A color printer will print faint yellow dots for a water mark. Simply print the documents on yellow paper, then photocopy them on to white paper (and a low quality scan setting to be safe).
In the United States, if a doctor prescribes a specific brand of medicine, then the pharmacist *must* use that brand. Conversely, many doctors prescribe "Epipen" for the same reason people use the word "Kleenex" to refer to a facial tissue, or "Xerox" to refer to a photocopy; it's by and away the most popular brand to the point that the brand becomes synonymous with the non-branded name for the product.
The best thing that can be done is to educate people who rely on epinephrine injectors to ask their doctors not to write prescriptions specifically for Epipen. 99+% of the time the doctor won't have an issue prescribing a brand other than Epipen.
Because it's more profitable to have ads on top of subscriber fees. Cable in the very early days was commercial free, but that idea died once they realized people would tolerate paying fees while watching ads.
Maybe, but I'm not so sure. UBI gives people a certain amount of money to spend on whatever they want. Federal student loans, however, is specifically for higher education. Since UBI is not focused on a given market, it may not have much impact on prices.
Education costs have risen faster than any other cateogy for the last 20 years. Faster than housing or even healthcare.
Well, when you make it really easy for people to get student loans, of course prices are going to go up. It's basic economics - if the demand increases, costs go up. Good or bad, it's one of the side effects of federal sponsored student loans. If you created federal mortgages that made it easier to people to buy homes, you would see home prices skyrocket as well.
"Kill" Go? No. Much like Deep Blue did with Chess, AlphaGo will bring a renaissance of innovative play to Go, and it has already started. Much conventional wisdom is being re-evaluated already in light of AlphaGo, and moves that were once considered "correct" in certain situations are already being reconsidered as sub-optimal.
I actually managed not to see a car insurance bill a few years back, resulting in me not paying and my coverage being cancelled. When I signed back up with the same insurer, I actually got a better rate as a new customer who had defaulted on their last payment than I had as a customer continually paying my bills on time.
I think you miss the point. Due to the complexity of Go in the sense that any turn can be played on dozens if not hundreds of spaces, computers could not brute force their way to victory. The reason this is important is because A: it shows a computer using something other than brute force to solve a logistical problem, and B: the program has the ability to be self taught beyond learning the basic rules (and rule sets don't get much more basic than Go).
Yes, a computer beat a human, but this is a much different victory than winning at chess.
I don't even want to connect with most of the people I already *do* know... why one Earth would I want to add another person to my social network that I obviously don't care enough about to have already gotten to know?
I dropped Facebook years ago, and have recently dropped Reddit as well. Slashdot is the only remaining website I use that has a broad range of topics discussed. I noticed I felt a lot better shortly after dropping social sites. I was no longer angry over random people saying stupid stuff, or personally attacking me, or whatever. And looking back, I realized that the only people I lost touch with from dropping facebook, were people I honestly didn't care about anyways. I don't care what my classmate from 10th grade who I talked with twice the whole year is up to these days.
Every CEO I've known tries to get their technology budget as small as possible. You'll never convince them to spend the money to automate all their employees.
First the UK essentially banned pornography. Now it wants to ban being "mean" (which, being a subjective term, I'm sure will never ever be used to nefarious purposes). I can't wait to see what gets banned next in the name of protecting the children... maybe the political opposition will be labeled as "hate speech" and also be banned. Or maybe any religion that purports any morality that the government doesn't like will be labeled as "hate speech". I'm sure all this will lead to a British utopia in 10 years. I mean, sure, this path has always led to fascism in the past, but this time I'm sure it will somehow end up differently.
Well sure, when you don't bother reading news with a critical eye, the easiest thing to do is not read a news source because you are afraid it might be inaccurate (or worse, not conform to your desired narrative), and you would be unable to discern the difference.
The fact that you seem to see the world as "everything good comes from the left, and everything bad comes from the right" is proof that you've already been trained to think what you're told to think and never question it. If you truly think the world is so cut and dry, you are a fool.
Regardless of how you feel about tax subsidies for businesses, you can't fault Musk for taking them. I think corn subsidies in the US are stupid, but if I were a corn farmer, I guarantee I would take them, otherwise I would be at an unfair advantage.
If someone is so bored driving that they look to their smartphone for stimulation, that person is going to be distracted without their cellphone as well. It's not like there were no distracted drivers before we had cell phones.
I seem to recall the media saying in late 2007 that the next president would face a major terrorist the scope of 9/11 within the first 100 days of office, too.
Yeah, let's get a politician who doesn't pander to all the people who have the power (read: not you or me), and see how successfully they run for office. A politician who doesn't pander to the most powerful players is a politician who is going to lose to their competitor who does. And people who complain about politicians being in bed with big business are ignorant. Yeah, it sucks, but it's how politics works. It's how it has always worked, and it is how it's always going to work, until we are ruled by robots (and even then I'm not sure the game will change). You want Hillary or Trump to pander directly to you, but once they get elected, what good are you to them? Maybe $5000 in annual tax revenue if you're lucky. Maybe you're lucky enough to be a part of a voter block who collectively has enough power to get a bit of support in the form of a tax break or a subsidy, but odds are, you mean nothing to any politician.
I live in an entire state (Vermont) that has banned billboards for a long time now. The reasoning here is that billboards would obstruct the natural beauty of the state.
Slashdot Mirror
A color printer will print faint yellow dots for a water mark. Simply print the documents on yellow paper, then photocopy them on to white paper (and a low quality scan setting to be safe).
In the United States, if a doctor prescribes a specific brand of medicine, then the pharmacist *must* use that brand. Conversely, many doctors prescribe "Epipen" for the same reason people use the word "Kleenex" to refer to a facial tissue, or "Xerox" to refer to a photocopy; it's by and away the most popular brand to the point that the brand becomes synonymous with the non-branded name for the product. The best thing that can be done is to educate people who rely on epinephrine injectors to ask their doctors not to write prescriptions specifically for Epipen. 99+% of the time the doctor won't have an issue prescribing a brand other than Epipen.
Because it's more profitable to have ads on top of subscriber fees. Cable in the very early days was commercial free, but that idea died once they realized people would tolerate paying fees while watching ads.
Encrypting your dead tree notebook must have taken forever
Which should be a major hint that "conservative" and "liberal" are meaningless buzzwords used to divide voters
Maybe, but I'm not so sure. UBI gives people a certain amount of money to spend on whatever they want. Federal student loans, however, is specifically for higher education. Since UBI is not focused on a given market, it may not have much impact on prices.
Education costs have risen faster than any other cateogy for the last 20 years. Faster than housing or even healthcare.
Well, when you make it really easy for people to get student loans, of course prices are going to go up. It's basic economics - if the demand increases, costs go up. Good or bad, it's one of the side effects of federal sponsored student loans. If you created federal mortgages that made it easier to people to buy homes, you would see home prices skyrocket as well.
...some sort of search engine, perhaps.
"Kill" Go? No. Much like Deep Blue did with Chess, AlphaGo will bring a renaissance of innovative play to Go, and it has already started. Much conventional wisdom is being re-evaluated already in light of AlphaGo, and moves that were once considered "correct" in certain situations are already being reconsidered as sub-optimal.
I actually managed not to see a car insurance bill a few years back, resulting in me not paying and my coverage being cancelled. When I signed back up with the same insurer, I actually got a better rate as a new customer who had defaulted on their last payment than I had as a customer continually paying my bills on time.
I think you miss the point. Due to the complexity of Go in the sense that any turn can be played on dozens if not hundreds of spaces, computers could not brute force their way to victory. The reason this is important is because A: it shows a computer using something other than brute force to solve a logistical problem, and B: the program has the ability to be self taught beyond learning the basic rules (and rule sets don't get much more basic than Go). Yes, a computer beat a human, but this is a much different victory than winning at chess.
I don't even want to connect with most of the people I already *do* know... why one Earth would I want to add another person to my social network that I obviously don't care enough about to have already gotten to know?
I dropped Facebook years ago, and have recently dropped Reddit as well. Slashdot is the only remaining website I use that has a broad range of topics discussed. I noticed I felt a lot better shortly after dropping social sites. I was no longer angry over random people saying stupid stuff, or personally attacking me, or whatever. And looking back, I realized that the only people I lost touch with from dropping facebook, were people I honestly didn't care about anyways. I don't care what my classmate from 10th grade who I talked with twice the whole year is up to these days.
Every CEO I've known tries to get their technology budget as small as possible. You'll never convince them to spend the money to automate all their employees.
First the UK essentially banned pornography. Now it wants to ban being "mean" (which, being a subjective term, I'm sure will never ever be used to nefarious purposes). I can't wait to see what gets banned next in the name of protecting the children... maybe the political opposition will be labeled as "hate speech" and also be banned. Or maybe any religion that purports any morality that the government doesn't like will be labeled as "hate speech". I'm sure all this will lead to a British utopia in 10 years. I mean, sure, this path has always led to fascism in the past, but this time I'm sure it will somehow end up differently.
Well sure, when you don't bother reading news with a critical eye, the easiest thing to do is not read a news source because you are afraid it might be inaccurate (or worse, not conform to your desired narrative), and you would be unable to discern the difference.
The fact that you seem to see the world as "everything good comes from the left, and everything bad comes from the right" is proof that you've already been trained to think what you're told to think and never question it. If you truly think the world is so cut and dry, you are a fool.
Regardless of how you feel about tax subsidies for businesses, you can't fault Musk for taking them. I think corn subsidies in the US are stupid, but if I were a corn farmer, I guarantee I would take them, otherwise I would be at an unfair advantage.
If someone is so bored driving that they look to their smartphone for stimulation, that person is going to be distracted without their cellphone as well. It's not like there were no distracted drivers before we had cell phones.
I seem to recall the media saying in late 2007 that the next president would face a major terrorist the scope of 9/11 within the first 100 days of office, too.
Yeah, let's get a politician who doesn't pander to all the people who have the power (read: not you or me), and see how successfully they run for office. A politician who doesn't pander to the most powerful players is a politician who is going to lose to their competitor who does. And people who complain about politicians being in bed with big business are ignorant. Yeah, it sucks, but it's how politics works. It's how it has always worked, and it is how it's always going to work, until we are ruled by robots (and even then I'm not sure the game will change). You want Hillary or Trump to pander directly to you, but once they get elected, what good are you to them? Maybe $5000 in annual tax revenue if you're lucky. Maybe you're lucky enough to be a part of a voter block who collectively has enough power to get a bit of support in the form of a tax break or a subsidy, but odds are, you mean nothing to any politician.
It's bad for the living things that rely on the current climate.
Because race-baiters aren't a threat to the establishment and serve to keep the public distracted from real issues.
It's called an HDMI cable.
I live in an entire state (Vermont) that has banned billboards for a long time now. The reasoning here is that billboards would obstruct the natural beauty of the state.