Income measured how? People get very creative with ways to hide their income the richer they become. Plus, you know, 10% of an income of $1,000 a month is generally the difference between eating and being evicted. 10% of an income of $100,000 a month is, at worst, nothing that can't be put on a credit card.
I'd prefer to see more use of community service. Fines, imprisonment, etc, have their place, but they're about the worst way to punish people for 90% of the crimes we punish people for.
I've had to get people together around a table before because sending an email or even asking people directly doesn't always result in effective answers. People ignore emails. And even if they know the answers they'll often not be confident enough to answer.
But that's not really the type of meeting they're talking about, there's a lot of value in a weekly - or even daily (if it's kept short, and that's the hard bit) status meeting. It's extremely easy to get isolated if you don't have that contact, even if you're in the office.
No no no, he meant change your Netflix password. Log into the Netflix site, and click on "Account -> Settings -> Privacy -> Privacy Settings 3 -> Security and Email -> Preferences -> Personalization -> Account Services -> Login -> Password -> Set password -> (Re-enter authentication credentials) -> Send password reset email", then follow the instructions.
Just change your Netflix password every time you visit and leave a hotel and there won't be any issue.
The annoying aspect of that is that you lose everything when the browser updates or machine reboots. I wish Firefox et al had something a little more flexible than a straight "Everything saved in this profile, nothing saved in this" thing, which, yes, helps with privacy, but not other applications.
You're describing a standard get-out-the-vote operation, the NC vote fraud scandal was not a get-out-the-vote operation and there's nothing wrong with encouraging people to vote.
It's arguable that you shouldn't. If it wasn't for the war on drugs, you probably wouldn't.
get a drivers license
No, you don't need an ID to get a driver's license, a driver's license is an ID. Which is one reason the system is unbalanced, it's already biased in favor of people who drive.
travel on public transportation
On planes, yes. On buses and trains, not so much.
and even load cash on prepaid credit cards in some venues
"in some venues". In other words, you don't.
There are multiple problems with voter ID, since you asked. One is that it's completely unnecessary - a simple list of people who have are eligible to vote at the station the list is kept at, where you cross of the names as people come in, is normal in other countries. The UK is not plagued by voter fraud, and that's exactly what it does. Couple this with mandatory, automatic, registration, and you're golden.
The second is that ID is one of many routes traditionally used to prevent people from voting. States are notorious for suddenly closing driver's license issuing offices in the middle of heavily black districts as soon as voter ID laws are passed or re-instated, for example. Governments happily use distrust of notoriously abusive law enforcement offices to discourage obtaining paperwork required for IDs.
Basically the more requirements you put on someone before they can vote, the more vectors you're creating for bad actors - and we know from experience bad actors exist - to prevent people from voting.
I guess they're trying to avoid the whole "I only use Microsoft's browser to download Chrome" thing by making Microsoft's browser Chrome so people feel silly doing that.
Yep, one thing America does really well is less common health care treatments for extremely rich people.
The cost of this is that ordinary shit like being taken by ambulance to an ER after you've gotten your leg crushed between a subway train and a subway platform is so ridiculously expensive for a non-superrich person that people suffering this will literally scream at bystanders not to call 911 for fear of bankruptcy.
But yeah, giving a rich elderly person who'll die soon anyway a few months extra to live makes that a price worth paying.
Yes, Brazil does, that was one of the first reforms their otherwise Trumpian new President introduced when he came into office. Brazil will also give you a credit of $1.99 towards a digital purchase if you decline the two day shipping offer.
Bolivia doesn't do it, but they will give you free supersaver shipping as long as you spend $25 or more.
Or maybe the Bezos entity could get ".prime", and rename itself (it's been pretty much rebranding everything as Prime lately. Amazon phones, Amazon streaming services including the ones for movies you've bought separately, etc...)
I think this article and yesterday's "End of the Desktop" BS are both reflective of the fact Google's announced this Stadia thing and most people don't understand what it's for or why it exists.
Put simply, there's no point in Stadia for Fallout 4, but there is for Fallout 76.
Why the difference? Stadia offers very little benefit to FO4, but creates huge hurdles such as the requirement for a high bandwidth, low latency, reliable Internet connection, and has Google et al paying through the nose for the hardware costs on their end. Meanwhile even a graphics card considered mid-range ten years ago (I know this from experience) will comfortably run FO4 in 1080P. I would imagine integrated graphics works fine with it today.
Fallout 76, on the other hand, requires that the game be controlled from afar. A low latency (albeit not necessarily high bandwidth) internet connection is required anyway. There's ongoing revenue that's proportional to the amount of traffic the operator generates.
The mistake is people thinking Stadia is for everything. It isn't. It's for a large, high profile, subset of games that's growing at the moment, where the revenue model and need for remote management makes sense. For everything else it's a complete waste of time and will make things worse.
Understand that and you understand that nothing the computer industry's Very Serious People are saying about Stadia makes sense, in fact it shows, as usual, that they're a bunch of morons.
YouTube is hardly unfriendly to independent musicians.
My guess is that this is all because YouTube is more popular as a music listening system. Why? Well, because Play Music is generally about music you've bought. A minority subscribe to the unlimited service (which competes with a million other unlimited services, including Prime Music), and, I guess, there's the "radio stations" that are free but aren't playing what you're asking for.
As if to add insult to injury, the UI isn't even good at doing what it's supposed to be best at. Want to search your music library for a particular song? There's a good chance it'll never find it, or point you at a paid for version that it won't even let you buy despite it being in your library. Play Music is one of the worst apps I've ever come across, and every reason why it's awful is something that they'd never retreat from because they put too much pride in inserting that crap into the app to begin with.
YouTube, by comparison, is "search for 'safety dance'", bam, it's there, you might have to watch an ad, but otherwise it doesn't matter if you've bought it or not. YouTube is the unlimited streaming music service that is available to everyone. And everyone's going for it.
So... Play Music is dying almost certainly because Play Music is shit, not because of any conspiracy. Any garage band can upload their music to YouTube, hell, anyone can upload anything to YouTube, with monetization as soon as your channel sees serious traffic, so arguing this is about the MAFIAA is ludicrous.
I agree, which is why I probably wouldn't have Jerry Falwell Jr on my ethics board. And that would be right, because most people would consider Jr to be far outside of the mainstream as to what constitutes ethics.
When you're building an ethics board, you're looking for people that most consider moral and ethical, and who share the same values as the entity forming the board, because your aim is to create a set of ethics that match those values. Inviting in people who don't hold those values will fundamentally undermine your ethics board, because you'll suddenly be getting demands it upholds rules that enforce a different set of morals and values, that may be in conflict with your own.
Diversity of opinion matters when you're on the same page about the core of what you're working on, but just as you wouldn't invite the Unibomber to work on the ANSI C standardization committee, you wouldn't ask Dick Cheney or a Clinton or Trump to work on your ethics committee.
Gen Xer here. Blackface during the 1980s was one of the most "politically incorrect" (or, you know, offensive) things you could do short of using the N word. It was so bad that when things relaxed a little during the 1990s, it was still considered a no-no.
I'm always a little surprised by people who think the 1980s was a time when anything went, it was the exact opposite. Everything was political. I have a horrible feeling Northram did it to disassociate himself with those arguing it was offensive, which doesn't suggest Northram's judgement is remotely adequate for his job.
Nobody's complaining Microsoft makes available updates. They're complaining that the update process is:
1. Mandatory, and usually starts when you least want it to happen
2. Often unreliable, frequently leaving the computer in an unstable state
3. Requires reboots almost all the time (by comparison only a kernel update requires a reboot with GNU/Linux distributions, and it's rare anyone needs to update the kernel)
4. Requires all updates be installed, the user can't choose to install only genuinely urgent updates
5. Even if (4) were fixed, the updates are poorly documented, with it being unclear what the fixes are.
Today, Google has shown with its Chrome OS that most of us can pretty much do anything we need to do on a computer with just a web browser.
That's not true, which is why Google has been trying to make ChromeOS more attractive by adding support for GNU/Linux and Android applications.
The bare minimum Chromebook was suitable for some uses, but very few people bought it to use as their primary computing environment. The fact Google is putting an enormous amount of work into making it a full desktop tells you that the basis of the article is... dubious.
Oh sure, Microsoft sees managed desktops as a thing, but I'd suggest the intended market are businesses, and even then most are going to balk at the concept of something that ceases to work if their extremely high bandwidth Internet connection goes down.
The Google streaming games thing also doesn't really factor into this... at all. That's something likely to replace consoles, not PCs. If consoles didn't kill PCs, why would Google's streaming efforts do that?
Australia is run by a Murdoch-backed right wing government. But don't let that stop you pretending it's the "left" because they want to take... uh your right to die outside a hospital you can't afford to use away.
Yeah I've yet to find anything that won't work on a Chromebook. A good 2 in 1 Chromebook is definitely a better Android tablet than an Android tablet right now.
It also has the benefit that it's encouraging Google to put in officially supported APIs for resizable apps. Everyone else's implementation is pretty much a hack.
That theory has been tested, newspapers switched for a time from Disqus/internal commenting systems to Facebook comments, and of course you can compare Facebook and Twitter. There doesn't seem to be much difference in practice between what people spew under their real name and what they do under a pseudonym. Facebook, in my experience, is actually more toxic than Twitter.
What the non-real name policies allows, which real names policies don't, is a modicum of freedom. I've had to sign company policies before severely restricting what I'm able to say on social media under my name, lest it be traced back to me, and then my employer. Given I want to be able to freely say "My boss was an ass today" from time to time (as does everyone) it's not hard to see how real names policies hurt people.
It's relatively easy for Torvalds to say whatever he wants. The lower on the ladder you are, the worse your options are. Moderation is a solution, and it's far more effective than forcing everyone to reveal their names.
Assuming the paper's argument is the case, does this mean the Decca Traps related extinctions wouldn't have happened, or would simply have occurred over a longer period of time? The other issue I have with this argument is that it makes it doesn't address the evidence extinctions were already happening pre-Chicxulub. That's actually the reason the Traps theory is still a thing, to explain why they were on-going at the time. So if the paper is right (and we don't see evidence that actually Dinos were doing find pre-Chicxulub, which is entirely possible I guess), then one of the following is also true:
1. There was a third catastrophic event occurring that hasn't been discussed.
2. It doesn't matter if most of the Decca Traps related atmospheric change occurred after Chicxulub, what happened before was enough.
I should point out I'm not married to either theory, I have a little bit of a distrust of the asteroid theory because it's a little too convenient (biggest roawwwwyist monsters ever destroyed by biggest fucking asteroid ever! - yeah, can't see why the same people that got into paleontology over the former would love the latter theory) and am inclined to think that the fact only four or so species of dinosaurs apparently survived, all birds, points at more than a big explosion. Chicxulub seems to be the biggest factor, but I don't automatically buy the idea that mammals, not dinosaurs, dominate the Earth today solely because of it, especially if we have compelling evidence of other major catastrophes occurring at the time.
The asteroid effectively ended the reign of the dinosaurs, worldwide.
She is one of a group of paleontologists who disputes that, that's the entire point she's trying to make. The view point you're expressing is exactly what she's criticizing.
Whether she's right or wrong... I don't know enough to tell. I do however question your certainty that dinosaurs wouldn't have been dominating the Earth after K-T if they weren't already in decline before the asteroid impact. The extinctions caused by the Deccan Traps may very well have lead to species disappearing that might have survived the impact, and might have dominated afterwards.
It's a little more complex than that. If the awards show represents the industry then it is a problem if they take action to prevent potential newcomers to the industry from taking part, if it'd make a material difference (and it does, Oscars bring in the cash, they're not just trophies a movie producer puts in a locked filing cabinet and forgets about) to their ability to compete.
In this case Spielberg wants the Academy to exclude studios that do not support theaters, and those theaters can make or break whether the studios currently under consideration continue to make profits. So while Spielberg may be making a (crappy, let's be honest) artistic argument (and that may be his primary motivation), the reality is that as a movie producer he has a financial interest in keeping Netflix out.
I'm fine with the DoJ putting the screws on here, and would be even if I didn't think Spielberg, Nolan, et al, aren't horribly out of touch.
Slashdot Mirror
Income measured how? People get very creative with ways to hide their income the richer they become. Plus, you know, 10% of an income of $1,000 a month is generally the difference between eating and being evicted. 10% of an income of $100,000 a month is, at worst, nothing that can't be put on a credit card.
I'd prefer to see more use of community service. Fines, imprisonment, etc, have their place, but they're about the worst way to punish people for 90% of the crimes we punish people for.
I've had to get people together around a table before because sending an email or even asking people directly doesn't always result in effective answers. People ignore emails. And even if they know the answers they'll often not be confident enough to answer.
But that's not really the type of meeting they're talking about, there's a lot of value in a weekly - or even daily (if it's kept short, and that's the hard bit) status meeting. It's extremely easy to get isolated if you don't have that contact, even if you're in the office.
No no no, he meant change your Netflix password. Log into the Netflix site, and click on "Account -> Settings -> Privacy -> Privacy Settings 3 -> Security and Email -> Preferences -> Personalization -> Account Services -> Login -> Password -> Set password -> (Re-enter authentication credentials) -> Send password reset email", then follow the instructions.
Just change your Netflix password every time you visit and leave a hotel and there won't be any issue.
The annoying aspect of that is that you lose everything when the browser updates or machine reboots. I wish Firefox et al had something a little more flexible than a straight "Everything saved in this profile, nothing saved in this" thing, which, yes, helps with privacy, but not other applications.
You're describing a standard get-out-the-vote operation, the NC vote fraud scandal was not a get-out-the-vote operation and there's nothing wrong with encouraging people to vote.
It's arguable that you shouldn't. If it wasn't for the war on drugs, you probably wouldn't.
No, you don't need an ID to get a driver's license, a driver's license is an ID. Which is one reason the system is unbalanced, it's already biased in favor of people who drive.
On planes, yes. On buses and trains, not so much.
"in some venues". In other words, you don't.
There are multiple problems with voter ID, since you asked. One is that it's completely unnecessary - a simple list of people who have are eligible to vote at the station the list is kept at, where you cross of the names as people come in, is normal in other countries. The UK is not plagued by voter fraud, and that's exactly what it does. Couple this with mandatory, automatic, registration, and you're golden.
The second is that ID is one of many routes traditionally used to prevent people from voting. States are notorious for suddenly closing driver's license issuing offices in the middle of heavily black districts as soon as voter ID laws are passed or re-instated, for example. Governments happily use distrust of notoriously abusive law enforcement offices to discourage obtaining paperwork required for IDs.
Basically the more requirements you put on someone before they can vote, the more vectors you're creating for bad actors - and we know from experience bad actors exist - to prevent people from voting.
That's the problem.
I guess they're trying to avoid the whole "I only use Microsoft's browser to download Chrome" thing by making Microsoft's browser Chrome so people feel silly doing that.
Yep, one thing America does really well is less common health care treatments for extremely rich people.
The cost of this is that ordinary shit like being taken by ambulance to an ER after you've gotten your leg crushed between a subway train and a subway platform is so ridiculously expensive for a non-superrich person that people suffering this will literally scream at bystanders not to call 911 for fear of bankruptcy.
But yeah, giving a rich elderly person who'll die soon anyway a few months extra to live makes that a price worth paying.
Yup. Plus, while this isn't the idea in TFA, some of Amazon's other airship/drone ideas are really... creepy?
Yes, Brazil does, that was one of the first reforms their otherwise Trumpian new President introduced when he came into office. Brazil will also give you a credit of $1.99 towards a digital purchase if you decline the two day shipping offer.
Bolivia doesn't do it, but they will give you free supersaver shipping as long as you spend $25 or more.
Or maybe the Bezos entity could get ".prime", and rename itself (it's been pretty much rebranding everything as Prime lately. Amazon phones, Amazon streaming services including the ones for movies you've bought separately, etc...)
I think this article and yesterday's "End of the Desktop" BS are both reflective of the fact Google's announced this Stadia thing and most people don't understand what it's for or why it exists.
Put simply, there's no point in Stadia for Fallout 4, but there is for Fallout 76.
Why the difference? Stadia offers very little benefit to FO4, but creates huge hurdles such as the requirement for a high bandwidth, low latency, reliable Internet connection, and has Google et al paying through the nose for the hardware costs on their end. Meanwhile even a graphics card considered mid-range ten years ago (I know this from experience) will comfortably run FO4 in 1080P. I would imagine integrated graphics works fine with it today.
Fallout 76, on the other hand, requires that the game be controlled from afar. A low latency (albeit not necessarily high bandwidth) internet connection is required anyway. There's ongoing revenue that's proportional to the amount of traffic the operator generates.
The mistake is people thinking Stadia is for everything. It isn't. It's for a large, high profile, subset of games that's growing at the moment, where the revenue model and need for remote management makes sense. For everything else it's a complete waste of time and will make things worse.
Understand that and you understand that nothing the computer industry's Very Serious People are saying about Stadia makes sense, in fact it shows, as usual, that they're a bunch of morons.
YouTube is hardly unfriendly to independent musicians.
My guess is that this is all because YouTube is more popular as a music listening system. Why? Well, because Play Music is generally about music you've bought. A minority subscribe to the unlimited service (which competes with a million other unlimited services, including Prime Music), and, I guess, there's the "radio stations" that are free but aren't playing what you're asking for.
As if to add insult to injury, the UI isn't even good at doing what it's supposed to be best at. Want to search your music library for a particular song? There's a good chance it'll never find it, or point you at a paid for version that it won't even let you buy despite it being in your library. Play Music is one of the worst apps I've ever come across, and every reason why it's awful is something that they'd never retreat from because they put too much pride in inserting that crap into the app to begin with.
YouTube, by comparison, is "search for 'safety dance'", bam, it's there, you might have to watch an ad, but otherwise it doesn't matter if you've bought it or not. YouTube is the unlimited streaming music service that is available to everyone. And everyone's going for it.
So... Play Music is dying almost certainly because Play Music is shit, not because of any conspiracy. Any garage band can upload their music to YouTube, hell, anyone can upload anything to YouTube, with monetization as soon as your channel sees serious traffic, so arguing this is about the MAFIAA is ludicrous.
I agree, which is why I probably wouldn't have Jerry Falwell Jr on my ethics board. And that would be right, because most people would consider Jr to be far outside of the mainstream as to what constitutes ethics.
When you're building an ethics board, you're looking for people that most consider moral and ethical, and who share the same values as the entity forming the board, because your aim is to create a set of ethics that match those values. Inviting in people who don't hold those values will fundamentally undermine your ethics board, because you'll suddenly be getting demands it upholds rules that enforce a different set of morals and values, that may be in conflict with your own.
Diversity of opinion matters when you're on the same page about the core of what you're working on, but just as you wouldn't invite the Unibomber to work on the ANSI C standardization committee, you wouldn't ask Dick Cheney or a Clinton or Trump to work on your ethics committee.
Gen Xer here. Blackface during the 1980s was one of the most "politically incorrect" (or, you know, offensive) things you could do short of using the N word. It was so bad that when things relaxed a little during the 1990s, it was still considered a no-no.
I'm always a little surprised by people who think the 1980s was a time when anything went, it was the exact opposite. Everything was political. I have a horrible feeling Northram did it to disassociate himself with those arguing it was offensive, which doesn't suggest Northram's judgement is remotely adequate for his job.
1. Mandatory, and usually starts when you least want it to happen
2. Often unreliable, frequently leaving the computer in an unstable state
3. Requires reboots almost all the time (by comparison only a kernel update requires a reboot with GNU/Linux distributions, and it's rare anyone needs to update the kernel)
4. Requires all updates be installed, the user can't choose to install only genuinely urgent updates
5. Even if (4) were fixed, the updates are poorly documented, with it being unclear what the fixes are.
That's not true, which is why Google has been trying to make ChromeOS more attractive by adding support for GNU/Linux and Android applications.
The bare minimum Chromebook was suitable for some uses, but very few people bought it to use as their primary computing environment. The fact Google is putting an enormous amount of work into making it a full desktop tells you that the basis of the article is... dubious.
Oh sure, Microsoft sees managed desktops as a thing, but I'd suggest the intended market are businesses, and even then most are going to balk at the concept of something that ceases to work if their extremely high bandwidth Internet connection goes down.
The Google streaming games thing also doesn't really factor into this... at all. That's something likely to replace consoles, not PCs. If consoles didn't kill PCs, why would Google's streaming efforts do that?
Australia is run by a Murdoch-backed right wing government. But don't let that stop you pretending it's the "left" because they want to take... uh your right to die outside a hospital you can't afford to use away.
Yeah I've yet to find anything that won't work on a Chromebook. A good 2 in 1 Chromebook is definitely a better Android tablet than an Android tablet right now.
It also has the benefit that it's encouraging Google to put in officially supported APIs for resizable apps. Everyone else's implementation is pretty much a hack.
That theory has been tested, newspapers switched for a time from Disqus/internal commenting systems to Facebook comments, and of course you can compare Facebook and Twitter. There doesn't seem to be much difference in practice between what people spew under their real name and what they do under a pseudonym. Facebook, in my experience, is actually more toxic than Twitter.
What the non-real name policies allows, which real names policies don't, is a modicum of freedom. I've had to sign company policies before severely restricting what I'm able to say on social media under my name, lest it be traced back to me, and then my employer. Given I want to be able to freely say "My boss was an ass today" from time to time (as does everyone) it's not hard to see how real names policies hurt people.
It's relatively easy for Torvalds to say whatever he wants. The lower on the ladder you are, the worse your options are. Moderation is a solution, and it's far more effective than forcing everyone to reveal their names.
Assuming the paper's argument is the case, does this mean the Decca Traps related extinctions wouldn't have happened, or would simply have occurred over a longer period of time? The other issue I have with this argument is that it makes it doesn't address the evidence extinctions were already happening pre-Chicxulub. That's actually the reason the Traps theory is still a thing, to explain why they were on-going at the time. So if the paper is right (and we don't see evidence that actually Dinos were doing find pre-Chicxulub, which is entirely possible I guess), then one of the following is also true:
1. There was a third catastrophic event occurring that hasn't been discussed.
2. It doesn't matter if most of the Decca Traps related atmospheric change occurred after Chicxulub, what happened before was enough.
I should point out I'm not married to either theory, I have a little bit of a distrust of the asteroid theory because it's a little too convenient (biggest roawwwwyist monsters ever destroyed by biggest fucking asteroid ever! - yeah, can't see why the same people that got into paleontology over the former would love the latter theory) and am inclined to think that the fact only four or so species of dinosaurs apparently survived, all birds, points at more than a big explosion. Chicxulub seems to be the biggest factor, but I don't automatically buy the idea that mammals, not dinosaurs, dominate the Earth today solely because of it, especially if we have compelling evidence of other major catastrophes occurring at the time.
She is one of a group of paleontologists who disputes that, that's the entire point she's trying to make. The view point you're expressing is exactly what she's criticizing.
Whether she's right or wrong... I don't know enough to tell. I do however question your certainty that dinosaurs wouldn't have been dominating the Earth after K-T if they weren't already in decline before the asteroid impact. The extinctions caused by the Deccan Traps may very well have lead to species disappearing that might have survived the impact, and might have dominated afterwards.
In that respect, she's 100% right.
Facebook makes its money by selling your most private, intimate, information to third parties. How much do you think a big file of passwords is worth?
It's a little more complex than that. If the awards show represents the industry then it is a problem if they take action to prevent potential newcomers to the industry from taking part, if it'd make a material difference (and it does, Oscars bring in the cash, they're not just trophies a movie producer puts in a locked filing cabinet and forgets about) to their ability to compete.
In this case Spielberg wants the Academy to exclude studios that do not support theaters, and those theaters can make or break whether the studios currently under consideration continue to make profits. So while Spielberg may be making a (crappy, let's be honest) artistic argument (and that may be his primary motivation), the reality is that as a movie producer he has a financial interest in keeping Netflix out.
I'm fine with the DoJ putting the screws on here, and would be even if I didn't think Spielberg, Nolan, et al, aren't horribly out of touch.
I too watched "Ben Shapiro DESTROYS sysvinit!"