Competition is the nature of...everything. Evolution advances by death, not by the happy cooperation of people skipping under rainbows.
I think what you're identifying is the fact that yes, while a few people thrive on competition, most of us don't want it; nevertheless, it is an irrefutable fact.
"Toxic air causes 40,000 early deaths a year in the UK"
This is the sort of statistic that I've seen for 40 years in the news that I've never- ever- seen a reporter push back on.
As opposed realistically to...what?
As opposed to the perfectly clean no-brake-dust air of the HORSE era?
The only way those supposed 40k deaths would be avoided would be to breath in this hypothetically utopian air that is perfectly clean - which nobody ever has.
I mean sure, I get that you have an app for scanning barcodes or other phone/tablet functions. I'm talking about apps for Pandora, or Delta airlines, IMDB, Amazon, etc.
We have the internet. We have the web atop the internet, to provide a flexible and consistent UI for access of internet content. Why do I need to have separate apps for every bloody thing in 2017? It's like going back to the days of DOS where I had to have a separate program for anything I want to accomplish.
The very idea that a company spends $5 BILLION on its headquarters should speak volumes about conspicuous consumption, ostentation, and Apple. (And the fact that we're celebrating it not finding it abhorrent should be a comment on our society, generally.)
In 2017 dollars, the Pentagon (for years the worlds largest office building, not sure if it is today; more than 2x the size of Apple's building in square feet houses 26000 workers vs Apples 12000 - so it's not like Apple's staff are getting huge offices) would have cost around $1.4 billion.
""outer space is not subject to national appropriation by..." (list methods)
NATIONAL.
The treaty prohibits NATIONAL appropriation.
There's nothing there that says Exxon or Apple or Google can't land on it and say it's theirs.
Defending that claim would be more complicated.
Individual property rights are more or less rooted in the grounds of basic jurisdictional national sovereignty - ie a person can only own land in country X because country X allows it. Essentially, the state 'wrapper' says that the state's machinery of law will defend a person's exclusive single ownership of that space based on their rules.
Outside of national territory, you can claim ownership of any property - indeed, there are pretty ample historical precedents for doing so based on getting there first, occupying it first, etc - but in practical terms there's nothing preventing anyone ELSE from making the same claim except your own willingness to do violence to defend it. Which of course invites (or predicts) that they should be ready to employ violence to take it over. Thus... the messy nature of reality.
Google can claim asteroid 123456. Then so can Apple. Then they can either coexist on it (which sort of defeats the point of 'claiming' it in the first place), or fight each other for it. Lacking a legal venue in which to have said battle, they'd pretty much only have the classic method.
Not the FEDERAL government, certainly. States can enact policies supported by their individual populations however.
People aren't MANDATED to live in rural areas. If they do, one of the 'sacrifices' they have to make is shitty internet service.
I'm reminded of the bullshit limousine liberals who moved out to western Montana for the low prices, splendid vistas, lack of congestion, and privacy...and then bitched the first winter because the power occasionally went out and nobody came to clear the snow from their 2 mile driveways.
Life's a series of tradeoffs. It's not the federal government's role to build safety nets for people.
I've always wondered how advertising justifies its spending, never moreso than in the internet era.
Personally, I believe the internet would be well served by a drop in advertising revenue by a couple of orders of magnitude. Many,, many people who make their living mysteriously "on the internet" would of course have to get real jobs.
Natural processes emit and absorb about 440 gigatons of CO2. I assume that's the pollutant you're talking about, since you invoked Global Warming. Humans? About 5% of that.
The assertion that a 5 BILLION year old complex system, which has sustained MUCH higher and lower temperatures, and whose primary components (such as solar activity, Milankovitch cycles, vulcanism (and/or plate tectonics, depending on the scale you're talking about), topological and ecosystemic changes, albedo changes (both natural and anthropogenic), etc) are several orders of magnitude more impactful than even James Hansen's worst CO2 fever-dreams, somehow survived all those changes and yet now happens to have ended up balanced on such a precarious knife-edge of inputs and outputs that not only is the teensy input of CO2 meaningful, but the whole system is so narrowly sensitive that the human bits - barely 5% - will prove the tipping-point that wrecks it all.
(This, of course, sets aside as a entirely begged question that the system is, was, or ever shall be stable. Unless you're deeply relgious (hmmm?) there's no compelling reason that this system has found some sort of magical Goldilocks of perpetual bliss that shall continue in perpetuity until the sun expands and consumes this rocky planetoid.
I'd laugh, if I wasn't crying that people actually believe this.
If global warming is a thing, either it will get wetter or it will get drier. If it gets drier, of course drought, sky falling, etc as per the news in California for the last couple of years. If it gets wetter, as this article asserts, it will be terrible for all sorts of reasons.
It's a perfect theory: no matter what happens, it can be interpreted to be bad, and it's humans' fault.
It used to be that the weather just changed, and we didn't try to blame anyone for it.
If you think being a fighter pilot doesn't involve sheer physical strength to fight the effects of G forces, you don't really know what you're talking about?
Besides, I doubt too many more generations of planes will even have PILOTS much less care about their undercarriage.
While I fully believe that football does lead to increased brain trauma (as a football player myself), let's keep note that: - the 'donated' brains were almost all donated specifically because they'd exhibited issues which led people to suspect such trauma. - even the cross-sport study again seems to have been on subjects which exhibited symptoms that would suggest brain trauma.
At this point I haven't seen a cross section of people who DIDN'T exhibit such symptoms; certainly it's possible that *any* people that played athletics intensively in pretty nearly any sport from basketball to soccer to racquetball may also exhibit such trauma even though they don't outwardly display symptoms. I believe it's absolutely likely that ongoing football participation makes such trauma more likely and more likely to be severe, certainly, but it's also possible that most reasonably-athletic-at-one-time adults also have some small levels.
Let's see a single electric semi-truck (lorry) or construction vehicle before we make this categorical switch, shall we?
In any case, I find it amusing that this is being declared 'groundbreaking'....apparently France doesn't exist in their universe: https://www.theguardian.com/bu... (France declared the SAME policy weeks ago.)
This is fairly disingenuous: yes, of course many homosexuals were drafted (and probably transgenders, although that as a legitimate CONCEPT and not a mental illness is relatively new) but in fact one of the few ways to actually successfully avoid the draft was to credibly convince your draft board that you were gay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "The United States military had a long-standing policy that service members found to be homosexual or to have engaged in homosexual conduct were to be court-martialed for sodomy, imprisoned and dishonorably discharged. However, with the mobilization of troops following the United States' entry into World War II, it became impractical to convene court-martial boards of commissioned officers and some commanders began issuing administrative discharges instead. Several waves of reform addressing the handling of homosexuals in the military resulted in a 1944 policy directive that called for homosexuals to be committed to military hospitals, examined by psychiatrists, and discharged under Regulation 615-360, section 8 as "unfit for service".[4] It is unknown exactly how many gay and lesbian service members were given blue discharges under this regulation, but in 1946 the Army estimated that it had issued between 49,000 and 68,000 blue discharges, with approximately 5,000 of them issued to homosexuals, while the Navy's estimates of blue-discharge homosexuals was around 4,000. The period of time covered by these estimates is unclear.[5]"
Hell, this continued well into Korea and even Vietnam, thus the schtick of Klinger and his constant attempt at Section 8 discharge in the popular TV show M*A*S*H.
So to suggest that "the army goes ahead and drafts LGBTs when they need them" is misleading at best. Historically, even during the draft LGBTs were considered at the very least insane and rejected from service if recognized as such.
Remember the entire motivation behind electronic voting was because Florida Democrats were deemed too stupid to handle paper ballots. This "tragedy" cost Mr Gore the election.
The 'proper' person didn't win, ergo, the system 'must be' broken.
Like many theoretical exercises in logic, if you begin with such premises the rest make perfect sense.
No, two doctors ago I said that the next doctor, and the following doctor would be white men, but subsequently the BBC would have to cave to the SJW lobby and (if Dr Who was continuing) the following one would be female. I'm posting my newest prediction here for retrieval & vindication when the subsequent doctors are as predicted.
Slashdot Mirror
Competition is the nature of...everything.
Evolution advances by death, not by the happy cooperation of people skipping under rainbows.
I think what you're identifying is the fact that yes, while a few people thrive on competition, most of us don't want it; nevertheless, it is an irrefutable fact.
...World of Warcraft is far more stable than Venezuela today.
"Toxic air causes 40,000 early deaths a year in the UK"
This is the sort of statistic that I've seen for 40 years in the news that I've never- ever- seen a reporter push back on.
As opposed realistically to...what?
As opposed to the perfectly clean no-brake-dust air of the HORSE era?
The only way those supposed 40k deaths would be avoided would be to breath in this hypothetically utopian air that is perfectly clean - which nobody ever has.
I don't really "get" apps in the FIRST place.
I mean sure, I get that you have an app for scanning barcodes or other phone/tablet functions. I'm talking about apps for Pandora, or Delta airlines, IMDB, Amazon, etc.
We have the internet.
We have the web atop the internet, to provide a flexible and consistent UI for access of internet content.
Why do I need to have separate apps for every bloody thing in 2017? It's like going back to the days of DOS where I had to have a separate program for anything I want to accomplish.
The very idea that a company spends $5 BILLION on its headquarters should speak volumes about conspicuous consumption, ostentation, and Apple. (And the fact that we're celebrating it not finding it abhorrent should be a comment on our society, generally.)
In 2017 dollars, the Pentagon (for years the worlds largest office building, not sure if it is today; more than 2x the size of Apple's building in square feet houses 26000 workers vs Apples 12000 - so it's not like Apple's staff are getting huge offices) would have cost around $1.4 billion.
...does this work on someone browsing in incognito mode??!?!??!?!?!??!!?
Asking for a friend.
""outer space is not subject to national appropriation by..." (list methods)
NATIONAL.
The treaty prohibits NATIONAL appropriation.
There's nothing there that says Exxon or Apple or Google can't land on it and say it's theirs.
Defending that claim would be more complicated.
Individual property rights are more or less rooted in the grounds of basic jurisdictional national sovereignty - ie a person can only own land in country X because country X allows it. Essentially, the state 'wrapper' says that the state's machinery of law will defend a person's exclusive single ownership of that space based on their rules.
Outside of national territory, you can claim ownership of any property - indeed, there are pretty ample historical precedents for doing so based on getting there first, occupying it first, etc - but in practical terms there's nothing preventing anyone ELSE from making the same claim except your own willingness to do violence to defend it. Which of course invites (or predicts) that they should be ready to employ violence to take it over. Thus... the messy nature of reality.
Google can claim asteroid 123456. Then so can Apple. Then they can either coexist on it (which sort of defeats the point of 'claiming' it in the first place), or fight each other for it. Lacking a legal venue in which to have said battle, they'd pretty much only have the classic method.
Not the FEDERAL government, certainly. States can enact policies supported by their individual populations however.
People aren't MANDATED to live in rural areas.
If they do, one of the 'sacrifices' they have to make is shitty internet service.
I'm reminded of the bullshit limousine liberals who moved out to western Montana for the low prices, splendid vistas, lack of congestion, and privacy...and then bitched the first winter because the power occasionally went out and nobody came to clear the snow from their 2 mile driveways.
Life's a series of tradeoffs. It's not the federal government's role to build safety nets for people.
I've always wondered how advertising justifies its spending, never moreso than in the internet era.
Personally, I believe the internet would be well served by a drop in advertising revenue by a couple of orders of magnitude. Many,, many people who make their living mysteriously "on the internet" would of course have to get real jobs.
Natural processes emit and absorb about 440 gigatons of CO2. I assume that's the pollutant you're talking about, since you invoked Global Warming.
Humans? About 5% of that.
The assertion that a 5 BILLION year old complex system, which has sustained MUCH higher and lower temperatures, and whose primary components (such as solar activity, Milankovitch cycles, vulcanism (and/or plate tectonics, depending on the scale you're talking about), topological and ecosystemic changes, albedo changes (both natural and anthropogenic), etc) are several orders of magnitude more impactful than even James Hansen's worst CO2 fever-dreams, somehow survived all those changes and yet now happens to have ended up balanced on such a precarious knife-edge of inputs and outputs that not only is the teensy input of CO2 meaningful, but the whole system is so narrowly sensitive that the human bits - barely 5% - will prove the tipping-point that wrecks it all.
(This, of course, sets aside as a entirely begged question that the system is, was, or ever shall be stable. Unless you're deeply relgious (hmmm?) there's no compelling reason that this system has found some sort of magical Goldilocks of perpetual bliss that shall continue in perpetuity until the sun expands and consumes this rocky planetoid.
I'd laugh, if I wasn't crying that people actually believe this.
You know, we give the OPs a lot of crap for non-tech, repetitive, political news.
But that has to be one of the best title/article postings in years.
"Calibri Font Plays Its Role: Pakistan Now Sans Sharif"
Well played, sir/madam.
Actually, it's a pretty convenient theory.
If global warming is a thing, either it will get wetter or it will get drier.
If it gets drier, of course drought, sky falling, etc as per the news in California for the last couple of years.
If it gets wetter, as this article asserts, it will be terrible for all sorts of reasons.
It's a perfect theory: no matter what happens, it can be interpreted to be bad, and it's humans' fault.
It used to be that the weather just changed, and we didn't try to blame anyone for it.
I find it strange that they had 3 children while being so economically insufficient.
Does nobody actually plan anything seriously any more?
If you think being a fighter pilot doesn't involve sheer physical strength to fight the effects of G forces, you don't really know what you're talking about?
Besides, I doubt too many more generations of planes will even have PILOTS much less care about their undercarriage.
While I fully believe that football does lead to increased brain trauma (as a football player myself), let's keep note that:
- the 'donated' brains were almost all donated specifically because they'd exhibited issues which led people to suspect such trauma.
- even the cross-sport study again seems to have been on subjects which exhibited symptoms that would suggest brain trauma.
At this point I haven't seen a cross section of people who DIDN'T exhibit such symptoms; certainly it's possible that *any* people that played athletics intensively in pretty nearly any sport from basketball to soccer to racquetball may also exhibit such trauma even though they don't outwardly display symptoms. I believe it's absolutely likely that ongoing football participation makes such trauma more likely and more likely to be severe, certainly, but it's also possible that most reasonably-athletic-at-one-time adults also have some small levels.
Cars are tough enough.
Let's see a single electric semi-truck (lorry) or construction vehicle before we make this categorical switch, shall we?
In any case, I find it amusing that this is being declared 'groundbreaking'....apparently France doesn't exist in their universe: https://www.theguardian.com/bu...
(France declared the SAME policy weeks ago.)
This is fairly disingenuous: yes, of course many homosexuals were drafted (and probably transgenders, although that as a legitimate CONCEPT and not a mental illness is relatively new) but in fact one of the few ways to actually successfully avoid the draft was to credibly convince your draft board that you were gay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The United States military had a long-standing policy that service members found to be homosexual or to have engaged in homosexual conduct were to be court-martialed for sodomy, imprisoned and dishonorably discharged. However, with the mobilization of troops following the United States' entry into World War II, it became impractical to convene court-martial boards of commissioned officers and some commanders began issuing administrative discharges instead. Several waves of reform addressing the handling of homosexuals in the military resulted in a 1944 policy directive that called for homosexuals to be committed to military hospitals, examined by psychiatrists, and discharged under Regulation 615-360, section 8 as "unfit for service".[4] It is unknown exactly how many gay and lesbian service members were given blue discharges under this regulation, but in 1946 the Army estimated that it had issued between 49,000 and 68,000 blue discharges, with approximately 5,000 of them issued to homosexuals, while the Navy's estimates of blue-discharge homosexuals was around 4,000. The period of time covered by these estimates is unclear.[5]"
Hell, this continued well into Korea and even Vietnam, thus the schtick of Klinger and his constant attempt at Section 8 discharge in the popular TV show M*A*S*H.
So to suggest that "the army goes ahead and drafts LGBTs when they need them" is misleading at best. Historically, even during the draft LGBTs were considered at the very least insane and rejected from service if recognized as such.
...when they do bad things, they still keep meticulous records about it.
Yes, of course, in Slashdot saying that you have to abide by your word is "-1 Troll"...
...if the roof has solar panels, where do most of the passengers sit?
I've been on Indian trains....the roof is a significant part of the carriage capacity.
Remember the entire motivation behind electronic voting was because Florida Democrats were deemed too stupid to handle paper ballots. This "tragedy" cost Mr Gore the election.
The 'proper' person didn't win, ergo, the system 'must be' broken.
Like many theoretical exercises in logic, if you begin with such premises the rest make perfect sense.
...don't SIGN a non compete.
If someone says "you must wear this silly hat to work here" it's my choice to say I either work there and wear the silly hat, or don't do either.
"But what if you NEED to sign the noncompete to have the job?"
Then that's a choice you make as a worker - either the job is worth it, or it isn't.
Your "safety net" is your OWN FREEDOM OF CHOICE.
AFAICT, the June patch(es) killed our ability to open PDFs or even links directly from Outlook.
Bit of a bitch going around manually uninstalling patch X to see if it helped (which seemed to only work about 40% of the time anyway).
No, two doctors ago I said that the next doctor, and the following doctor would be white men, but subsequently the BBC would have to cave to the SJW lobby and (if Dr Who was continuing) the following one would be female.
I'm posting my newest prediction here for retrieval & vindication when the subsequent doctors are as predicted.
Be careful what you wish for...so if YouTube stops playing music entirely, does that help or hurt musicians?
Exactly.