that you're in the right spot, all the issues related to both relying on a GPS unit and using a GPS system everywhere...
Ignoring the privacy nightmare side, it's not safe to trust that it will manage to correctly direct you to a station that exists and is open. Ignoring the logistical nightmare side, your EV probably will know every single place you go in it and keep records for longer than you want.
Or are you thinking about having it be a 'dumb' system where all the car knows is the location of the nearest charger? That's slightly better on the privacy end, I suppose, but you're still going to have the problems such as there being no charger in range.
So, really, your idea doesn't charge the fact that it absolutely must be possible to visually identify the charging stations from the road--why do you think places stick up signs?--and the basic fact that there is a critical minimum density that has to exist & be known to exist.
The question of 'having seen them' matters--if you can't find the charging station, it might as well not exist, but that is a fixable problem, as is the question of if they're safe to hang out around for long enough to charge a car up enough to at least make it to the next station. Honestly I think the main issue with EVs is that people are pushing them right now to look Green and win ego-fapping points.
This will change once the tech is matured and the infrastructure is in place with sufficient reliability and accessibility, but that's in a vague, undefined, and not necessarily certain future, especially since a lot of the people who are pushing for it are unlikely to actually take steps to ensure it's that for any group other than themselves.
Actually, if you go through and read the study's abstract, it is pretty much weasel-wording its way around admitting that it's 90% of the time people are using their vehicles.
Slashdot Mirror
I've some background here, and I'd be...generally skeptical since about the only thing I can think of is that maybe we're talking about autoimmune diseases and honestly that seems more a reason to avoid vaccines for diseases that aren't that much of a problem. The immune system can be pretty accurately thought of as being a bored two-year-old, though we've only particularly lately realized that a germ-free environment would actually be pretty horrible.
However, honestly I'd expect just being relaxed about attempting to disinfect everything as long as the kid's actually got an immune system should counter a good amount of the damage, and there is some interesting discussion on if maybe a few of the annoying-but-harmless infectious vectors we don't get exposed to as much anymore ought to basically come out so you can be deliberately infected since it seems those may have helped train the immune system to not do things like take a sudden, virulent hate for your nervous system.
However? If these are the same people who had been going vaccines cause autism before we finally managed to slay that lich? I'd not take any medical advice from them without getting a second opinion from somebody who at least is aware that prenatal exposure to Rubella (the R in MMR) is positively linked to autism.
(In fact, most of what we've traced as causes are prenatal, if not genetic in their origins, and we have been able to push back the ability to diagnose autism to before when most vaccinations are received.)
On the flu shot, though--I've heard reports that some people have found it to be effective for multiple years, and 'effective' with vaccinations means 'your immune system recognizes and does not have to guess at how to make antibodies for this.' From what I've heard, a decent number of the problems with the flu shot can be attributed to the fact that it's based off of educated guesses of what strains will be this year's popular ones...and as I recall, at least one year practically none of the guesses were right. (The flu isn't a single virus but a slew of them, and a lot of people who think they have the flu actually have something else entirely...right up to and including bacteria instead. Generally it's not worth the testing needed to tell.)
You do realize that one of the problems is the whole 'Better living through science' meme and its offspring, right? So we've got an inherently flawed assumption that science will save us all--usually accompanied with the idea that we don't actually have to change, or that a perfect solution is obtainable.
Most of the people who are out to implement these things are motivated by what is fundamentally a religious mindset--and, sometimes, you've got a better chance of a foamy-mouthed fundamentalist follower of a traditional religion being willing to change methods that don't work. If your belief system insists that the reason your efforts are failing is a lack of enough people believing and throwing money into your solution--you just are not psychologically in the position to truly accept even the possibility that the reason your solution is failing is because your solution is simply not ever going to work.
One of the best examples I've seen is from socialist countries.
The bottom line is that for some problems, we may just have to accept that the 'ideal' solution is impossible--and sometimes no 'good' solution is possible, and we should be honest about picking 'least bad.'
And, frankly, the first problem techies probably ought to tackle is science as a religion. That lovely little meme has gotten a death toll in the millions, and that's just if you set the meme's birth to the turn of the last century. If you include its earlier formulations...
I'd say that the base level of understanding I'd want everybody to have actually could be covered at a younger age and much more simply--teach basic logic, do it early, and do it well. You can stick to mathematical logic if you want. I'd have actual coding be in optional classes, and by HS I would actually insist that no language that isn't of serious use--let's go "Live, with a compiler for it written in it, significant large projects use it" for our criteria here--be offered once you get past an intro course.
I'd also treat anything that restricts them to a walled garden or private playground like the plague carrier it is: If simplicity is the key desire, stick to either the classics or do something like use one of the open-source game engines and have everybody's goal be to get a ultra-short game done.
I was part of a pick-up team whose sole goal was to get a visual novel done in our free time in a month: we started with zilch, not even the game engine picked out yet, but got it all the way through beta in that time period...and did it pretty comfortably. (End result was even fully voiced.) The actual coding is probably less important to have everybody know than the process--and I think overall a game probably will be generally a good pick for a small, fast, and fun project with a decent chance of success, especially if you encourage them to have the mindset that if their idea is for a big game...what they're doing now is the short demo to raise funds and interest with.
With the neuroscience papers involved in this analysis, though, I would want to know what they're looking at. Some papers oughtn't be counted simply because the research relies on people who have neurological damage and you can't do much if you can't find that many people with that problem--well, okay, a lot can be done with carefully applied violence but it tends to get frowned upon for some reason. So, well, some of these studies are weak simply because there wasn't much else that could be done, and some are done basically to go "No seriously can we dig up more test subects?!" (If the results are sufficiently dramatic, you might manage to get more people involved in the search through haystack so you can find the 'needles' required...or, anyway, more of them.)
We need to find a way to properly incentivize security as its own end, because as I have noticed in my career, getting security resources is like pulling teeth, until someone threatens a suit or seriously damages the reputation of the company. Even then, it is usually more for window dressing.
I put in bold what might be the right way to go about it--though I'd suggest having it be criminal charges, so nobody actually has to prove they specifically got harmed, merely that the data breech happened and neglect either made it possible or made it worse. You might also make the degree of liability in civil court reflect the degree of effort put into practical security measures--a company that kept the sensitive data it had to the bare minimum & well-secured would be held less liable on the basis that they did try, while one that was a hoarder of sensitive data stored in plaintext out in the open would get slammed...regardless of the verifiable damage cause to those whose data got exposed.
Let me get this straight--if you have (limited liability) companies, you need regulation because they will take actions that externalize their real costs.
To start with, what's keeping those companies who've been successful enough to afford to do it from having the regulatory system written as to improve on the externalization of their real costs and/or get as rid of as much of their competition as possible?
Moreover, you do realize that the 'limited liability' doesn't keep the company from liability, right? It just protects the owners, and the extent to which it does that is variable. This isn't necessarily bad, either; consider how you'd feel if you were in an LLC and the sole person even trying to bother with basic efforts to secure sensitive data. Would you want to be held personally liable for your partners' irresponsibility?
I'm not sure which country either of you two is in, except apparently not the US.
In most systems the criminal courts only deal with the question of "Did J Random commit fraud?"-- not the question of "How much damage may J Random have done and to whom?" beyond what might required for the specific type of fraud J Random is charged with. That part would require the law have the charges and penalties be different depending on the victim and/or financial amount defrauded. The am, from what I can tell, always defined by the value the person who committed fraud received, not how much R Smith could have made otherwise because you can prove without a doubt how much money J Random made--as has been noted elsewhere, it's a bit hard to prove that everybody who pirates something would have paid a cent for it.
Recovering damages is more a civil court issue, though it might be handled incidentally by the criminal court, especially if reparations are part of the penalty for fraud. (Consult your local legal system to know, it varies.)
I think it's worth noting that, as far as I know, normally lost sales have to be projected from actual sales figures--the assumption you see when the *AA strikes that every pirate is a lost sale when quite a few may be people who'd not buy at all or are in fact a gained sale that would not have happened if they'd not been able to watch or listen to it for free ahead of time. (Movie marketing, for example, has gotten to the point that the main useful information most trailers in the US provide is "This movie is a thing that exists." Hollywood has hit the point where I'd consider it vastly unsurprising if they produced an awesome-looking trailer for a movie that even Uwe Boll would be embarrassed to have made... I can't say if this problem is one the movie industry as a whole has.)
Actually, it's not likely to go very much of anywhere because on some disease we either have very little clue right now where those 'particular areas' are, and a decade is the minimal time needed to get a drug developed and to market...using very optimistic numbers.
It doesn't exactly help that sometimes what we may have been framing as a disease is, in point of fact, within the normal healthy range of human variation--we just don't necessarily want to admit it.
...If I thought Zuckerberg would do anything more than try to ensure the people he considered were the Right People got to arrange the metaphorical deck chairs, for as little as they're wanting to invest in a decade? The best bang for the buck would be working on countering the medicalization of deviance--but you're not curing anybody, just...admitting they weren't sick in the first place. (When politics gets involved, the actual argument tends to be along the lines of "Are we calling the right people deviants?" rather than "Shouldn't we not be doing this at all?")
Which doesn't really answer the question of how, precisely, do you propose we reward people for putting forward the time and effort to make these breakthroughs and then share them? The only thing wrong here is that you're specifically attributing this problem to capitalism, when this is a problem for any system--what incentive do I have to come up with a brilliant idea that solves one of your problems...and then share it?
The fundamental question here is: Do those who invent have less of a right to remuneration for the labor they perform in doing so?
If you answer no, you've just created an entire section of labor that no longer can trust that it will get paid.
I'm all for limited time periods for intellectual property--I've read enough of the history of what happened before that was in law to feel it's a necessary thing. I just don't believe in the current woefully incomplete comparison to real property--if we're going to treat it like physical property, then it ought to be valued and taxed like physical property...and can enter the public domain early by failure to pay those taxes. (That might even make it practical to offer the ability to extend it however long you want--but with the rate increasing with each renewal. At some point, even Disney will probably decide that that cartoon mouse's first appearance isn't worth that much...and, well, until then they can pay through the nose for the privilege.)
Actually, I think the main reason they're considered evil is because their behavior is fundamentally a legal form of extortion--it would be like if I started claiming you trespassed on my property...because your shadow happened to possibly cross just slightly into it, maybe. These are not companies that in their behavior can be distinguished from Investment Company Q which will actively do things like try to find a company to license the patent out to, or offer Companies A, B and C a chance to license X because it's actually better for the job than widget W.
This is in fact quite possible and has happened. Sometimes the reason X didn't sell in the first place has been as simple as Company Y not knowing how to sell it. Occasionally, this is a systemic and endemic problem for Company Y, and the patent ends up being sold off by Company Y's creditors who just want all of Company Y's remains sold after Y experienced the fate of any company that couldn't even sell water in a desert.
The thing that distinguishes Z from Investment Company Q? Q is making an effort ahead of time to make money off of Invention X. Z is just going to sit on the patent and wait until it can sue somebody claiming infringement, and tend to hope to get paid to just go away. As long as they figure it's cheaper for them to get bought off...
You are making the lawyers lot of money though I guess
How? Read their site -- the donated money in excess of the PTO filing fees gets paid to the prior art searchers.
Which is in and of itself a chore, given that I've seen a few patents that I'm not that sure were not in point of fact created by a very good parody generator that has been well-fed on patent applications. I can fully believe that a good prior art searcher deserves fully to be paid.
I'd also like to feel a bit more confident that you couldn't manage to get the patent office to grant a patent on a filing that is nonsensical, but I don't expect that to happen.
You...do know that jpeg, gif, and png--the image formats most often seen on the internet--all require you flatten the layers in the process of saving, right? It's only trivial to remove the black square when it's still in its own layer. Still, the easiest tool to use for applying that black square is the most simple pixel-pushing program on the machine you're using, which probably will never ever support layers. Something like GIMP or Photoshop is fussy and overkill.
Basically, it looks like the article pretty much is verifying that the KISS principle applies here: You're better off just not fussing with blurring or pixelation and going the box route. I'm more concerned for the people who didn't go on social media using this for privacy, but rather what happened is that the news outlet or reality TV show's makers thought this was a good way to protect people's privacy... (This particularly applies to those who had been promised privacy or have their identity protected by law.)
That is basically what the tragedy of the commons is about--what happened isn't like giving your kid a car, it's like giving your kid keys to the family car...and having your kid decide that hey, since it's not their car, there's nothing wrong with doing things to it that run up mechanics' and body shop bills...and rarely bringing the car home so you can see what the damage is this time.
See also 'diffusion of responsibility' and other related concepts, though honestly most places deal with this overall problem by having sessions be of explicitly limited length. (As for filters? I'd go with it only applying if you're using the free tablet--or just make it so the sole option you got for browsing on it is a lightweight text-only browser.)
Some of these are actually jobs where a skilled human is going to be still better at it than a robot well after we've gotten a decent percentage of jobs that ask for four-year degrees automated; my understanding from people who are machinists or work with machine shops is that everything that can be reasonably automated at this point has been. What is a complex task for a human is not the same as what is a complex task for a robot.
From some of the estimates I've seen that I consider reasonably likely? Some of these are actually harder problems to automate than some jobs held currently by people with 4-year degrees. (And some things are automated that we can demonstrate oughtn't be, like issuing DMCA notices.)
The problem here seems to be that the decision rules are really biased to ensure that the voices of those not in the ruling classes are silenced. Europe didn't as much give up colonialism as it lost the ability due to population loss to go impose it elsewhere.
At this point...? I am not going to say that globalization is not necessarily bad, but a lot of the international governmental bodies such as the EU are pretty much rigged (intentionally or not) to result in some type of oligarchy. It's a problem inherent in the system, and embedded in the foundations of many them. It's the government version of that OS whose core has what we realize now are some very poor decisions in essential basic structures--and how the problem gets handled from there is pretty much the same. (Except, well, politicians have less incentive than programmers to avoid the 'solution' of ignoring the problem on the theory that this will somehow cause it to fix itself.)
Depends on what sort of scaling we're talking about. If it's a completely relative scale with no reference points, then any values for a and b where b=a*.125 would be just as valid and informative. If it's a scale using a number line, with or without a definite end point, then the actual distance between the two matters, and if it's a unit like percentage then each value's distance from the ends of the scale also is significant and meaningful.
However: Most likely marketing chose the numbers using the 10s die from a pair of percentile dice, and therefore the only thing that is meaningful here is that the one with the higher number is probably intended to be seen as the more upscale model. So the right answer is that the one with the higher number is intended to be approximately 10% cooler.
I'm still trying to figure out why the feminists don't grasp that media portrayals have, in my experience, nothing much to do with why women pick STEM. Most women, in my experience, make the choice for the same reason men do...which means that if media portrayals matter at all? Then problem is that Hollywood and apparently the ruling elites can't tell science from magic, thus creating unrealistic expectations. Here, at least, they're quite right about there being no practical difference between the sexes. (Why more women don't find science fascinating has more to do with how people react to little girls who love science in direct, personal encounters with such.)
Pretty much this is the election where you probably ought to go with whomever is actually going to get impeached when they do something worthy of it--I think it's relatively safe at this point to say that with anybody with a chance of being elected this time, there's really no question on if...just what and when. (If I thought their chances of getting impeached were even, I'd pick the one likely to do the least damage...and if the impeachment chances were equally good then entertainment value would also be considered.)
I know in some areas at least the hazmat endorsements also mean that you know what you're doing--as in, you can tell if your truck got properly loaded and marked before you pull out, and you know what the risks are for what you're doing.
I'm not sure what actual benefit there is for people entering a country to share their social media accounts. It's bad security theater--especially since you'll get dummy accounts from the people it might be useful with and in general be sending an implicit but quite clear message that if you're from the 3rd world you better be from its privileged elites.
That doesn't mean necessarily that the immigration service will have noticed you leaving--but all of this could easily be handled by asking for a reliable contact method for sending status notices to, which can & likely should be automated entirely. The notices should basically go out whenever the system registers a change in your status or you getting close to overstaying--and the last at least should include a way to contact them if there's a problem, such as "I can't leave the country in the next 10 days, I left a month ago." (The reason to automate it entirely? That way, it serves as a reasonably reliable way to know if the change in your status registered in the computer systems.)
Never underestimate the capacity of 'clever' people to make stupid, stupid mistakes, either--this may be generally symptomatic of a larger problem of institutional lag, which admittedly has some benefits for everybody else since if they really don't get on an institutional level that domain name registrations must be renewed...then the only thing necessary to retrieve a domain name they seized is patience and whatever the price of re-registering happens to be.
I think the thing that really surprises me is that all my professors told me it was hard to get published, when failing to make sure your data was correctly entered into whatever spreadsheet program you used to for number crunching (and creating graphs) was one of the dead basics of working there. Yet 1 in 5 papers has notable failures here? And nobody noticed before publishing them? What kinds of major errands have gotten in, then, if basic spot checks are getting failed?
That's cute! Did you consider all the ways completely trusting the car to tell me when to recharge and where the charger is can go horribly, terribly, nightmarishly wrong? Hint! It's why we don't have ICE vehicles doing that, since we've got all the tech we would need for any car to tell us when it's running low and with a GPS unit it could easily tell us where the station is!
Let's start with potentially getting the alert that you have N range left when the nearest station is N+x away, move on to the minor fact that GPS systems are not so precise as for it to not be utterly necessary for you to be able to visually confirm that you're in the right spot, all the issues related to both relying on a GPS unit and using a GPS system everywhere...
Ignoring the privacy nightmare side, it's not safe to trust that it will manage to correctly direct you to a station that exists and is open. Ignoring the logistical nightmare side, your EV probably will know every single place you go in it and keep records for longer than you want.
Or are you thinking about having it be a 'dumb' system where all the car knows is the location of the nearest charger? That's slightly better on the privacy end, I suppose, but you're still going to have the problems such as there being no charger in range.
So, really, your idea doesn't charge the fact that it absolutely must be possible to visually identify the charging stations from the road--why do you think places stick up signs?--and the basic fact that there is a critical minimum density that has to exist & be known to exist.
The question of 'having seen them' matters--if you can't find the charging station, it might as well not exist, but that is a fixable problem, as is the question of if they're safe to hang out around for long enough to charge a car up enough to at least make it to the next station. Honestly I think the main issue with EVs is that people are pushing them right now to look Green and win ego-fapping points.
This will change once the tech is matured and the infrastructure is in place with sufficient reliability and accessibility, but that's in a vague, undefined, and not necessarily certain future, especially since a lot of the people who are pushing for it are unlikely to actually take steps to ensure it's that for any group other than themselves.
Actually, if you go through and read the study's abstract, it is pretty much weasel-wording its way around admitting that it's 90% of the time people are using their vehicles.