Ebay. Jet Buy.com Walmart.com Target.com Maybe Etsy, BestBuy, Newegg depending on type of product.
Clearly you're right though, that Amazon is by far the biggest online retailer and the one that you, as an independent retailer, would probably prefer to sell your products on for the fact of sheer numbers of customers. There are alternatives though- although it may mean fewer pairs of eyes.
If Amazon is so bad, surely eventually some of the larger independent sellers might consider co-operating, or perhaps, and independent developer might get the idea to create a seller-neutral system where the sellers police themselves. Each seller gets a buy in-into the system and pays a little towards the maintenance (perhaps based on how much they sell), and they all have a say in what policies are made and how they are inforced.
Kinda like an HOA for online stores but with fewer whiny letters about how you can't park your car on your back lawn.
True, but you would expect the Sussex Police forces Tactical Firearms Unit (the ones in which Gatwick resides) to have access to shotguns.
Attempting to shot them down with pistols or rifles would be stupid, but you would have thought they would have broken out the shotguns by now
Whether or not they currently have shotguns or not, I don't know. I'm not sure that shotguns are useful for most policing applications. I'm sure they could procure them in the future if they needed them though.
More useful, if drones become a persistent problem would be a drone gun. There have been several developed that work like an EMP gun from science fiction... basically using pulse of radiowaves to damage the sensitive electronic equipment on a drone. They can knock the drones out the sky without worrying about where the bits of shotgun spray that don't hit the drone might land.
There are reasonable arguments that in certain metrics the US is losing to or at least relatively falling behind China due to various reasons. However, is a deficient infrastructure one of the key reasons? Are a lack of transportation, energy availability, water availability, or telecommunications or data connectivity key inhibitors of economic growth? Up until the start of the latest trade war, US economic metrics were humming along at admirable levels. I don't believe any level of US infrastructure expenditure would affect the US-China trade imbalance. The US could create debt-based jobs like the Chinese are doing, but a WPA-like infusion of cash is arguably just a transient drug jolt, especially if the infrastructure-based jobs create unnecessary infrastructure, like the creation of Chinese ghost cities or a multi-billion dollar high-speed train through the California farm country.
US has fallen behind most of the developed (and many developing world) countries on telecommunications and data connectivity- both in % connected to high speed and the actual average speed of the high speed network.
"Education" can be considered an "investment/infrastructure" of sorts and certainly we're falling behind there. (although I think more is needed there than just throwing money at education).
Even public transportation, or lack of, can hinder productivity and movement of workers, and the US is far behind most developed countries on that front (partially due to habitation patterns and size of country).
There are various places where the US could "invest" in the future of the country and possibly grow the country (the way that China does) rather than spending money now on military.
My view of the average person combined with Occam's razor says this probably isn't a scheme by a nefarious group hellbent on destruction, and is more likely just some random asshole who thinks he's absolutely *hilarious*.
As a Brit myself, I will have to agree that... that seems like a very British thing to do. It may not even that he thought it was hilarious- he probably just wanted to see if he could shut down the airport that way and this was all about his curiosity.
The US could cut its defense budget in half and nothing would change. The Russians would still have invaded and kept Crimea. The Chinese would still not have invaded Taiwan. Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq would be pretty much in the same state.
Indeed. US spends an insane amount on the military- and as you say, even at half the current spending it would still dominate. The trick is spending smartly too. Invest in technology and the tools to be able to rapidly build up if needed; do we really need so many active service men in a time of peace?
Jack Ma, is also right, we're losing against China economically because we're not growing our infrastructure. Keep investing for the future and stop spending everything now. Roads, stations, ports and harbours, electrical grids and technology... that's what makes you stronger tomorrow. Not having a base in the middle of nowhere filled with soldiers.
The problem is, you use a different definition of AI to most journalists. You probably grew up in the 20th Century and was first exposed to AI as a term by science fiction authors or theorists to describe machine sentience.
At sometime in the 21st century it began to mean nothing more than an algorithm where a computer program makes a decision based on IO. You can complain, or argue that this isn't AI- and historically you would be right; however, this isn't the first time words have changed meaning based on being used "incorrectly" enough times that the "incorrect" meaning became the "correct" meaning (if the majority of people use a word in a certain way, it becomes the new meaning- English is a living language).
It's easy to point to other examples. Prior to the 20th century "Awesome" was pretty much synonymous with the word "Awful". People probably started using the word to mean it's current meaning ironically (like some people said "bad" to mean good in the 80's- or how kids in Britain might say "wicked" to mean "cool") - eventually the ironic meaning became the mainstream meaning.
Use the word decimate and you'll probably get a lot of people tell you that the word means "to remove 1/10th". And prior to about 20 years ago, that's what most people would have suggested it meant- nowadays people assume the opposite, that it means to completely destroy something. It was used "incorrectly" for so long that the incorrect meaning became the correct meaning.
People are always whining about the term "AI" on articles on Slashdot... well, guess what... the fact that you have to complain about it every single day means that you're on the losing side of this one. AI doesn't mean what you think it does anymore. It no longer has anything to do with machine sentience.
They can examine that phrase all they like; it doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the actual restriction placed on the government, which is simply that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
Even if it were restricted to the Militia, that wouldn't do much: the Militia includes every able-bodied male citizen between 17 and 45 years of age, plus females who are members of the National Guard. Trying to restrict firearm ownership to the Militia is basically equivalent to barring older male citizens and all females who are not in the Guard from owning weapons. I'm sure that would go over real well...
That is your interpretation, and other people have other interpretations... hence my point it comes down to the interpretation of whoever is in the supreme court. Many people would interpret the law as meaning, that whereas they intended to allow guns, they also intended the use of them to be regulated and not just for lone-wolf ownership and application.
I also understand that the browser allows you to modify how things like the back button work. I just personally wouldn't build important functionality in my site around something the browser normally controls, and wouldn't be terribly surprised if it stopped working the way I'd originally intended after a browser update.
Well, the answer is you don't build important functionality into the back-button, you give other options and try to get the user to use those other options for navigating; HOWEVER, you can't control a user and can't prevent them clicking the back-button if they really want to (all you can do is try to handle it gracefully if they do). In an ideal world the end-user wouldn't use the back button from navigating in a web-application; but you can't easily prevent them.
Since the first time I loaded up Mosaic, I have expected the back button to take me back. Not sideways.
If you're using AJAX within a webpage though, sometimes you expect the back button to take you to what you were previously viewing NOT make you leave the site altogether. If a single page is dynamically updating content based upon what you click on, you probably want script manipulation of the back button.
Example, I have a table of widgets- I click on a widget and it loads details (you haven't changed website or been forwarded to a new address)... if you click the back button you probably want it to return you to the table; not have it exit the webpage completely. There are times you don't want the back button to actually take you back to the real actual previous webpage.
I'm curious if they are going to discriminate between legitimate and illegitimate forms of updating the browse history. On some of my single-page apps I change where the back-button takes them. Not to trap them, but to provide functionality. I wonder if this is going to be blocked for everyone, or just the people who set up an infinite loop of back buttons leading to the same page.
Its a feel good attempt at making people think they are actually doing good by recycling. Much of my neighborhood has given up on recycling for a lot of stuff. Around me most just put out garbage and not recycling containers. Our disposal company has over the years become more picky about what they accept as recyclable material. Its getting harder to find companies making products that will buy the raw material and many are getting finicky about the quality. Last I read only around 30% of what is received is ever recycled properly. Maybe its time to reconsider all the plastic we use rather then trying to recycle something nobody wants.
I'd much prefer we went back to paper and cardboard... at least if someone fails to recycle them then it at least decomposes pretty quickly if left to the elements. Naturally, this would depend on sustainable forestry techniques to be "Better"... which might actually serve as a carbon sink if we add to the woodlands we already have to grow paper.
A woman was the victim of gun violence every 12 minutes
That's a pretty loose definition of "gun violence" you're using there. ALL Firearms deaths in the USA, including suicide, didn't happen that often. Or were you counting "gun violence" to include "someone pointed a gun at someone else"?
I don't know the source of his statistic or whether it is accurate or not; however being a victim of gun violence doesn't have to mean death. If you are shot in the leg or the arm for example, you will most likely survive. I would suspect a large number of victims of gun violence don't actually die.
I'm not an american, but you have the constitution, so if you want to do gun legislation you need to change the constitution.
That would be a good step, but unrealistic. Any constitutional amendment requires 3/4 of states to ratify it. There are a lot more low population, rural gun-friendly states than there are larger population states that are less friendly to guns.
Even if a large majority of the population wanted the constitution changed (and I'm honestly not sure what % want it changed), it wouldn't happen. There are too many sparsely populated states that don't want "gub'munt tushin' ma guns". You're not going to see a gun control amendment to the constitution in your lifetime.
More realistic would be a reinterpretation of the current constitution:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
I think gun-control proponents are more likely to get their way by examining the phrase "A well regulated Militia". Which honestly, how that is interpreted will always depend on who is in the Supreme Court at any given time.
Did you miss the part about the reduction in Jaffa Cakes?
HARRRUMPH!
Reducing the number of Jaffa Cakes in a box should be illegal! - unless of course you are reducing the number by taking them out of the box to eat them.
Forget the NHS- I want a National Jaffa Cake system, "free" Jaffas for all!
Cancel your account. Or did you expect to get things for free.
That's a great step to take, but Facebook is tracking your location even if you don't have a Facebook account. Facebook knows who you are, where you live, and quite possibly how much money is in your checking account (revealed earlier in the year they had deals with several banks), even if you don't have a Facebook account.
but I would think that most people here would pride themselves on being able to do it themselves.
I can make my own pizza but they're cheap enough I usually order one instead. Just because I can do "task A" doesn't mean it's always worth my while to do it. Sometimes having the convenience of something done for me is a good thing.
Now, that said, I don't trust that my photos on a site like this will be kept private or that they wouldn't be mining my data some other way.
Does the UK have a presumption of innocence? Because I seem to recall that maybe it doesn't. And that changes that whole "viewed with suspicion" thing a lot.
You're probably thinking of France where (at least historically) you had to prove yourself innocent rather than be proven guilty. In the UK you are innocent until proven otherwise.
This is how you secure a nation aganst extremist muslim terrorism. Dispatch the cucks and get on with securing the country. Churchill would have done it, too.
Churchill was a great war time leader and is rightly commended for that, he was a terribly overhanded peace-time leader though and had more than a few negative characteristics. I've no doubt you're right and Churchill would have approved of this, but that doesn't make it right.
Very few people want to live in an overbearing police state. I certainly wouldn't.
Slashdot Mirror
your competitor, which is ... um ... well ...
Ebay.
Jet
Buy.com
Walmart.com
Target.com
Maybe Etsy, BestBuy, Newegg depending on type of product.
Clearly you're right though, that Amazon is by far the biggest online retailer and the one that you, as an independent retailer, would probably prefer to sell your products on for the fact of sheer numbers of customers. There are alternatives though- although it may mean fewer pairs of eyes.
If Amazon is so bad, surely eventually some of the larger independent sellers might consider co-operating, or perhaps, and independent developer might get the idea to create a seller-neutral system where the sellers police themselves. Each seller gets a buy in-into the system and pays a little towards the maintenance (perhaps based on how much they sell), and they all have a say in what policies are made and how they are inforced.
Kinda like an HOA for online stores but with fewer whiny letters about how you can't park your car on your back lawn.
True, but you would expect the Sussex Police forces Tactical Firearms Unit (the ones in which Gatwick resides) to have access to shotguns.
Attempting to shot them down with pistols or rifles would be stupid, but you would have thought they would have broken out the shotguns by now
Whether or not they currently have shotguns or not, I don't know. I'm not sure that shotguns are useful for most policing applications. I'm sure they could procure them in the future if they needed them though.
More useful, if drones become a persistent problem would be a drone gun. There have been several developed that work like an EMP gun from science fiction... basically using pulse of radiowaves to damage the sensitive electronic equipment on a drone. They can knock the drones out the sky without worrying about where the bits of shotgun spray that don't hit the drone might land.
I was being sarcastic, aspie.
Rather an ironic post considering you completely missed the joke in mine.
There are reasonable arguments that in certain metrics the US is losing to or at least relatively falling behind China due to various reasons. However, is a deficient infrastructure one of the key reasons? Are a lack of transportation, energy availability, water availability, or telecommunications or data connectivity key inhibitors of economic growth? Up until the start of the latest trade war, US economic metrics were humming along at admirable levels. I don't believe any level of US infrastructure expenditure would affect the US-China trade imbalance. The US could create debt-based jobs like the Chinese are doing, but a WPA-like infusion of cash is arguably just a transient drug jolt, especially if the infrastructure-based jobs create unnecessary infrastructure, like the creation of Chinese ghost cities or a multi-billion dollar high-speed train through the California farm country.
US has fallen behind most of the developed (and many developing world) countries on telecommunications and data connectivity- both in % connected to high speed and the actual average speed of the high speed network.
"Education" can be considered an "investment/infrastructure" of sorts and certainly we're falling behind there. (although I think more is needed there than just throwing money at education).
Even public transportation, or lack of, can hinder productivity and movement of workers, and the US is far behind most developed countries on that front (partially due to habitation patterns and size of country).
There are various places where the US could "invest" in the future of the country and possibly grow the country (the way that China does) rather than spending money now on military.
Yes they could be shot down with rifles but the public wouldn't like the stray bullets
Shotguns would make more sense.
Perhaps there'll be "drone shot" one day, to go along with the bird and buck varieties.
Shotguns face more regulation in most countries- it's only in the US that drones are more heavily regulated than shotguns.
My view of the average person combined with Occam's razor says this probably isn't a scheme by a nefarious group hellbent on destruction, and is more likely just some random asshole who thinks he's absolutely *hilarious*.
As a Brit myself, I will have to agree that... that seems like a very British thing to do. It may not even that he thought it was hilarious- he probably just wanted to see if he could shut down the airport that way and this was all about his curiosity.
But Google said they would "Do no evil"!
That was in their mission statement once upon a time- but didn't they take it out several years ago? They're allowed to do evil now.
The US could cut its defense budget in half and nothing would change. The Russians would still have invaded and kept Crimea. The Chinese would still not have invaded Taiwan. Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq would be pretty much in the same state.
Indeed. US spends an insane amount on the military- and as you say, even at half the current spending it would still dominate. The trick is spending smartly too. Invest in technology and the tools to be able to rapidly build up if needed; do we really need so many active service men in a time of peace?
Jack Ma, is also right, we're losing against China economically because we're not growing our infrastructure. Keep investing for the future and stop spending everything now. Roads, stations, ports and harbours, electrical grids and technology... that's what makes you stronger tomorrow. Not having a base in the middle of nowhere filled with soldiers.
I believe Microsoft suspected Google of playing dirty, because that's exactly what Microsoft would have done.
I wouldn't put it past any of the big tech firms to play dirty. I'd be shocked if anyone could name a major tech firm that HASN'T played dirty.
BTW, over the years I've experienced MANY warnings about not using the Back button, so it's not as though I just pulled the idea out of my ass.
Yeah... and it doesn't work. People still click the back button.
How is this "AI"?
The problem is, you use a different definition of AI to most journalists. You probably grew up in the 20th Century and was first exposed to AI as a term by science fiction authors or theorists to describe machine sentience.
At sometime in the 21st century it began to mean nothing more than an algorithm where a computer program makes a decision based on IO. You can complain, or argue that this isn't AI- and historically you would be right; however, this isn't the first time words have changed meaning based on being used "incorrectly" enough times that the "incorrect" meaning became the "correct" meaning (if the majority of people use a word in a certain way, it becomes the new meaning- English is a living language).
It's easy to point to other examples. Prior to the 20th century "Awesome" was pretty much synonymous with the word "Awful". People probably started using the word to mean it's current meaning ironically (like some people said "bad" to mean good in the 80's- or how kids in Britain might say "wicked" to mean "cool") - eventually the ironic meaning became the mainstream meaning.
Use the word decimate and you'll probably get a lot of people tell you that the word means "to remove 1/10th". And prior to about 20 years ago, that's what most people would have suggested it meant- nowadays people assume the opposite, that it means to completely destroy something. It was used "incorrectly" for so long that the incorrect meaning became the correct meaning.
People are always whining about the term "AI" on articles on Slashdot... well, guess what... the fact that you have to complain about it every single day means that you're on the losing side of this one. AI doesn't mean what you think it does anymore. It no longer has anything to do with machine sentience.
They can examine that phrase all they like; it doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the actual restriction placed on the government, which is simply that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
Even if it were restricted to the Militia, that wouldn't do much: the Militia includes every able-bodied male citizen between 17 and 45 years of age, plus females who are members of the National Guard. Trying to restrict firearm ownership to the Militia is basically equivalent to barring older male citizens and all females who are not in the Guard from owning weapons. I'm sure that would go over real well...
That is your interpretation, and other people have other interpretations... hence my point it comes down to the interpretation of whoever is in the supreme court. Many people would interpret the law as meaning, that whereas they intended to allow guns, they also intended the use of them to be regulated and not just for lone-wolf ownership and application.
I also understand that the browser allows you to modify how things like the back button work. I just personally wouldn't build important functionality in my site around something the browser normally controls, and wouldn't be terribly surprised if it stopped working the way I'd originally intended after a browser update.
Well, the answer is you don't build important functionality into the back-button, you give other options and try to get the user to use those other options for navigating; HOWEVER, you can't control a user and can't prevent them clicking the back-button if they really want to (all you can do is try to handle it gracefully if they do). In an ideal world the end-user wouldn't use the back button from navigating in a web-application; but you can't easily prevent them.
Since the first time I loaded up Mosaic, I have expected the back button to take me back. Not sideways.
If you're using AJAX within a webpage though, sometimes you expect the back button to take you to what you were previously viewing NOT make you leave the site altogether. If a single page is dynamically updating content based upon what you click on, you probably want script manipulation of the back button.
Example, I have a table of widgets- I click on a widget and it loads details (you haven't changed website or been forwarded to a new address)... if you click the back button you probably want it to return you to the table; not have it exit the webpage completely. There are times you don't want the back button to actually take you back to the real actual previous webpage.
I'm curious if they are going to discriminate between legitimate and illegitimate forms of updating the browse history. On some of my single-page apps I change where the back-button takes them. Not to trap them, but to provide functionality. I wonder if this is going to be blocked for everyone, or just the people who set up an infinite loop of back buttons leading to the same page.
Its a feel good attempt at making people think they are actually doing good by recycling. Much of my neighborhood has given up on recycling for a lot of stuff. Around me most just put out garbage and not recycling containers. Our disposal company has over the years become more picky about what they accept as recyclable material. Its getting harder to find companies making products that will buy the raw material and many are getting finicky about the quality. Last I read only around 30% of what is received is ever recycled properly. Maybe its time to reconsider all the plastic we use rather then trying to recycle something nobody wants.
I'd much prefer we went back to paper and cardboard... at least if someone fails to recycle them then it at least decomposes pretty quickly if left to the elements. Naturally, this would depend on sustainable forestry techniques to be "Better"... which might actually serve as a carbon sink if we add to the woodlands we already have to grow paper.
That's a pretty loose definition of "gun violence" you're using there. ALL Firearms deaths in the USA, including suicide, didn't happen that often. Or were you counting "gun violence" to include "someone pointed a gun at someone else"?
I don't know the source of his statistic or whether it is accurate or not; however being a victim of gun violence doesn't have to mean death. If you are shot in the leg or the arm for example, you will most likely survive. I would suspect a large number of victims of gun violence don't actually die.
I'm not an american, but you have the constitution, so if you want to do gun legislation you need to change the constitution.
That would be a good step, but unrealistic. Any constitutional amendment requires 3/4 of states to ratify it. There are a lot more low population, rural gun-friendly states than there are larger population states that are less friendly to guns.
Even if a large majority of the population wanted the constitution changed (and I'm honestly not sure what % want it changed), it wouldn't happen. There are too many sparsely populated states that don't want "gub'munt tushin' ma guns". You're not going to see a gun control amendment to the constitution in your lifetime.
More realistic would be a reinterpretation of the current constitution:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
I think gun-control proponents are more likely to get their way by examining the phrase "A well regulated Militia". Which honestly, how that is interpreted will always depend on who is in the Supreme Court at any given time.
Did you miss the part about the reduction in Jaffa Cakes?
HARRRUMPH!
Reducing the number of Jaffa Cakes in a box should be illegal!
- unless of course you are reducing the number by taking them out of the box to eat them.
Forget the NHS- I want a National Jaffa Cake system, "free" Jaffas for all!
Cancel your account. Or did you expect to get things for free.
That's a great step to take, but Facebook is tracking your location even if you don't have a Facebook account. Facebook knows who you are, where you live, and quite possibly how much money is in your checking account (revealed earlier in the year they had deals with several banks), even if you don't have a Facebook account.
but I would think that most people here would pride themselves on being able to do it themselves.
I can make my own pizza but they're cheap enough I usually order one instead. Just because I can do "task A" doesn't mean it's always worth my while to do it. Sometimes having the convenience of something done for me is a good thing.
Now, that said, I don't trust that my photos on a site like this will be kept private or that they wouldn't be mining my data some other way.
I can't find a good pho shop around me. There's one that tastes fantastic but I stopped going after they kept getting C grades for health inspection.
Does the UK have a presumption of innocence? Because I seem to recall that maybe it doesn't. And that changes that whole "viewed with suspicion" thing a lot.
You're probably thinking of France where (at least historically) you had to prove yourself innocent rather than be proven guilty. In the UK you are innocent until proven otherwise.
This is how you secure a nation aganst extremist muslim terrorism. Dispatch the cucks and get on with securing the country. Churchill would have done it, too.
Churchill was a great war time leader and is rightly commended for that, he was a terribly overhanded peace-time leader though and had more than a few negative characteristics. I've no doubt you're right and Churchill would have approved of this, but that doesn't make it right.
Very few people want to live in an overbearing police state. I certainly wouldn't.
I hear there's a church there that's been looking for a new leader/messiah.
It's sad, that happened decades ago, but that's still what I think of whenever I hear Waco.