Someone missed the opportunity for a headline: "Newsom Shoots Bullet Train."
More seriously, the first high-speed rail line in the world, the TÅkaidÅ Shinkansen between Tokyo and Osaka, began operation in 1964. It runs approximately the distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
A good analytical piece on the history and problems of the California project comes from David Dayen; you can read it here: https://prospect.org/article/c.... Does anyone else feel like they're living in a technological backwater?
This is a major structure, nearly 200 feet high, and it's an ecologically unique site which probably ought to be left alone to preserve biodiversity – this apart from the respect for the people to whom it is sacred.
In 100 years, likely we will regret the loss, at least if there is a human civilization left to do the regretting.
I don't worry about that. I worry about specific credible threats to particular people or groups. Those are illegal. Arguably incitement to stochastic terrorism – trolling for the violent – is a credible threat. In a large enough population you can find someone willing to attack just about anyone for just about any crazy reason. (For instance, the Pizzagate conspiracy theorists trolled up Edgar M. Welch, who fired on – one cannot make this up – the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria with a semi-automatic rifle because of specious claims it was the center of a child-abuse ring.)
But in any event, It is Valve's right to say what they distribute or publish, barring specific law to the contrary.
There is no legal requirement on a distributor to carry all content. Valve is not a common carrier. There is still less requirement on a publisher to accept all books.
To use a slippery analogy, your local bookstore is not required to carry porn, nor is John Walker Publishing (a made up name) required to accept it.
This is just Valve trying to avoid criticism and, perhaps, threats from terrorists.
It would be possible; Puerto Rico is far enough south that it could use solar energy for many of its needs right now. What is needed is funding and political will.
Sooner or later we have to stop treating for-profit businesses as though they were public co-operatives. Time to start supporting our collectives and our own people; just opposing any organization and hoping skilled people will donate unlimited time has failed.
It's here, behind a paywall. The abstract is worth reading. People with access to good academic libraries, which I expect are many of us, can read the whole thing.
the format of the event and sponsors’ discursive tropes, within a dominant cultural frame reflecting the appeal of Silicon Valley, reshape unpaid and precarious work as an extraordinary opportunity, a ritual of ecstatic labor, and a collective imaginary for fictional expectations of innovation that benefits all
Are all you people posting sure they are wrong? I've seen a lot of broken hearts in this business, people who've poured their lives into "free" products and gotten nothing back.
...who want to work for free. Used to be, this type of event was in the context of cooperation, work on what we would now call FOSS projects. Running them so as to produce profit for one firm or another was not done; that was just work. People are now behaving as though they are still working for cooperatives, even though they're giving away work which someone else will profit from. Pretty sure that isn't a healthy thing.
This old bird has got tired of working for free and of being asked to work for free. Why aren't more of you? And I've also noticed that FOSS projects have all kinds of problems in documentation and support. I think we ought to be asking questions about our economic models.
See here, for instance: https://www.alternet.org/educa...
Rather than charge in and spend tons of money making changes of uncertain sorts, why not fund research?
First off, this is from the Evans School at the University of Washington, a well-regarded social science research school, and not obviously partisan, though some of the researchers might be. On the other hand, it is is a non-peer-reviewed NBER report; a preliminary study, not definitive work.
Also the report focused on small local businesses – the cafe on the corner, rather than the big restaurant chain. Two problems here: big restaurant chains are profitable minimum wage employers and leaving them out is likely to skew the results of the study. But a second one is that the corner cafe is very sensitive to any shift in the economic winds, and Seattle rents have been rising dramatically in a boom.
So it's really hard to evaluate this work. The objections above, as well as contradicting many prior results may indicate problems. On the other hand, it might be that it is valid. I make the researchers (thought I am not a professional these days) usual plea for peer review and more study.
The certification rules only apply to new stoves. There's even a tax break if you replace your stove this year, and it's been in place for the past two years. The EPA is exploring ways to help people change out their old wood stoves—those things are not healthy.
And that's about it. As one store page I found puts it: "When the EPA first started looking at woodstove particulate emissions, the front pages were emblazoned with headlines screaming, WOOD STOVES TO BE OUTLAWED!! When the regulations which specifically allow wood burning were subsequently passed, the story got maybe one paragraph on page 23."—The Chimney Sweep Online
Please, folks, stop posting scare stories. The Washington Times, where this piece of crankery comes from, is paid to scare you—by the Unification Church yet. So is Fox News. Just 'cause these guys want you scared doesn't mean you have to go along with the program.
Sure. I'm still more concerned about Foxconn's employees than Daisey's sensationalism. Well...NPR and TAL have behaved in an exemplary manner. May they set an example.
I can understand why the professional reporters are horrified. But I keep remembering something a poet once said:
The case was defended on the squarest, most idealistic, and most foolish level imaginable, and on the other side the dirt was so filthy that the defense refused to believe it existed, or, as in my case and probably in others, actually believed it.--Kenneth Rexroth, An Autobiographical Novel, p. 199.
Which is more important: the working conditions of thousands or their sensationalization by one man?
facts matter in the world of nerds, regardless of who they favor.
Which facts, though? The facts about Apple's manufacturers or the facts about Daisey? I think the story about how the employees are mistreated is a more interesting and important story than Daisey sensationalizing that mistreatment.
At the very bottom of the story on the retraction, there is a link to a sourced New York Times story, which is nearly as damning as the retracted one. This is called "burying the lede," and it is biased reporting.
Reportedly, the TAL correction also confirmed most of what Daisey claimed; he wasn't there, but the stories turn out to be true after all. The TAL broadcast will be available for download on Sunday
Slashdot Mirror
Someone missed the opportunity for a headline: "Newsom Shoots Bullet Train."
More seriously, the first high-speed rail line in the world, the TÅkaidÅ Shinkansen between Tokyo and Osaka, began operation in 1964. It runs approximately the distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
A good analytical piece on the history and problems of the California project comes from David Dayen; you can read it here: https://prospect.org/article/c.... Does anyone else feel like they're living in a technological backwater?
This is a major structure, nearly 200 feet high, and it's an ecologically unique site which probably ought to be left alone to preserve biodiversity – this apart from the respect for the people to whom it is sacred.
In 100 years, likely we will regret the loss, at least if there is a human civilization left to do the regretting.
Uber isn't making a profit, as far as anyone outside the firm can tell. Naturally they are seeking new lines of business.
buildings, trees
I don't worry about that. I worry about specific credible threats to particular people or groups. Those are illegal. Arguably incitement to stochastic terrorism – trolling for the violent – is a credible threat. In a large enough population you can find someone willing to attack just about anyone for just about any crazy reason. (For instance, the Pizzagate conspiracy theorists trolled up Edgar M. Welch, who fired on – one cannot make this up – the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria with a semi-automatic rifle because of specious claims it was the center of a child-abuse ring.)
But in any event, It is Valve's right to say what they distribute or publish, barring specific law to the contrary.
There is no legal requirement on a distributor to carry all content. Valve is not a common carrier. There is still less requirement on a publisher to accept all books. To use a slippery analogy, your local bookstore is not required to carry porn, nor is John Walker Publishing (a made up name) required to accept it. This is just Valve trying to avoid criticism and, perhaps, threats from terrorists.
It would be possible; Puerto Rico is far enough south that it could use solar energy for many of its needs right now. What is needed is funding and political will.
Sooner or later we have to stop treating for-profit businesses as though they were public co-operatives. Time to start supporting our collectives and our own people; just opposing any organization and hoping skilled people will donate unlimited time has failed.
This seems to be an instance of security researchers crying wolf when they found a scrawny coyote. Doesn't mean the thing wonâ(TM)t bite you, though.
(BTW, slashdot, why did you convert my dumb apostrophes to weird things?)
Are all you people posting sure they are wrong? I've seen a lot of broken hearts in this business, people who've poured their lives into "free" products and gotten nothing back.
This old bird has got tired of working for free and of being asked to work for free. Why aren't more of you? And I've also noticed that FOSS projects have all kinds of problems in documentation and support. I think we ought to be asking questions about our economic models.
See here, for instance: https://www.alternet.org/educa... Rather than charge in and spend tons of money making changes of uncertain sorts, why not fund research?
City of Seattle.
The report has issues. For a look at some of them, look here https://sccinsight.com/2017/06....
Also the report focused on small local businesses – the cafe on the corner, rather than the big restaurant chain. Two problems here: big restaurant chains are profitable minimum wage employers and leaving them out is likely to skew the results of the study. But a second one is that the corner cafe is very sensitive to any shift in the economic winds, and Seattle rents have been rising dramatically in a boom.
So it's really hard to evaluate this work. The objections above, as well as contradicting many prior results may indicate problems. On the other hand, it might be that it is valid. I make the researchers (thought I am not a professional these days) usual plea for peer review and more study.
The Evans School web page which covers the report is here: https://evans.uw.edu/policy-im...
The certification rules only apply to new stoves. There's even a tax break if you replace your stove this year, and it's been in place for the past two years. The EPA is exploring ways to help people change out their old wood stoves—those things are not healthy.
Some cities have rules that restrict the use of wood-burning stoves when air pollution is high.
And that's about it. As one store page I found puts it: "When the EPA first started looking at woodstove particulate emissions, the front pages were emblazoned with headlines screaming, WOOD STOVES TO BE OUTLAWED!! When the regulations which specifically allow wood burning were subsequently passed, the story got maybe one paragraph on page 23."—The Chimney Sweep Online
Please, folks, stop posting scare stories. The Washington Times, where this piece of crankery comes from, is paid to scare you—by the Unification Church yet. So is Fox News. Just 'cause these guys want you scared doesn't mean you have to go along with the program.
Laugh, it's funny:
http://crookedtimber.org/2013/04/17/new-tools-for-reproducible-research/
CT is an academic site--you should see what the researchers over there are saying. Phrases like "doesn’t rise to the level of astrology" are seen.
I'll settle for slower--slower means we have time to turn around.
Yeah. On the other hand, without Daisey, would we even be discussing this?
Sure. I'm still more concerned about Foxconn's employees than Daisey's sensationalism. Well...NPR and TAL have behaved in an exemplary manner. May they set an example.
The found that there were, in fact, underage workers at Foxconn - but they were rare.
Or reports are rare.
Do you really believe that matters are better than have so far been documented?
Correction, the second link was supposed to be:
http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/this-american-life-on-apple-episode-retracted-due-to-significant-fabrications.php
The major issue here is how Apple's suppliers are treating their employees (execrably), not whether or not Daisey is a saint.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/blog/2012/03/retracting-mr-daisey-and-the-apple-factory
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/460/retraction
I can understand why the professional reporters are horrified. But I keep remembering something a poet once said:
The case was defended on the squarest, most idealistic, and most foolish level imaginable, and on the other side the dirt was so filthy that the defense refused to believe it existed, or, as in my case and probably in others, actually believed it.--Kenneth Rexroth, An Autobiographical Novel, p. 199.
Which is more important: the working conditions of thousands or their sensationalization by one man?
facts matter in the world of nerds, regardless of who they favor.
Which facts, though? The facts about Apple's manufacturers or the facts about Daisey? I think the story about how the employees are mistreated is a more interesting and important story than Daisey sensationalizing that mistreatment.
Your choice of facts does not speak well of you.
At the very bottom of the story on the retraction, there is a link to a sourced New York Times story, which is nearly as damning as the retracted one. This is called "burying the lede," and it is biased reporting.
Reportedly, the TAL correction also confirmed most of what Daisey claimed; he wasn't there, but the stories turn out to be true after all. The TAL broadcast will be available for download on Sunday
Here's the link to the NYT story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy-apples-ipad-and-the-human-costs-for-workers-in-china.html
This is were the TAL correction will be available:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/460/retraction