But now you're ignoring a couple of other issues: If the price of your burgers jumps 50% will you really still sell the same number of them? If you raise your prices, hence your total sales, will you move up a(nother) tax bracket? If your tax bracket changes what's to stop a smaller company selling burgers at the lower price, undercutting you and taking your customers?
Of course perhaps a more pertinent question might be, why the emotive appeal? Apart from the fact that I'm not responsible for grandpa's investment decisions, and the fact that the targeted tax is intended to strengthen the industries being taxed by providing them with better workers, hence increasing their revenues, profits and dividends, no company should be insulated from the market or the regulatory environment based on who is invested in it.
If you're really worried about Grandma & Grandpa's retirement perhaps some of your tax revenue could go towards providing a national pension scheme... we could call it Social Security or something...
You own a Burger Joint. Taxes today for a $5 burger is 10% Customer pays $5.50 for that burger. Taxes tomorrow for a $5 burger is 15% Customer now pays $5.75 for that burger. Those that cheer for taxes like this, is like the customer cheering that their burger just went up 25 cents. Hurray for you, your senators thank you for your gullibility! They will happily take 20 cents of that 25 and give it to their cronies... D or R it matters not.
The manufacturing cost of a burger (including fixed costs to simply the point) is $4, and your burger joint sells 1000 burgers per financial year. Burger sells for $5, excluding sales tax at whatever rate you set it -> profit before (corporation) tax of $1000 dollars. Corporation tax @ 40% -> net profit of $600, which can be distributed as dividends back to the shareholder. tax of $400 which can be redistributed. Corporation tax @ 60% -> net profit of $400, which can be distributed as dividends back to the shareholder. tax of $600 which can be redistributed.
Not all taxes are the same, not all taxes 'incentivise' in the same way. Conflating sales tax with corporation tax is woolly thinking of the highest order.
I can't remember where or when I first heard this - it was a long time ago - but it's a toss up between congenital laziness and 'belief' in the 'wisdom of wives' that accounts for my casual attitude towards cleaning / a little bit of dirt.
"A child that hasn't eaten their weight in dirt by the time they're two won't make it past five"
Pretty much every EULA I've ever read has within it a section that contains the following (or similar):
"If any provision of this EULA is unenforceable, such provision will be changed and interpreted to accomplish the objectives of such provision to the greatest extent possible under applicable law and the remaining provisions will continue in full force and effect."
That's on top of provisions that state something along the lines of:
"The disclaimers, exclusions, and limitations of liability under this EULA will not apply to the extent prohibited or limited by applicable law. Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion of implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages or other rights, so those provisions of this EULA may not apply to you.
It seems to me, although I'd happily admit I have no idea whether these would hold up in court (a bit like the halting problem, need to run it to see if / when it stops), that they've covered the base you seem so sure of...
Isn't the nature of the screen time tantamount (sic)? If the kid spends his screen time reading books, watching lectures, and discussing thought provoking content, isn't that obviously going to have a very different effect compared to scrolling through instagram all day?
While I suspect that most people will intuitively agree with your question / assertion, I'm not sure that the 'value judgements' that will almost certainly follow will necessarily hold water. You're also brushing over an equally valid question which is: Is the effect of reading paper books or attending a live lecture in person identical to the effect of reading the same book in electronic form or watching a video of the same lecture?
In her book,Mind Change, Susan Greenfield relates that the electronic forms of learning are, or at least tend to be, less effective than learning gained otherwise. This always made a certain amount of sense to me because of the way our brains seem to 'tag' memories, allowing access to them via various different routes. If, for example, all our reading is done on the same computer we're missing out on the 'physical' memories of the books (colour, size, weight, texture, location, smell, etc.) so we can no longer rely on them as individual keys to access the remembered content of those various books, we just have the one key trying to link to all the books we read on that device. Furthermore it's highly likely that we lose a physical sense of location within the books where a particular piece of information was first read. Weaker links lead to weaker memories, and weaker memories are less likely to be retained over time, at least without refreshing, hence strengthening, them.
In fairness, having linked to her book, I feel I should probably also link to a critique of her work and stated opinions, not only in the interests of balance, but also because it's easy to become blinded by what we believe to be true to the point that we no longer question that belief.
Your statement / question seems to me to run a very real risk of falling into this category of belief.
Thanks for the informative reply - although, and this is not intended as a dig at you, the usage of 'fraudulent' and 'defrauded' within the charges strikes me as stretching the definition of fraud somewhat. I had been under the impression that the charges were based on actions taken after Trump had torn up Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, rather than any actions taken prior to that point.
It will be 'interesting' to see how this plays out, both in the US and on the international stage.
Markets are the only foundation for society, economy and democracy.
Rules, and the ability to enforce them, are the foundation of (a successful and civil) society, and everything that follows from it. A stable society is what allows markets to function, and strict property rights are what encourages innovation, investment, and hence the growth of markets.
Leaving aside the snide digs and cynicism, you do make a very good point, one which has been troubling me of late - albeit more in relation to the various governmental promises to phase out ICE engines in favour of electric cars, buses, etc.
While electrical power consumption has been relatively flat, across the EU at least, over the last decade, as increased efficiencies counteract increased sources of demand, I'm not sure I've seen credible plans for increasing power generation (anywhere near) to the point where we can actually 'fuel' this new fleet of green vehicles.
However, with a clear mandate on time frame and direction, it's possible this will be 'solved' by 'the market'. I'm just not sure what the cost of that solution would be.
It's a passenger airplane. 650 miles is basically useless.
The distance from London to Glasgow, to give just one commonly traveled route, is about 420 miles, and the estimated driving time between the two is just over 7 hours.
In other words this place would very easily fill the role of carrying business passengers (or MP's, or...) between the two, with fewer carbon emissions, in less than a quarter of the time it would otherwise take. Another advantage is that we're talking about a small aircraft, meaning it can take off from, and land at, smaller, regional, airfields.
That you cannot see a use-case for the aircraft says more about your imagination or experience of the world than it does about the actual utility of the vehicle.
Thank you, that was a useful reply. (And sorry it took me so long to say so - took a couple of days away from the internet.)
My concern, if you can call it such, wasn't so much about fracturing though as it was about uneven bending between the electrodes bridging the gap. I have been led to believe that materials at this scale can behave slightly more unpredictably, presumably partly because of the relative proportions of (im)perfectly ordered atoms at small vs large scale, so either your materials manufacturing has to be that much more precise or there will be more errors. Having said that I'm not sure if we can 'grow' regular metal crystals in the same way we grow silicon for the current generation of chips, which would, presumably, mostly solve any irregularity problem.
You do also make a fair point about the headline, though another way of looking at it would be that the question was aimed at us, rather than implying the article answered it. tbh I don't really care much either way - I was mostly just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Why do Slashdot editors insist on making headlines into questions that aren't answered in the article?
Perhaps they were hoping to stimulate a discussion between knowledgeable posters, one which weighed the pros and cons of this new (take on) tech, and perhaps arrived at an answer to that question. They might also touch on other, unasked, questions such as whether such tech is desirable, and what we might use it for - something a couple of people have attempted.
The story is, "Researchers believe new metal-air transistors could continue Moore's Law". It isn't a debate on this belief of those researchers.
"It", whatever "it" might be, may not be a debate about the belief of the researchers but if not it's almost certainly a debate about the reasons for their belief. I'd suspect most people who browse here would instinctively fill in the blanks: most, not all - there's always a few who come here to find something to be outraged about, and they can usually find something, then rage about it, while contributing absolutely zero to the discussion.
Oh, wait - this is a click bait tactic used to make something seem more interesting than it really is...
I'm sorry you find this story about new technology uninteresting. Leaving aside the possible reasons for that, one still has to wonder at your expectations when you label the summary as 'click bait'. What do you think people come here for, other than the comments, if not to click on the links to the stories behind the headlines? Click bait kind of implies the article is about nothing and that's certainly not the case here... well, in my opinion anyway.
I'll will add, my main skepticism about the article was regarding the following: "Devices can be built on ultrathin glass, plastics, and elastomers... So they could be used in flexible and wearable technologies." Hmm, 35nm airgaps in bendable materials - that sounds like a recipe for errors to me, and that's assuming they can solve the electrode tip melting problem. However, the timeline given in the article is, if not 'realistic', long enough that one cannot discount their ideas and short enough that it gives us something to look forward to. I for one will be interested to see how they progress!
Those aren't "security measures" -- this is most like intrusive techbros being techbros. "Security" would involve biometric authentication, possibly multi-factor.
^ Nail on the head! I'll just add: multi-factor should be different factors - something you have, something you know, and, if truly paranoid, something you 'are'.
This is no better than an ID card, other than the fact it's implanted -- it can still be cloned or otherwise spoofed.
Well, you can't inadvertently lose it or have it physically stolen, so in that sense it's better.
It is, however, worse in the sense that it will likely instill a false sense of security, while still being vulnerable to being cloned or spoofed.
I might be wrong, but what I took from GP's comment is that he, and various unnamed Scandinavians, disagree that what the Scandinavians have is 'Socialism', not that he's asserting that they're 'Communist'.
The reason I tend to support GP in this (while 'reserving' my right to disagree with anything else he has or might yet write) is that while what you have, politically, can easily be described as a social democracy the economies of all the Scandinavian countries are still very much structured according to capitalist principles - notably that the means of production are generally privately owned, not owned by the workers (unless they also happen to be shareholders of the company they work for). Like I say though, it's going to depend on your definitions and, as I've said before, increasingly we're all using the same words and meaning completely different things.
I might also be misconstruing GP's post, so take the above with a liberal pinch of salt...
Can the "goodwill" be sold to a new buyer without the other assets?... as an investor I always discount goodwill to zero whenever I'm examining a balance sheet.
Yes, it can be 'sold': Think franchises, brand and name licensing deals, and so on, that encourage future sales, by a different company, based on past perception of the original company. The increase in revenue (between two identical products, only one of which has widespread name recognition) is derived, literally, from the goodwill of the customers.
It is probably fair to say that much goodwill is overvalued on corporate balance sheets, but it, again probably, shouldn't be discounted entirely. The value calculation is very much going to depend on the corporation in question and, specifically, it's current management team and processes, and it's plans for the future. Determining this is generally thought of as part of due diligence, but clearly in your case you 'simplify' the process by zeroing this part out. In a sense this is the 'safe' option but you should be aware that in doing so, while you're limiting your risk, you are (in some cases grossly) undervaluing the companies you examine hence basically missing out on profitable investment opportunities.
And that's not even factoring in that he's a politician and therefore an inveterate liar by definition.
"They're about increasing the level of cynicism that citizens have toward all authorities, toward all of the institutions that are there to protect us as citizens."
I think you just validated his point quite nicely!
The 'understanding' that's considerably less clear is when, and in what manner, is it OK to make a pass at a colleague?
Never.
No, seriously. It's work. It's not a bar. Don't do it.
And yet, strangely, before internet dating the workplace was the location where most couples met.
Also, your fear exemplified by this anecdote:
Oh please... unless you work as a psychoanalyst don't give up the day job!
It has to be a pattern for it to be harassment.
Agreed! Harassment is a pattern of repeated unwanted behaviour. To most 'sensible' people what it is and isn't is not difficult or confusing, and yet we do see people confusing it. Hence the anecdote, and my incredulity at what was said.
So if you stupidly cast aside the advice above and ask, and she says "No", then don't try and get a date again.
This is not difficult or confusing. Attempts to portray it as difficult or confusing are attempts to find a loophole or excuse shitty behavior.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree as to whether asking a co-worker out on a date is stupid or not. I do agree that if one says no asking again is probably futile, and asking again almost certainly constitutes harassment. If anything though, the point of the anecdote was exactly the opposite of attempting to excuse shitty behaviour, unless you think that only men can behave badly, or engage in 'wrongthink'...
I'm pretty sure that there's several different ways for speciation to occur, but I'm equally sure I'm not really sure of all the details. The point of my original post was simply to question an assertion based on what I saw as false certitude.
As a prelude I'll just say that, by my understanding, findings over the last few decades have made the term 'species' rather vague, as we've discovered that individuals from different species can in fact interbreed, with the offspring being fertile (unlike for example the mule), and these offspring essentially form a new species on their own. Since the fact they can breed goes against one of the original tenets of what constitutes a species the terminology is proving to be... insufficient.
In the case of my suggested speciation due to epigenetics affecting 'vertical' gene transfer I'm not sure the result would be what you'd consider a classic ring species as this concept, I thought, involved a minimum of two endpoint populations that cannot interbreed and a subspecies that can breed with either end. If a subspecies descends from an extant single species there is no second endpoint, hence no ring. Hence I'm going to, hesitantly, say not really - at least not at first. Without a fairly non ambiguous speciation event I'm not sure how you'd reach the point of having ring species.
It is an interesting question though. I have long wondered if humankind hasn't been speciating (based on the inability of certain couples to have children). Perhaps the notion of ring species fits us better though. Well, I'm sure (a long) time will tell, if we manage to not kill ourselves for our differences first...
That was an awful lot of words to say nothing about whether or not epigenetics can cause speciation - which was the point I raised. And, again, you provide no evidence just your belief stated as fact.
The epigenetic effect does not come from the gene itself
No, indeed, epigenetic changes arise as a result of hormones (coded for by genes), non-coding RNA (produced from a DNA template), DNA methylation (caused by enzymes (DNMTs) within the cells), and probably other factors we have yet to discover. The fact they don't, necessarily, come from the gene they're modifying doesn't mean they don't come from genes however.
Now, in simple terms, since epigenetic changes have been associated with a change in mutation rates (hence increased cancer risk for some changes etc.) it logically follows that they can cause genetic changes, and that there is therefore a chance that these mutations can be passed on to the next generation. Since that is the basis of speciation it follows that epigenetics can contribute to speciation.
Also, what "feelings"? You're the only one to bring up feelings. Is that your tactic? Pre-emptively accuse someone of arguing from "feelings" so that you feel better about yourself and hopefully no one will pull you up on your embarassingly bad argument and your obvious ignorance to what Natural Selection actually is?
The reason I put 'feelings' in inverted commas was to differentiate them from facts, of which you gave none. Perhaps I'd have been better served by using the word 'opinion' as you seem to have been a tad triggered. That aside, as it happens, pretty much everybody argues from feelings first. The reasoning we use afterwards is simply a post hoc justification for what we already feel.
As for my "embarassingly (sic) bad argument" I didn't give much of an argument at all in my original post. Most of it was focused on questioning your assertion and asking whether you could back it up. I am very impressed you managed to divine my ignorance from the two lines I did write though, but I note you still failed to back up your position - at all.
I confess I haven't read the article - for topics like this it's the comments that inspire the largest laughs. Having said that, and sorry to interject a 'modicum' of reason, I thought the topic was sexual harassment not sexual assault. So...
It's nothing more than the old "She was asking for it" canard, so, yes, I believe that he DID say that.
"That" being it's "OK to grab anything", no, he didn't say that. He said nothing about what the 'man' did, he merely commented on the deliberated allure of the women. It's still perhaps a rather 'self-centered caveman' attitude, as it completely ignores the distinct possibility that the women are dressing for themselves and gave no consideration to the effect it might have on men, but it is still a valid perspective.
It all boils down to What part of "Look but don't touch without permission" do you fail to understand?
Honestly I can't speak for the original poster but I'm pretty sure that ninety nine to the several nines percent of men understand and abide by this, even the mentally ill ones who disagree, if only out of fear not compassion, empathy, moral reasoning or understanding.
The 'understanding' that's considerably less clear is when, and in what manner, is it OK to make a pass at a colleague? The boundaries of social decorum are vague, and pretty damn wide when it comes to different people. I still remember watching a woman in an interview for a documentary on harassment, apparently oblivious to the irony, state that it's fine for a colleague you fancy to ask you out, but if a colleague you don't find attractive does so it's harassment. To my mind this is crazy talk, yet any number of people now seem to believe in this 'definition' of harassment. Given this it should come as no surprise that people have begun to strenuously push back against what might be seen as society's slide into collective madness.
(That they go too far in their reaction should also come as no surprise, but that's a discussion for another day).
I just wish we all, men and women (and unspecified others), would take a moment to see things from the other's perspective before the knee-jerk disagreement or 'violent' reaction. If the poles get much further apart lines are likely to snap, and the 'energy' released in that moment will cause unpredictable damage to society.
Slashdot Mirror
Good points.
But now you're ignoring a couple of other issues: If the price of your burgers jumps 50% will you really still sell the same number of them? If you raise your prices, hence your total sales, will you move up a(nother) tax bracket? If your tax bracket changes what's to stop a smaller company selling burgers at the lower price, undercutting you and taking your customers?
Of course perhaps a more pertinent question might be, why the emotive appeal? Apart from the fact that I'm not responsible for grandpa's investment decisions, and the fact that the targeted tax is intended to strengthen the industries being taxed by providing them with better workers, hence increasing their revenues, profits and dividends, no company should be insulated from the market or the regulatory environment based on who is invested in it.
If you're really worried about Grandma & Grandpa's retirement perhaps some of your tax revenue could go towards providing a national pension scheme ... we could call it Social Security or something...
Let's make this simple.
You own a Burger Joint.
Taxes today for a $5 burger is 10%
Customer pays $5.50 for that burger.
Taxes tomorrow for a $5 burger is 15%
Customer now pays $5.75 for that burger.
Those that cheer for taxes like this, is like the customer cheering that their burger just went up 25 cents. Hurray for you, your senators thank you for your gullibility! They will happily take 20 cents of that 25 and give it to their cronies... D or R it matters not.
The manufacturing cost of a burger (including fixed costs to simply the point) is $4, and your burger joint sells 1000 burgers per financial year.
Burger sells for $5, excluding sales tax at whatever rate you set it -> profit before (corporation) tax of $1000 dollars.
Corporation tax @ 40% -> net profit of $600, which can be distributed as dividends back to the shareholder. tax of $400 which can be redistributed.
Corporation tax @ 60% -> net profit of $400, which can be distributed as dividends back to the shareholder. tax of $600 which can be redistributed.
Not all taxes are the same, not all taxes 'incentivise' in the same way. Conflating sales tax with corporation tax is woolly thinking of the highest order.
I can't remember where or when I first heard this - it was a long time ago - but it's a toss up between congenital laziness and 'belief' in the 'wisdom of wives' that accounts for my casual attitude towards cleaning / a little bit of dirt.
"A child that hasn't eaten their weight in dirt by the time they're two won't make it past five"
Any chance you could cite the relevant legislation or case law to back this assertion up, please?
Pretty much every EULA I've ever read has within it a section that contains the following (or similar):
"If any provision of this EULA is unenforceable, such provision will be changed and interpreted to accomplish the objectives of such provision to the greatest extent possible under applicable law and the remaining provisions will continue in full force and effect. "
That's on top of provisions that state something along the lines of:
"The disclaimers, exclusions, and limitations of liability under this EULA will not apply to the extent prohibited or limited by applicable law. Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion of implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages or other rights, so those provisions of this EULA may not apply to you.
It seems to me, although I'd happily admit I have no idea whether these would hold up in court (a bit like the halting problem, need to run it to see if / when it stops), that they've covered the base you seem so sure of...
Isn't the nature of the screen time tantamount (sic)? If the kid spends his screen time reading books, watching lectures, and discussing thought provoking content, isn't that obviously going to have a very different effect compared to scrolling through instagram all day?
While I suspect that most people will intuitively agree with your question / assertion, I'm not sure that the 'value judgements' that will almost certainly follow will necessarily hold water. You're also brushing over an equally valid question which is: Is the effect of reading paper books or attending a live lecture in person identical to the effect of reading the same book in electronic form or watching a video of the same lecture?
In her book,Mind Change, Susan Greenfield relates that the electronic forms of learning are, or at least tend to be, less effective than learning gained otherwise. This always made a certain amount of sense to me because of the way our brains seem to 'tag' memories, allowing access to them via various different routes. If, for example, all our reading is done on the same computer we're missing out on the 'physical' memories of the books (colour, size, weight, texture, location, smell, etc.) so we can no longer rely on them as individual keys to access the remembered content of those various books, we just have the one key trying to link to all the books we read on that device. Furthermore it's highly likely that we lose a physical sense of location within the books where a particular piece of information was first read. Weaker links lead to weaker memories, and weaker memories are less likely to be retained over time, at least without refreshing, hence strengthening, them.
In fairness, having linked to her book, I feel I should probably also link to a critique of her work and stated opinions, not only in the interests of balance, but also because it's easy to become blinded by what we believe to be true to the point that we no longer question that belief.
Your statement / question seems to me to run a very real risk of falling into this category of belief.
Thanks for the informative reply - although, and this is not intended as a dig at you, the usage of 'fraudulent' and 'defrauded' within the charges strikes me as stretching the definition of fraud somewhat. I had been under the impression that the charges were based on actions taken after Trump had torn up Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, rather than any actions taken prior to that point.
It will be 'interesting' to see how this plays out, both in the US and on the international stage.
I've not seen that site before.
Thank you!
If China does not want their international-criminal citizens to be arrested ...
Pretend I've been asleep for a few years.
Could you please explain to me, in what way is she an international criminal?
Markets are the only foundation for society, economy and democracy.
Rules, and the ability to enforce them, are the foundation of (a successful and civil) society, and everything that follows from it. A stable society is what allows markets to function, and strict property rights are what encourages innovation, investment, and hence the growth of markets.
You have things completely backwards!
Leaving aside the snide digs and cynicism, you do make a very good point, one which has been troubling me of late - albeit more in relation to the various governmental promises to phase out ICE engines in favour of electric cars, buses, etc.
While electrical power consumption has been relatively flat, across the EU at least, over the last decade, as increased efficiencies counteract increased sources of demand, I'm not sure I've seen credible plans for increasing power generation (anywhere near) to the point where we can actually 'fuel' this new fleet of green vehicles.
However, with a clear mandate on time frame and direction, it's possible this will be 'solved' by 'the market'. I'm just not sure what the cost of that solution would be.
It's a passenger airplane. 650 miles is basically useless.
The distance from London to Glasgow, to give just one commonly traveled route, is about 420 miles, and the estimated driving time between the two is just over 7 hours.
In other words this place would very easily fill the role of carrying business passengers (or MP's, or...) between the two, with fewer carbon emissions, in less than a quarter of the time it would otherwise take. Another advantage is that we're talking about a small aircraft, meaning it can take off from, and land at, smaller, regional, airfields.
That you cannot see a use-case for the aircraft says more about your imagination or experience of the world than it does about the actual utility of the vehicle.
Thank you, that was a useful reply. (And sorry it took me so long to say so - took a couple of days away from the internet.)
My concern, if you can call it such, wasn't so much about fracturing though as it was about uneven bending between the electrodes bridging the gap. I have been led to believe that materials at this scale can behave slightly more unpredictably, presumably partly because of the relative proportions of (im)perfectly ordered atoms at small vs large scale, so either your materials manufacturing has to be that much more precise or there will be more errors. Having said that I'm not sure if we can 'grow' regular metal crystals in the same way we grow silicon for the current generation of chips, which would, presumably, mostly solve any irregularity problem.
You do also make a fair point about the headline, though another way of looking at it would be that the question was aimed at us, rather than implying the article answered it. tbh I don't really care much either way - I was mostly just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Capitalism without any sort or moral structure destroys itself.
That would be in a similar way to which a nuclear bomb destroys itself.
Likewise the damage is not limited to the bomb...
Why do Slashdot editors insist on making headlines into questions that aren't answered in the article?
Perhaps they were hoping to stimulate a discussion between knowledgeable posters, one which weighed the pros and cons of this new (take on) tech, and perhaps arrived at an answer to that question. They might also touch on other, unasked, questions such as whether such tech is desirable, and what we might use it for - something a couple of people have attempted.
The story is, "Researchers believe new metal-air transistors could continue Moore's Law". It isn't a debate on this belief of those researchers.
"It", whatever "it" might be, may not be a debate about the belief of the researchers but if not it's almost certainly a debate about the reasons for their belief. I'd suspect most people who browse here would instinctively fill in the blanks: most, not all - there's always a few who come here to find something to be outraged about, and they can usually find something, then rage about it, while contributing absolutely zero to the discussion.
Oh, wait - this is a click bait tactic used to make something seem more interesting than it really is...
I'm sorry you find this story about new technology uninteresting. Leaving aside the possible reasons for that, one still has to wonder at your expectations when you label the summary as 'click bait'. What do you think people come here for, other than the comments, if not to click on the links to the stories behind the headlines? Click bait kind of implies the article is about nothing and that's certainly not the case here ... well, in my opinion anyway.
I'll will add, my main skepticism about the article was regarding the following: "Devices can be built on ultrathin glass, plastics, and elastomers... So they could be used in flexible and wearable technologies." Hmm, 35nm airgaps in bendable materials - that sounds like a recipe for errors to me, and that's assuming they can solve the electrode tip melting problem. However, the timeline given in the article is, if not 'realistic', long enough that one cannot discount their ideas and short enough that it gives us something to look forward to. I for one will be interested to see how they progress!
Those aren't "security measures" -- this is most like intrusive techbros being techbros. "Security" would involve biometric authentication, possibly multi-factor.
^ Nail on the head! I'll just add: multi-factor should be different factors - something you have, something you know, and, if truly paranoid, something you 'are'.
This is no better than an ID card, other than the fact it's implanted -- it can still be cloned or otherwise spoofed.
Well, you can't inadvertently lose it or have it physically stolen, so in that sense it's better.
It is, however, worse in the sense that it will likely instill a false sense of security, while still being vulnerable to being cloned or spoofed.
As the AC above me pointed out the name comes from Scottish folklore.
Not sure where you get your translation from.
Damn mods should probably do a little fact checking before they rate 'stuff they read on the internet' as informative...
I might be wrong, but what I took from GP's comment is that he, and various unnamed Scandinavians, disagree that what the Scandinavians have is 'Socialism', not that he's asserting that they're 'Communist'.
As it happens I agree, though of course the debate can be likened to the 'no true Scotsman' argument, as "There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them".
The reason I tend to support GP in this (while 'reserving' my right to disagree with anything else he has or might yet write) is that while what you have, politically, can easily be described as a social democracy the economies of all the Scandinavian countries are still very much structured according to capitalist principles - notably that the means of production are generally privately owned, not owned by the workers (unless they also happen to be shareholders of the company they work for). Like I say though, it's going to depend on your definitions and, as I've said before, increasingly we're all using the same words and meaning completely different things.
I might also be misconstruing GP's post, so take the above with a liberal pinch of salt...
Can the "goodwill" be sold to a new buyer without the other assets?... as an investor I always discount goodwill to zero whenever I'm examining a balance sheet.
Yes, it can be 'sold': Think franchises, brand and name licensing deals, and so on, that encourage future sales, by a different company, based on past perception of the original company. The increase in revenue (between two identical products, only one of which has widespread name recognition) is derived, literally, from the goodwill of the customers.
It is probably fair to say that much goodwill is overvalued on corporate balance sheets, but it, again probably, shouldn't be discounted entirely. The value calculation is very much going to depend on the corporation in question and, specifically, it's current management team and processes, and it's plans for the future. Determining this is generally thought of as part of due diligence, but clearly in your case you 'simplify' the process by zeroing this part out. In a sense this is the 'safe' option but you should be aware that in doing so, while you're limiting your risk, you are (in some cases grossly) undervaluing the companies you examine hence basically missing out on profitable investment opportunities.
And that's not even factoring in that he's a politician and therefore an inveterate liar by definition.
"They're about increasing the level of cynicism that citizens have toward all authorities, toward all of the institutions that are there to protect us as citizens."
I think you just validated his point quite nicely!
No witnesses, no evidence? Why should the *company* then do something about it?
Presumably they'd at least 'want' to speak to those involved and log the report, even if the claim is unverifiable.
In this way they'd become aware that repeat incidents, should they occur, were at least repeats, as opposed to an (alleged) isolated case.
Hard to spot patterns of (mis)behaviour by your employees if there's no institutional memory...
The 'understanding' that's considerably less clear is when, and in what manner, is it OK to make a pass at a colleague?
Never.
No, seriously. It's work. It's not a bar. Don't do it.
And yet, strangely, before internet dating the workplace was the location where most couples met.
Also, your fear exemplified by this anecdote:
Oh please... unless you work as a psychoanalyst don't give up the day job!
It has to be a pattern for it to be harassment.
Agreed! Harassment is a pattern of repeated unwanted behaviour. To most 'sensible' people what it is and isn't is not difficult or confusing, and yet we do see people confusing it. Hence the anecdote, and my incredulity at what was said.
So if you stupidly cast aside the advice above and ask, and she says "No", then don't try and get a date again.
This is not difficult or confusing. Attempts to portray it as difficult or confusing are attempts to find a loophole or excuse shitty behavior.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree as to whether asking a co-worker out on a date is stupid or not. I do agree that if one says no asking again is probably futile, and asking again almost certainly constitutes harassment. If anything though, the point of the anecdote was exactly the opposite of attempting to excuse shitty behaviour, unless you think that only men can behave badly, or engage in 'wrongthink'...
I'm pretty sure that there's several different ways for speciation to occur, but I'm equally sure I'm not really sure of all the details. The point of my original post was simply to question an assertion based on what I saw as false certitude.
As a prelude I'll just say that, by my understanding, findings over the last few decades have made the term 'species' rather vague, as we've discovered that individuals from different species can in fact interbreed, with the offspring being fertile (unlike for example the mule), and these offspring essentially form a new species on their own. Since the fact they can breed goes against one of the original tenets of what constitutes a species the terminology is proving to be ... insufficient.
In the case of my suggested speciation due to epigenetics affecting 'vertical' gene transfer I'm not sure the result would be what you'd consider a classic ring species as this concept, I thought, involved a minimum of two endpoint populations that cannot interbreed and a subspecies that can breed with either end. If a subspecies descends from an extant single species there is no second endpoint, hence no ring. Hence I'm going to, hesitantly, say not really - at least not at first. Without a fairly non ambiguous speciation event I'm not sure how you'd reach the point of having ring species.
It is an interesting question though. I have long wondered if humankind hasn't been speciating (based on the inability of certain couples to have children). Perhaps the notion of ring species fits us better though. Well, I'm sure (a long) time will tell, if we manage to not kill ourselves for our differences first...
That was an awful lot of words to say nothing about whether or not epigenetics can cause speciation - which was the point I raised. And, again, you provide no evidence just your belief stated as fact.
The epigenetic effect does not come from the gene itself
No, indeed, epigenetic changes arise as a result of hormones (coded for by genes), non-coding RNA (produced from a DNA template), DNA methylation (caused by enzymes (DNMTs) within the cells), and probably other factors we have yet to discover. The fact they don't, necessarily, come from the gene they're modifying doesn't mean they don't come from genes however.
Now, in simple terms, since epigenetic changes have been associated with a change in mutation rates (hence increased cancer risk for some changes etc.) it logically follows that they can cause genetic changes, and that there is therefore a chance that these mutations can be passed on to the next generation. Since that is the basis of speciation it follows that epigenetics can contribute to speciation.
Also, what "feelings"? You're the only one to bring up feelings. Is that your tactic? Pre-emptively accuse someone of arguing from "feelings" so that you feel better about yourself and hopefully no one will pull you up on your embarassingly bad argument and your obvious ignorance to what Natural Selection actually is?
The reason I put 'feelings' in inverted commas was to differentiate them from facts, of which you gave none. Perhaps I'd have been better served by using the word 'opinion' as you seem to have been a tad triggered. That aside, as it happens, pretty much everybody argues from feelings first. The reasoning we use afterwards is simply a post hoc justification for what we already feel.
As for my "embarassingly (sic) bad argument" I didn't give much of an argument at all in my original post. Most of it was focused on questioning your assertion and asking whether you could back it up. I am very impressed you managed to divine my ignorance from the two lines I did write though, but I note you still failed to back up your position - at all.
Care to try again?
I confess I haven't read the article - for topics like this it's the comments that inspire the largest laughs. Having said that, and sorry to interject a 'modicum' of reason, I thought the topic was sexual harassment not sexual assault. So...
It's nothing more than the old "She was asking for it" canard, so, yes, I believe that he DID say that.
"That" being it's "OK to grab anything", no, he didn't say that. He said nothing about what the 'man' did, he merely commented on the deliberated allure of the women. It's still perhaps a rather 'self-centered caveman' attitude, as it completely ignores the distinct possibility that the women are dressing for themselves and gave no consideration to the effect it might have on men, but it is still a valid perspective.
It all boils down to What part of "Look but don't touch without permission" do you fail to understand?
Honestly I can't speak for the original poster but I'm pretty sure that ninety nine to the several nines percent of men understand and abide by this, even the mentally ill ones who disagree, if only out of fear not compassion, empathy, moral reasoning or understanding.
The 'understanding' that's considerably less clear is when, and in what manner, is it OK to make a pass at a colleague? The boundaries of social decorum are vague, and pretty damn wide when it comes to different people. I still remember watching a woman in an interview for a documentary on harassment, apparently oblivious to the irony, state that it's fine for a colleague you fancy to ask you out, but if a colleague you don't find attractive does so it's harassment. To my mind this is crazy talk, yet any number of people now seem to believe in this 'definition' of harassment. Given this it should come as no surprise that people have begun to strenuously push back against what might be seen as society's slide into collective madness.
(That they go too far in their reaction should also come as no surprise, but that's a discussion for another day).
I just wish we all, men and women (and unspecified others), would take a moment to see things from the other's perspective before the knee-jerk disagreement or 'violent' reaction. If the poles get much further apart lines are likely to snap, and the 'energy' released in that moment will cause unpredictable damage to society.