I think of "regret" as something you feel over an action you took (direct or indirect). But this town didn't act to close the plant; in fact the residents were quite happy with the economic boom that came with its operation.
So, "Its Nuclear Plant Closed, Maine Town Is Full of Sadness," perhaps?
When you look at the iPhone, Apple figured out how to make it do stuff people craved to do over and over, but not gadgety stuff that sounds sci-fi cool and you only want to try out once. The Samsung watch has a LOT of cool tech packed into it, but reported lagginess will kill it in the market. Nobody wants to wait to interact with their watch.
To expound on what the right mix of stuff probably is for a watch, the focus should be on things that people will want to do multiple times a day, and things that take less time than the same task on a smartphone (a tall order to be sure). The only way a "smartwatch" gains traction is by adding utility in two areas: 1) you couldn't do something without that specific form factor and 2) you could pull your phone out of your pocket/purse, but it's faster to just use the watch.
That is a tall order of niche to fill with a device that will cost at least a couple of bills. And if it can't do those things reliably (i.e. pairing issues, responsiveness) then nobody cares. I would give Apple the best odds at pulling it off if anyone can in this decade.
I suspect those inept Egyptian security officials failed to follow proper protocol with this bird: he should have been separated from his for local friends, and each should have been interrogated to see if they had a straight story about their business together. Just because the foreign bird didn't crack doesn't mean his local affiliates won't!
So two PhD students, realizing they're wasting their time on Facebook, decide to fix their problem by... wasting their time inventing a gizmo to keep them from wasting their time on facebook.
As a fellow PhD student, seems legit!
Hopefully they consulted the handy infographic "Is It Worth the Time?" by Randall Munroe before undertaking the project: http://xkcd.com/1205/
Why is everyone dancing around naming some leader and going on about something called Godwin's law without going into specifics? You'd think the way people are tiptoeing around here that Hitler's Stasi was watching us all.
(They see me trollin... They hatin... patrollin then tryin to catch me ridin dirty...)
I really meant my question rhetorically. One view of the world holds that all the burdens put on taxis are to the benefit of consumers. Another view is that taxi-services receive economic rents from the government by receiving a monopoly on their business through licensure. These "burdens" of service requirements are simply the state extracting some portion of the rents from the taxi companies. Do not doubt, however, that the net rents remain positive for the taxi companies, even after these burdens are accounted for -- else they wouldn't be in the taxi business.
The latter viewpoint is that the consumer is robbed through this artificial monopoly regime receiving the positive net rents, and these competitors represent weeds growing through the cracks in the government's collusive regime with taxi companies. Yes, they may be plucked, but fairness is very subjective. In this case, I find "unfair to the real taxis" to mean "reducing the monopoly rents to real taxis." And as a consumer I say Bra...vo.
...and a Hindu ceremony, and a Buddhist ceremony, and a Jewish ceremony, and a... oh, maybe in fact it's a human institution that's been blessed by various faiths around the globe then? Something humans seek to do regardless of their creed?
Seen in that context, marriage is whatever people want it to be, and it's been that way for a LONG time. Legislating it to conform to Christian ideals is theocratic.
Also his series involves some of the most twisted and intricate alien reproduction methods ever described. I can see the campaign speech now: "Sex should be between one man and one woman... or one tree and one piggy... or some grass and insects..."
I guess it's consistent with the view that sex is for reproducing, regardless of your species' method.
Yes, I did read his "about me" page when trying to figure out what happened to let this submission pass. Sorry if my question was unclear -- I know who Lauren says he is (and I believe he is telling the truth). My question is more rhetorical -- submitting your own writing to slashdot has always seemed in bad form to me, regardless of who you are. If Al Gore submitted a story he wrote himself, we'd go "wow, Al Gore... why does he have to submit his own stuff to slashdot?" Self-submission reduces your credibility somewhat. It doesn't help when the thing you submit is rambling and incoherent.
Indeed he was on this earth doing grown-up things when I was in diapers (I am 32). (I can't help the time continuum, don't hold it against me.) That fact doesn't make his argument more cogent. Nor do I care that your slashdot ID has fewer digits than mine in case you were wondering.
Is this astroturf? Who is Lauren Weinstein and why does he get to submit his own blog post to the front page of slashdot? The post reads like a mediocre comment to be found in a slashdot forum -- i wouldn't expect it to be modded more than +1.
So if much of the commodity seed out there is now roundup-ready, farmers may have an increasingly difficult time buying non-modified seed. That means Monsanto would have poisoned the well of the competition: natural seeds. There are two monopolistic behaviors here: protecting your inventive production method and choking out competing production methods through non-market actions. Patents are only meant to support the former, not the latter. Fostering market competition between production methods (i.e. GMO vs. non-GMO seeds) is the implicit aim of patent law (by promoting the creation of new production methods to be market-tested).
The fact that life-based patents have the capacity to cross-breed (literally crowd out) or, at the very least reproduce themselves (having a market-crowding-out effect) should give the courts serious pause in upholding them. Both of these are negative externalities born by consumers of the competing products.
The practical implication for a win by Monsanto is that patenters making life-based modifications will seek to make those modifications cross-breedable and pervasive to the "competing" natural versions, since contaminating the natural version will amount to "expanding the user base."
I used to think of smokers as irrational, but perhaps they just don't like surprises -- they want to know in advance how they're going to die. Smoking - it's like buying insurance against accidental death!
RTFA and you learn that they've only been storing the first 16 characters for years, letting you type away in vain. Otherwise they'd have to produce new hashes for the "shorter" passwords that they expect users to use now. (There's no such thing as reading the first 16 digits of a hashed password).
It's not news that electronic systems can be insecure. Those selecting such systems are certainly lobbied to believe that, whatever system they choose, "this time it will be different... this one IS secure."
The truth is all voting systems -- manually or electronically administered -- are insecure. The feature that traditionally manual voting systems have is that the scale of voting fraud exacted is correlated with the scale of corrupt election officials overseeing the process. To increase fraud you either need a) more conspirators or b) higher-level conspirators in the body that oversees the process. That is a feature that is worth keeping in any new version of voting system.
This article is just another example of a voting system that has given up the feature. Not all electronic voting systems forsake this feature, but those that keep it are at most electronic-assisted voting systems that retain distributed verification at multiple stages of the counting process. That's because voting is most secure when it's a distributed activity, not a centralized one. With thousands of tiny precincts collecting pockets of votes, any one could tamper with results -- but many would have to tamper to have a big impact. Election commissioners, keep this feature!
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up... +1 irony.
I think of "regret" as something you feel over an action you took (direct or indirect). But this town didn't act to close the plant; in fact the residents were quite happy with the economic boom that came with its operation. So, "Its Nuclear Plant Closed, Maine Town Is Full of Sadness," perhaps?
Apparently 45% of our dogs are also susceptible to being taken over by robots: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/13/09/14/1224222/dogs-love-robots-prefer-humans
My accountant says he needs to charge my business's customers too since he keeps track of both debits AND credits for me. Seems legit.
Amen.
When you look at the iPhone, Apple figured out how to make it do stuff people craved to do over and over, but not gadgety stuff that sounds sci-fi cool and you only want to try out once. The Samsung watch has a LOT of cool tech packed into it, but reported lagginess will kill it in the market. Nobody wants to wait to interact with their watch.
To expound on what the right mix of stuff probably is for a watch, the focus should be on things that people will want to do multiple times a day, and things that take less time than the same task on a smartphone (a tall order to be sure). The only way a "smartwatch" gains traction is by adding utility in two areas: 1) you couldn't do something without that specific form factor and 2) you could pull your phone out of your pocket/purse, but it's faster to just use the watch.
That is a tall order of niche to fill with a device that will cost at least a couple of bills. And if it can't do those things reliably (i.e. pairing issues, responsiveness) then nobody cares. I would give Apple the best odds at pulling it off if anyone can in this decade.
I suspect those inept Egyptian security officials failed to follow proper protocol with this bird: he should have been separated from his for local friends, and each should have been interrogated to see if they had a straight story about their business together. Just because the foreign bird didn't crack doesn't mean his local affiliates won't!
No, it needs to involve cars. All analogies, especially those pertaining to something technical, must always be reduced to cars.
You're right, you're right... my mistake! "Facebook could probably lose a few gas stations and remain a perfectly stable network..."
So facebook could probably lose a few servers is probably the more apt analogy, yes?
So two PhD students, realizing they're wasting their time on Facebook, decide to fix their problem by... wasting their time inventing a gizmo to keep them from wasting their time on facebook.
As a fellow PhD student, seems legit!
Hopefully they consulted the handy infographic "Is It Worth the Time?" by Randall Munroe before undertaking the project: http://xkcd.com/1205/
They're not even smart enough to be racist properly.
Winner: Insult of the day!
Does anybody who has ever seen this video have trouble reading the summary without hearing the Shirrelles croon "momma said, momma said!" ?
by Upton Sinclair applies here:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
Why is everyone dancing around naming some leader and going on about something called Godwin's law without going into specifics? You'd think the way people are tiptoeing around here that Hitler's Stasi was watching us all.
(They see me trollin... They hatin... patrollin then tryin to catch me ridin dirty...)
Did reading it differently change the meaning in any way?
I really meant my question rhetorically. One view of the world holds that all the burdens put on taxis are to the benefit of consumers. Another view is that taxi-services receive economic rents from the government by receiving a monopoly on their business through licensure. These "burdens" of service requirements are simply the state extracting some portion of the rents from the taxi companies. Do not doubt, however, that the net rents remain positive for the taxi companies, even after these burdens are accounted for -- else they wouldn't be in the taxi business.
The latter viewpoint is that the consumer is robbed through this artificial monopoly regime receiving the positive net rents, and these competitors represent weeds growing through the cracks in the government's collusive regime with taxi companies. Yes, they may be plucked, but fairness is very subjective. In this case, I find "unfair to the real taxis" to mean "reducing the monopoly rents to real taxis." And as a consumer I say Bra...vo.
I fear that side-talking page has now received more attention than $DEITY ever intended.
What does it mean to be "unfair to the real taxis?"
...and a Hindu ceremony, and a Buddhist ceremony, and a Jewish ceremony, and a... oh, maybe in fact it's a human institution that's been blessed by various faiths around the globe then? Something humans seek to do regardless of their creed?
Seen in that context, marriage is whatever people want it to be, and it's been that way for a LONG time. Legislating it to conform to Christian ideals is theocratic.
Also his series involves some of the most twisted and intricate alien reproduction methods ever described. I can see the campaign speech now: "Sex should be between one man and one woman... or one tree and one piggy... or some grass and insects..." I guess it's consistent with the view that sex is for reproducing, regardless of your species' method.
Yes, I did read his "about me" page when trying to figure out what happened to let this submission pass. Sorry if my question was unclear -- I know who Lauren says he is (and I believe he is telling the truth). My question is more rhetorical -- submitting your own writing to slashdot has always seemed in bad form to me, regardless of who you are. If Al Gore submitted a story he wrote himself, we'd go "wow, Al Gore... why does he have to submit his own stuff to slashdot?" Self-submission reduces your credibility somewhat. It doesn't help when the thing you submit is rambling and incoherent.
Indeed he was on this earth doing grown-up things when I was in diapers (I am 32). (I can't help the time continuum, don't hold it against me.) That fact doesn't make his argument more cogent. Nor do I care that your slashdot ID has fewer digits than mine in case you were wondering.
Is this astroturf? Who is Lauren Weinstein and why does he get to submit his own blog post to the front page of slashdot? The post reads like a mediocre comment to be found in a slashdot forum -- i wouldn't expect it to be modded more than +1.
So if much of the commodity seed out there is now roundup-ready, farmers may have an increasingly difficult time buying non-modified seed. That means Monsanto would have poisoned the well of the competition: natural seeds. There are two monopolistic behaviors here: protecting your inventive production method and choking out competing production methods through non-market actions. Patents are only meant to support the former, not the latter. Fostering market competition between production methods (i.e. GMO vs. non-GMO seeds) is the implicit aim of patent law (by promoting the creation of new production methods to be market-tested). The fact that life-based patents have the capacity to cross-breed (literally crowd out) or, at the very least reproduce themselves (having a market-crowding-out effect) should give the courts serious pause in upholding them. Both of these are negative externalities born by consumers of the competing products. The practical implication for a win by Monsanto is that patenters making life-based modifications will seek to make those modifications cross-breedable and pervasive to the "competing" natural versions, since contaminating the natural version will amount to "expanding the user base."
I used to think of smokers as irrational, but perhaps they just don't like surprises -- they want to know in advance how they're going to die. Smoking - it's like buying insurance against accidental death!
RTFA and you learn that they've only been storing the first 16 characters for years, letting you type away in vain. Otherwise they'd have to produce new hashes for the "shorter" passwords that they expect users to use now. (There's no such thing as reading the first 16 digits of a hashed password).
It's not news that electronic systems can be insecure. Those selecting such systems are certainly lobbied to believe that, whatever system they choose, "this time it will be different... this one IS secure."
The truth is all voting systems -- manually or electronically administered -- are insecure. The feature that traditionally manual voting systems have is that the scale of voting fraud exacted is correlated with the scale of corrupt election officials overseeing the process. To increase fraud you either need a) more conspirators or b) higher-level conspirators in the body that oversees the process. That is a feature that is worth keeping in any new version of voting system.
This article is just another example of a voting system that has given up the feature. Not all electronic voting systems forsake this feature, but those that keep it are at most electronic-assisted voting systems that retain distributed verification at multiple stages of the counting process. That's because voting is most secure when it's a distributed activity, not a centralized one. With thousands of tiny precincts collecting pockets of votes, any one could tamper with results -- but many would have to tamper to have a big impact. Election commissioners, keep this feature!