Why is a face-recognizing person a good thing and a face-recognizing camera a bad thing? It can't be that the police can check it's records, a doorman will tell them just the same.
Did you think that was good behavior? Did someone tell you that what you were doing was of some benefit to anyone other than yourself? Did you really think it benefits you?
If Oracle wasn't seriously planning to make phones, their argument collapses. And they'd have to show it would have had a chance in hell of selling. Microsoft couldn't survive in the phone market, why would Oracle?
That is, "Is this the cheapest way to deal with plastic waste?"
What will be cheaper, the replacement for disposable dishes and cutlery plus the cost of transitioning to them, or cleaning up the trash?
Have we considered that it might be cheaper to let it all gather in that one part of the Pacific where it all seems to be ending up anyhow, and just sweep it up?
Maybe it isn't. Maybe it would be worse to do it that way regardless. I don't know, which is why the question needs to be asked and answered.
What exactly is the benefit? You can accept an invite with a button in the message instead of a button above the message? Fill out forms without links or attachments? Hell, that's built into Outlook and I don't think anyone uses it.
It does offer a giant attack vector though.
And break the simple perfection of email.
Seriously, what's wrong with email? Nothing, that's what. Easy to implement, easy to use, and it's fast and lightweight, not bloated with unnecessary bandwidth-hogging "features".
"A blockchain is an encrypted database that runs on multiple computers, potentially cutting out the need for centralized authorities like banks or governments to settle transactions between parties. "
Banks and governments do not "settle transactions". Banks provide financial services like loans and storage. Governments provide and back currencies. Central banks manage money supply. Banks and governments work together to create central banks.
Banks and central banks together created the Automated Clearing Houses that settle transactions.
Blockchain provides a way to create and back currency without government, while acting as its own central bank and clearing house. However, consumer and commercial banking is still necessary. And, where blockchain is a problem.
Banks create money by lending out deposited funds. I cannot begin to explain how incredibly important this is to modern economies. Unless a cryptocurrency can exist in two accounts at once (which is how lending and savings accounts work), that function would be broken and the economy would grind to a halt.
Why is the title "Mueller Report 'Summary' Delivered to US Congress", instead of, "Mueller Report Summary Delivered to US Congress"? Is it somehow not a summary?
Consumers will not pre-sort. Don't even bother barking up that tree. They won't wash their garbage either. That's just silly on its face - why wash what you're disposing of?
Those are the two big reasons recycling is falling apart. Well, it's really one reason. The psychology of disposal. We just aren't going to put that much effort into getting rid of things. If you look around a city, it's pretty obvious that people aren't even that willing to make sure they drop their trash into a garbage can. If that's too much effort, cleaning and sorting one's trash is a pipe dream.
I'd like to know why anyone ever thought people would be willing to wash the things they're trying to throw away. We clean the things we want to keep and use (I'm including having the milkman refill it), not something we are paying to have taken far away so we never have to see it again.
Recycling demands too much work. What are the problems recyclers are having? Wrong kinds of plastic and/or it's dirty, right?
If someone walked up to you and said, "hey, wash your garbage", it wouldn't be unreasonable to push them around while relentlessly mocking them for talking nonsense.
I've no problem separating my trash so long as it's a reasonably simple and straightforward process. Which goes up to "glass, plastic and metal here, everything else there", and no further. If I need to figure out what kind of plastic it is, then I won't bother. And I will absolutely not be washing my garbage. A quick rinse of a milk jug so my trash doesn't stink is my limit for cleaning things that I'm throwing out. Cleaning the things I want to keep is trouble enough.
I want to recycle. I think we're wasting too much useful stuff by burying it. What I'm not willing to do is jump over the hurdles currently in place.
If we are going to recycle, it needs to be easy. No worrying about whether a plastic bag is going to destroy the plant, no cleaning things we're trying to get rid of, and the least amount of consumer-side separation possible. People just aren't going to put up with having to do any more than that.
Insurance companies are not bound by the 4th Amendment. Insurance companies have a financial interest in how property they insure came to be in an accident.
Observers at the U.N. Environment Assembly in Nairobi said the Swiss-backed proposal was rejected in part because it called for a "precautionary principle" approach to geoengineering the climate.
Setting aside the logical impossibility of applying the "precautionary principle", the sentence is ambiguous. Who is the "it" calling for the precautionary principle? Is it the Swiss plan, as the wording implies, or the Assembly, which makes more sense in the broader context of the piece? If "it" is the plan to study geoengineering, and the Assembly is being cautious overall, then why the objection (unless suddenly they realized I'm right and the precautionary principle is nonsense) to more caution? If "it" is the Assembly, then the sentence is horribly written but at least it fits with the overall context of the Assembly saying it's a bad/unsafe idea to look at geoengineering solutions.
If you've heard Sen. Blumenthal talking about how the Max 8 is "unsafe at any speed", needs to be grounded, and that Boeing and the FAA need to be raked over the coals, note that he's in the pocket of Boeing's only real competitor, Airbus.
Price is a feedback mechanism. When prices are obscured or shuffled around (insurance, loans, subsidies, etc.), they spiral out of control. Which is exactly what happened in the healthcare and higher education markets.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is a face-recognizing person a good thing and a face-recognizing camera a bad thing? It can't be that the police can check it's records, a doorman will tell them just the same.
Rest in peace Lorenzo. You were awesome.
Did you think that was good behavior? Did someone tell you that what you were doing was of some benefit to anyone other than yourself? Did you really think it benefits you?
This whole story is fun. The very idea of a French beach inexplicably amassing bits of Garfield is just delightfully funny.
If Oracle wasn't seriously planning to make phones, their argument collapses. And they'd have to show it would have had a chance in hell of selling. Microsoft couldn't survive in the phone market, why would Oracle?
What will be cheaper, the replacement for disposable dishes and cutlery plus the cost of transitioning to them, or cleaning up the trash?
Have we considered that it might be cheaper to let it all gather in that one part of the Pacific where it all seems to be ending up anyhow, and just sweep it up?
Maybe it isn't. Maybe it would be worse to do it that way regardless. I don't know, which is why the question needs to be asked and answered.
At least I assume they don't. They are banning paper receipts after all.
Which is what will happen, as businesses pass costs on to customers.
It does offer a giant attack vector though.
And break the simple perfection of email.
Seriously, what's wrong with email? Nothing, that's what. Easy to implement, easy to use, and it's fast and lightweight, not bloated with unnecessary bandwidth-hogging "features".
Banks and governments do not "settle transactions". Banks provide financial services like loans and storage. Governments provide and back currencies. Central banks manage money supply. Banks and governments work together to create central banks.
Banks and central banks together created the Automated Clearing Houses that settle transactions.
Blockchain provides a way to create and back currency without government, while acting as its own central bank and clearing house. However, consumer and commercial banking is still necessary. And, where blockchain is a problem.
Banks create money by lending out deposited funds. I cannot begin to explain how incredibly important this is to modern economies. Unless a cryptocurrency can exist in two accounts at once (which is how lending and savings accounts work), that function would be broken and the economy would grind to a halt.
Why is the title "Mueller Report 'Summary' Delivered to US Congress", instead of, "Mueller Report Summary Delivered to US Congress"? Is it somehow not a summary?
If our universities are #1, why do we need to import talent?
Way to prioritize, Google. Won't help the US defend Americans, will help China oppress it's citizens.
Those are the two big reasons recycling is falling apart. Well, it's really one reason. The psychology of disposal. We just aren't going to put that much effort into getting rid of things. If you look around a city, it's pretty obvious that people aren't even that willing to make sure they drop their trash into a garbage can. If that's too much effort, cleaning and sorting one's trash is a pipe dream.
I'd like to know why anyone ever thought people would be willing to wash the things they're trying to throw away. We clean the things we want to keep and use (I'm including having the milkman refill it), not something we are paying to have taken far away so we never have to see it again.
If someone walked up to you and said, "hey, wash your garbage", it wouldn't be unreasonable to push them around while relentlessly mocking them for talking nonsense.
I've no problem separating my trash so long as it's a reasonably simple and straightforward process. Which goes up to "glass, plastic and metal here, everything else there", and no further. If I need to figure out what kind of plastic it is, then I won't bother. And I will absolutely not be washing my garbage. A quick rinse of a milk jug so my trash doesn't stink is my limit for cleaning things that I'm throwing out. Cleaning the things I want to keep is trouble enough.
I want to recycle. I think we're wasting too much useful stuff by burying it. What I'm not willing to do is jump over the hurdles currently in place.
If we are going to recycle, it needs to be easy. No worrying about whether a plastic bag is going to destroy the plant, no cleaning things we're trying to get rid of, and the least amount of consumer-side separation possible. People just aren't going to put up with having to do any more than that.
until almost 8 years ago? That's a joke, right?
American universities attract a lot of foreign students. Are we looking at a comparison of CS skills or educational institutions?
Report them.
Start there.
Setting aside the logical impossibility of applying the "precautionary principle", the sentence is ambiguous. Who is the "it" calling for the precautionary principle? Is it the Swiss plan, as the wording implies, or the Assembly, which makes more sense in the broader context of the piece? If "it" is the plan to study geoengineering, and the Assembly is being cautious overall, then why the objection (unless suddenly they realized I'm right and the precautionary principle is nonsense) to more caution? If "it" is the Assembly, then the sentence is horribly written but at least it fits with the overall context of the Assembly saying it's a bad/unsafe idea to look at geoengineering solutions.
It's clearly Dalek inspired. Which, I suppose really just makes it "plunger inspired".
If you've heard Sen. Blumenthal talking about how the Max 8 is "unsafe at any speed", needs to be grounded, and that Boeing and the FAA need to be raked over the coals, note that he's in the pocket of Boeing's only real competitor, Airbus.
See, I have this rooster that won't shut up...
Price is a feedback mechanism. When prices are obscured or shuffled around (insurance, loans, subsidies, etc.), they spiral out of control. Which is exactly what happened in the healthcare and higher education markets.