Maybe. What is certainly wrong, however, is the allusion, that the protesters being "atomic scientists" (whatever that means) somehow makes their protest weightier and/or attention-worthy...
You can only switch if you know they are doing it.
No, I can certainly switch in complete ignorance.
Whether they are doing this thing in particular ought not influence the choice of a reasonable consumer. What ought to affect my decision are: the prices of their plans; the ease of collecting the insurance in case of an accident. I do not care, how they arrive at the particular price for a plan — and soI do not need to know, what they choose to discriminate on.
Aside from the obvious point that they're all likely doing this
If they are all doing it, it must really be making make sense, must it not be?
apply libertarian concepts to government-mandated subscription providers?
The government may be mandating having an insurance, but it does not mandate the use of Admiral. Plenty of competing insurers want your business — if you don't like this particular aspect of Admiral's practices, or for any other reason, you are welcome to switch.
What other metrics could the browser measure to determine your risk as a drive?
Whatever TF the insurer wants to use. It is a private company entitled to do as it pleases. Don't like it — switch to a competitor.
In our totalitarianism we made it illegal to discriminate based on some factors, but the choice of the e-mail provider is not on the blacklist. *Shrugs*...
Universal, on-by-default strong encryption is a good thing.
Is it? I'd like to see some cost-benefit analysis, before I accept the above statement. The cost, obviously, is that some crimes (including grievous ones) will become much harder — and even outright impossible — to solve (or prove in court). The benefit is that the innocent people will have their communications and data protected from illegal snooping without personal technical knowledge.
What outweighs what is not immediately clear...
Personally, I'm inclined to agree wit your statement for the same reasons I value (worship!) the Second Amendment — whether or not it is net-beneficial, arming oneself is an inalienable human right. But I'm certain, you don't view it that way — so what's your reasoning?
What "artificial scarcity"? There are plenty of cats — most of them capable of hilarious "facial" expressions...
So if all I get, is a worthless mere copy
If the "mere copy" of this particular cat's expression were really "worthless", then why would the company use that image in particular? I guess, it was not... They wanted that image in particular for some reason.
I worked just as hard for the original money as somebody worked hard for the original work.
Marx got it all wrong. The value of something — anything — is measured not by the amount of labor (Marx' theory of value), that went into it, but rather by other people's willingess to pay for it.
That is, if nobody cares for your cat's picture, it is worthless even if you spent three months of trying to photograph the creature.
The distinction you are making between ISPs like Comcast and content-providers like YouTube is artificial and without difference. The principles of net neutrality would apply equally to both.
If it is wrong for Comcast to discriminate traffic, then it is also wrong for YouTube to discriminate devices. And the other way around, if there may be situation, when one is not wrong, the other would not be wrong either.
This is why it is valid to bring up net neutrality in this context — and your attempts to dismiss it on a technicality are just that...
But to conflate it with NN is to confuse the public
What "public"? This is slashdot — kindly stop the hand-waving. You can either acknowledge my point, that what Google is doing is (un)acceptable together with ISPs discriminating traffic, or identify any argument, which makes only one policy wrong, but not the other.
Archaic union contracts are the problem for public sector transit, and to a certain degree commuter rail, but not private sector freight.
I'm afraid, you are overly optimistic. Luddites, empowered by bundling together, have been holding humanity's progress for centuries. The most recent battle was against Uber et al (would somebody think of the taxi drivers!) may have been lost already, but new ones are ahead.
Paying two guys to babysit it is literal chump change.
I'm not sure... But, perhaps more importantly, humans suck at driving. If, as/.'s favorite genius predicts, some day driving a car will be illegal for a human, operating a train should already. Because we can automate trains with today's software. And, indeed, the cause of the recent train-wrecks was just that — a humanerror.
We've been through this three years ago (and earlier, but I can't find the links).
As everybody knows, trains' primary purpose is not to haul cargo or transport passengers, but to provide jobs. Not just the drivers (excuse me, engineers), but even the announcers (excuse me, conductors) can not be eliminated.
Automating them will causes them to fail in that primary purpose and therefor can not done. From the Socialist scum to the seemingly respectable Slashdotters, everyone is against that... #ResistOrSomething
I don't see what a content provider restricting access to their own content has to do with Net Neutrality.
Every argument you can make for forcing ISPs to not discriminate traffic, can also be repeated, verbatim, for forcing content-providers to not discriminate accessing devices.
Thus, every such argument is either right or wrong at the same time. Google are supporting "net neutrality" — their not applying the same principles to themselves is hypocrisy.
Economics 102: the very measure of the importance/value of anything is other people's willingness to pay for it.
That is, if these people's labor really is valuable, they don't need my charity. But then either the report in TFA is wrong, or the report and you are talking about different people.
As the swamp's "favorite" President seeks to cut down the number of people paid by the taxpayer (especially for things other than security), a "report" comes out suggesting yet another way, the taxpayers' monies can be spent.
Why should I be compelled to pay for somebody else's education, again? Because I studied Math, while these slobs were playing football in school — when not robbing me of my lunch-money?
irrationals, which are as numerous as the whole of real numbers?
Irrationals are, actually, a lot more numerous than rational numbers. Of the latter there are just as many as there are integers (and naturals), whereas the set of the former is a lot more powerful.
Yes, the parallels with human society make me sad too...
In an eight-shift, yes a cop will drive a lot more than 50 miles.
Just how big does his beat need to be for distances like that? Long like that and without stopping at the station — where he can switch to another, fully recharged, car?
Sure, if you are driving on a highway with low-to-moderate traffic, you can cover 50 miles in less than 1 hour, but that's not the typical use for police patrol car...
In what universe is it a reasonable expectation that the amount of energy required to produce a fuel will be less then them amount of energy it produced when burns? Answer none.
You seem to allude to laws of Thermodynamics here, which is beyond stupid. The energy we expect to extract from the plants comes from the Sun. It is the same energy, that powers the plants, the animals, and the humans. Our bodies manage to harvest this energy with a surplus — and always have.
That some methods of producing "biofuels" end up consuming more fuel than is produced, is the inefficiency of the methods, not the principle.
The question is , is scientifically _possible_ to create an efficient enough process that the energy in the plant material itself
We should not need to answer it — Collectively. If an Individual finds such a way, he should be able to sell such fuel to willing buyers. The existing government mandates are stupid and Illiberal. In addition to violating most basic and obvious human rights, they are also inflating the costs of fuel both for machinery and for humans — because raw materials for biofuels are grown instead of food.
Great. Then you can keep using it, thus using less actual oil. This will keep oil-prices lower world-wide.
And if you have so much of this stuff, you don't know, what to do with it, you can export into all the other countries ruled by respectable leaders (that is, not by Trump) — from North Korea to Canada.
According to TFA, the Department's employees explained their reluctance to use the environment-friendly vehicles by their low mileage:
But sources say some personnel are reluctant to use the electric cars because they can only go 80-100 miles on a charge.
Strange — though low in comparison with a gasoline- or (especially) diesel-powered car, the distance seems quite sufficient for a city's police car. Do they really ever need to exceed 50 miles in a day?
And, again, if you don't carry the phone at all times? Or pull the battery?
Not something you would do normally. And if you do, you'll be flagged by the system just for that. It will certainly retain your picture and the driver will remember you, etc.
BTW - the goal isn't total anonymity. It's FRAGMENTATION of data
No disagreement here. Yet the cellphone gives marketeers and police alike a single source...
The link for the credit cards was from 2007.
The first link was from 2007 and talked about BOFA piloting the program. The second link is from 2014 and talks about the credit-availability to illegals from a much wider array of financial institutions. "Illegal immigrant" and "no credit card" are (nearly) orthogonal — if anything, an immigrant can get a card from a bank in his home country... Other options exist too.
And, after all, both Lyft and Uber accept Paypal and debit cards. Having an established credit is not necessary...
I think, I'm done here. It is getting tedious — especially because I find myself hunting for evidence to cite, while you reply with unsubstantiated (or outright incorrect) statements...
That's the scariest part... Maybe, those denouncing American KKKorporation$ for going after intellectual property violations with fines, ought to put things in perspective...
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe. What is certainly wrong, however, is the allusion, that the protesters being "atomic scientists" (whatever that means) somehow makes their protest weightier and/or attention-worthy...
No, I can certainly switch in complete ignorance.
Whether they are doing this thing in particular ought not influence the choice of a reasonable consumer. What ought to affect my decision are: the prices of their plans; the ease of collecting the insurance in case of an accident. I do not care, how they arrive at the particular price for a plan — and soI do not need to know, what they choose to discriminate on.
If they are all doing it, it must really be making make sense, must it not be?
The government may be mandating having an insurance, but it does not mandate the use of Admiral. Plenty of competing insurers want your business — if you don't like this particular aspect of Admiral's practices, or for any other reason, you are welcome to switch.
Sorry, I'm not interested in arguing with anyone, who knocks out the strawmen of his own making.
Whatever TF the insurer wants to use. It is a private company entitled to do as it pleases. Don't like it — switch to a competitor.
In our totalitarianism we made it illegal to discriminate based on some factors, but the choice of the e-mail provider is not on the blacklist. *Shrugs*...
Is it? I'd like to see some cost-benefit analysis, before I accept the above statement. The cost, obviously, is that some crimes (including grievous ones) will become much harder — and even outright impossible — to solve (or prove in court). The benefit is that the innocent people will have their communications and data protected from illegal snooping without personal technical knowledge.
What outweighs what is not immediately clear...
Personally, I'm inclined to agree wit your statement for the same reasons I value (worship!) the Second Amendment — whether or not it is net-beneficial, arming oneself is an inalienable human right. But I'm certain, you don't view it that way — so what's your reasoning?
I'll just leave this here.
The problem is not at all new, and the Senator is right to allude to the Lawman's predecessors.
What "artificial scarcity"? There are plenty of cats — most of them capable of hilarious "facial" expressions...
If the "mere copy" of this particular cat's expression were really "worthless", then why would the company use that image in particular? I guess, it was not... They wanted that image in particular for some reason.
Marx got it all wrong. The value of something — anything — is measured not by the amount of labor (Marx' theory of value), that went into it, but rather by other people's willingess to pay for it.
That is, if nobody cares for your cat's picture, it is worthless even if you spent three months of trying to photograph the creature.
The distinction you are making between ISPs like Comcast and content-providers like YouTube is artificial and without difference. The principles of net neutrality would apply equally to both.
If it is wrong for Comcast to discriminate traffic, then it is also wrong for YouTube to discriminate devices. And the other way around, if there may be situation, when one is not wrong, the other would not be wrong either.
This is why it is valid to bring up net neutrality in this context — and your attempts to dismiss it on a technicality are just that...
What "public"? This is slashdot — kindly stop the hand-waving. You can either acknowledge my point, that what Google is doing is (un)acceptable together with ISPs discriminating traffic, or identify any argument, which makes only one policy wrong, but not the other.
I'm afraid, you are overly optimistic. Luddites, empowered by bundling together, have been holding humanity's progress for centuries. The most recent battle was against Uber et al (would somebody think of the taxi drivers!) may have been lost already, but new ones are ahead.
I'm not sure... But, perhaps more importantly, humans suck at driving. If, as /.'s favorite genius predicts, some day driving a car will be illegal for a human, operating a train should already. Because we can automate trains with today's software. And, indeed, the cause of the recent train-wrecks was just that — a human error.
We've been through this three years ago (and earlier, but I can't find the links).
As everybody knows, trains' primary purpose is not to haul cargo or transport passengers, but to provide jobs . Not just the drivers (excuse me, engineers), but even the announcers (excuse me, conductors) can not be eliminated.
Automating them will causes them to fail in that primary purpose and therefor can not done. From the Socialist scum to the seemingly respectable Slashdotters, everyone is against that... #ResistOrSomething
This is not a technical problem.
Ok, this may be awesome...
Every argument you can make for forcing ISPs to not discriminate traffic, can also be repeated, verbatim, for forcing content-providers to not discriminate accessing devices.
Thus, every such argument is either right or wrong at the same time. Google are supporting "net neutrality" — their not applying the same principles to themselves is hypocrisy.
Economics 102: the very measure of the importance/value of anything is other people's willingness to pay for it.
That is, if these people's labor really is valuable, they don't need my charity. But then either the report in TFA is wrong, or the report and you are talking about different people.
As the swamp's "favorite" President seeks to cut down the number of people paid by the taxpayer (especially for things other than security), a "report" comes out suggesting yet another way, the taxpayers' monies can be spent.
Why should I be compelled to pay for somebody else's education, again? Because I studied Math, while these slobs were playing football in school — when not robbing me of my lunch-money?
Irrationals are, actually, a lot more numerous than rational numbers. Of the latter there are just as many as there are integers (and naturals), whereas the set of the former is a lot more powerful.
Yes, the parallels with human society make me sad too...
Or one of the BSDs... Maybe, even Solaris will work...
What is "the fastest"? The same program, with the same input will produce the same output in the same time under the same conditions...
The other terms — "efficient" and "powerful" — are even more vague.
The usual advice is: pick, what the person you'll be asking questions uses...
How is this a solution — assuming the problem described by GP (citing anonymous Tufts researcher) even exists?
Why would the government be any more eager to lose money on expensive treatments, than insurance companies?
As any immigrant from a shithole would tell you, government doing things usually is the problem...
Just how big does his beat need to be for distances like that? Long like that and without stopping at the station — where he can switch to another, fully recharged, car?
Sure, if you are driving on a highway with low-to-moderate traffic, you can cover 50 miles in less than 1 hour, but that's not the typical use for police patrol car...
You seem to allude to laws of Thermodynamics here, which is beyond stupid. The energy we expect to extract from the plants comes from the Sun. It is the same energy, that powers the plants, the animals, and the humans. Our bodies manage to harvest this energy with a surplus — and always have.
That some methods of producing "biofuels" end up consuming more fuel than is produced, is the inefficiency of the methods, not the principle.
We should not need to answer it — Collectively. If an Individual finds such a way, he should be able to sell such fuel to willing buyers. The existing government mandates are stupid and Illiberal. In addition to violating most basic and obvious human rights, they are also inflating the costs of fuel both for machinery and for humans — because raw materials for biofuels are grown instead of food.
Great. Then you can keep using it, thus using less actual oil. This will keep oil-prices lower world-wide.
And if you have so much of this stuff, you don't know, what to do with it, you can export into all the other countries ruled by respectable leaders (that is, not by Trump) — from North Korea to Canada.
According to TFA, the Department's employees explained their reluctance to use the environment-friendly vehicles by their low mileage:
Strange — though low in comparison with a gasoline- or (especially) diesel-powered car, the distance seems quite sufficient for a city's police car. Do they really ever need to exceed 50 miles in a day?
Not something you would do normally. And if you do, you'll be flagged by the system just for that. It will certainly retain your picture and the driver will remember you, etc.
No disagreement here. Yet the cellphone gives marketeers and police alike a single source...
The first link was from 2007 and talked about BOFA piloting the program. The second link is from 2014 and talks about the credit-availability to illegals from a much wider array of financial institutions. "Illegal immigrant" and "no credit card" are (nearly) orthogonal — if anything, an immigrant can get a card from a bank in his home country... Other options exist too.
And, after all, both Lyft and Uber accept Paypal and debit cards. Having an established credit is not necessary...
I think, I'm done here. It is getting tedious — especially because I find myself hunting for evidence to cite, while you reply with unsubstantiated (or outright incorrect) statements...
That's the scariest part... Maybe, those denouncing American KKKorporation$ for going after intellectual property violations with fines, ought to put things in perspective...