Fuck that. It's a boon to the oil and coal industry. Solar panels just went up by 30%, slowing down our energy independence. We could have moved so much more energy production on-shore. Who cares where manufacturing happens except the manufacturers? Are we going to impose the same 30% tariff on imported coal-mining equipment?
This. We elected and installed these asshats. The police are overbearing and overtly militarized. There's a reason you can't use the military for civil ip law enforcement, so they went around and created a "non-military military".
Tough on crime and tough on drugs is "weak on civil liberties".
Why not? These individuals are not slaves. They freely entered into these arrangements, and may voluntarily leave them. Just because they lack better alternatives is not Apple's fault, its their local economy (which is communist, so theres that). These people do not have better education, better opportunities, access to investment capital or upward mobility because of their government restrictions, policies, and regulations; not because Apple (and its sub-contractors) is employing them.
Don't shoot the company thats actually over there paying them. IF Apple voluntarily paid them more than it had to though, its management would be guilty of defrauding the shareholders, since they have a fiduciary responsibility to protect and maximize returns by negotiating the best possible deal.
But, before you jump up and down screaming robber baron myths, remember that the shareholders in such a huge company includes pension funds of school teachers, police officers, and others, 401Ks and many, many mutual funds who invest on the behalf of literally millions of people in all walks of life and many, many countries.
Yes you do. But you think China is evil because they have different policies than your beliefs. That doesn't make them evil. And even if they were, what harm can giving Chinese consumers access to map data do? The state already knows enough through their own services. There's not much more bad that can be done by giving them access to more mapping applications.
It's not googles job to dictate to China what the laws should be. That's up to the Chinese and their system of government. If their citizens have a problem with their government and we wish to help them, fine. But a private entity is not the vehicle to do that, it's out government and military. Google doesn't have any authority in China but to follow Chinese laws or stay out. Sorry
Not so. The states have a right to collect taxes on things you buy if you buy them in the state. Where you receive them is where you "buy" them. What is up for debate here is whether or not they collect the taxes from the merchant or the purchaser.
Merchants contend that they have no filing requirements for states they do not have presence in, but the consumers do. Individuals are supposed to report and pay Sales Tax on things they bought and didn't pay sales tax.
This is where enforcement should happen. Otherwise, e-tailers in Canada or other overseas places will have an edge over US e-tailers who will have to collect the tax. Also, once you pay sales tax, you cant deduct it. If your tax liability hits "0" on your income tax and you have deductions which are not refundable, then you lost out because of where the collection and reporting happens. If you report your purchases and pay the sales taxes yourselves, you may deduct more taxes since the number reported will be higher, and non-refundable deductions will lower your liability.
Besides, do we really want a system where every e-tailer has to collect, report, and pay taxes to every jurisdiction in every country? The US alone has thousands of jurisdictions for sales tax at the state, county, and even city level. This is one of the effects of globalization. Sales tax should be collected from purchasers, not from retailers.
Going by your question, it shouldn't. That's the point. Imagine if land was sold in 10,000 acre plots. Only millionaires and billionaires could own it, and then everyone would have to rent from them to live, and abide by whatever rules they imposed on that land. The smaller ISPs who serve a rural community or fill in a market gap can't use the spectrum at acution here, whether or not T-Mobile uses it, since it will be the only one who has a license to use it (since it's the only one who can afford to use it). By making the plots small, anyone could afford to use it (yes, even the billionaires).
Believe whatever you want. Network analysis would have determined ages ago if that app communicated with Apple servers, which would have to be periodic.
Security researchers analyze network traffic in controlled environments all the time, and it would be a ton of damage control and egg on face if it was ever subpoenaed or hacked. I doubt this to be the case.
No, in USA, the construction workers would have been represented by the union, who would demand full wages while the authorities determine if anything else needs preserving, and the lions share of any value derived from any future finds.
What? Why? I bet the triceratops was infact sitting in a comfy chair, sipping on... well something non-alcoholic I hope, contemplating where to lay her eggs. On the lake shore is nice, but the prices would have made providing them with all they need and want a hard thing to do, if you are also working to afford said lake shore.
What does daughters âoemaking a good matchâ for centuries have to do with this debate?
Look, every time something is illegal, no matter what it is, making it legal makes it better for everyone, except those willing to risk the punishment to take advantage of.
Take alcohol for example. Remember prohibition? If you think that was good for society, go watch âoeThe Untouchablesâ. Great movie. The reason there was so much violence is because there was a demand which created a market and thugs willing to exploit it. Now, we have a healthy, vibrant, regulated liquor industry in its place.
Prostitution is the same way. We have thugs and pimps who kidnap, murder, rape, and threaten their way to a captive market, and there is nothing you can do about the demand. Even if you threaten the Johns with death, they will still seek it.
If you legalize it, companies can form to provide it, run their establishments with good busiess practices, have sex workers who provide a high quality product, and have the establishments ensure health and safety for those involved. Any thinking to the contrary is just idiotic.
Look at drugs. You have some drugs that are by prescription only, and those that are in demand carry a high quality which can be all but guaranteed, but at a high price unless you have the prescription. There is no murder, coercion, or other unrelated crime in supply. But if you look at those that are illegal all the way around, like heroin: there is murder in its supply. There is extortion, drug mules, and a whole underbelly of society involved in its production, trafficking, and distribution. Plus, the quality varies widely, and safety can not be guaranteed.
Prostitution is like illegal drugs. Legalize it, and the underbelly goes away, and the parties involved will be much better off, and the underbelly will vanish, especially if you license the companies to provide it. If you can go to an establishment and get services for relatively low cost, why would you go to a âoefreelancerâ and get fined for using ones service who is unlicensed? The only ones who would be against this is women who use sex as leverage.
No, I didnâ(TM)t read it like that. I read it as âoeLook, you like running your gizmos off the Internet, and it works now. If you ignore our piracy warnings, we will have to shut you off. These gizmos wonâ(TM)t work anymore if we do.â. They are correct. The Nest Thermostat will only be able to be remotely managed if the Internet connection is working. They arenâ(TM)t saying âoewe will change itâ(TM)s password! Bwahahahaha! All your base are belong to us! Pwned MoFo!â
They are only pointing out what other ancillary services might be interrupted if the ISP shuts off the Internet. The ISP is hoping scare tactics will result in compliance. I donâ(TM)t think the ISP intends to log into the device and change its password or anything like that. They are merely saying âoethink of everything else you use the Internet for, donâ(TM)t lose all that functionality because you are piratingâ.
That is a terrific idea. The university would have to spend a lot of money to build a payload, even if the launch is âoepro bonoâ. Satellites cost a small fortune, which is why they test using blocks of concrete.
Since you do not, you are not their end user. The ones paying the subscriptions are, and they are out-numbering those who have purchased the software traditionally, and it is more profitable, which is why companies are abandoning their purchase-ware.
It also affects your ability to trust your system. When there is unauditable code, you have no idea of its malicious or poorly written. Thatâ(TM)s the problem. There are going to be asshats on here who say no one does code review anyway, but that isnâ(TM)t the point. The point is you become no longer free to even if you wanted to. In this day and age of all the software bugs, bad implementations and massive data breaches and hacks, how on earth is closed-source client-side code or hardware still a thing?
With the Apple Watch 3 LTE you donâ(TM)t need your phone while on a run, it will even stream music to your Bluetooth headphones (I use and love my Airpods).
Sure, you need an iPhone to set it up the first time, but it has a pretty decent interface for use while on a run. Also, I think with the myriad of bands and screens, they look stylish enough. Being able to handle calls and text messages sans your iPhone is an added bonus. The only thing Iâ(TM)m not fond of is lack of a web browser in a pinch. Sure, it would be a horrible experience to use, but if you leave your phone behind, something crappy is better than nothing.
Iâ(TM)m not planning on anything. I just know what our future ambitions mean, and I donâ(TM)t believe we will find all the requisite water we will need when we get there. How we get water? Who knows. Maybe when we become a Type II civilization, we can use a technology not yet developed. 100 years is a lot of time to give society to progress enough to move mountains. Remember, it took less time to go from Kittt Hawk to Apollo 11.
Said the AC. And no, Iâ(TM)m not denying anything. Iâ(TM)m simply questioning the 100 year predictions when so many havenâ(TM)t resulted in complete collapse as was predicted. Oh, and learn to have a civil discussion, ass hat.
This article seems sensationalist. 100 years from now is a long time to predict much of anything, never mind the fact that the article just doubles the worst case scenario the scientists postulate. Carbon emissions won't continue at their current clip indefinitely, since the green revolution will displace our industrial-revolution based fuel sources. Also, any amount of terrain we lose will be dwarfed by the terrain gained from Antarctica, no longer covered in 3 miles of ice.
Then, theres the need to take water off earth. Are we going to colonize the moon, Mars? Thats going to take terraforming on a planetary scale, and 11 meters of ocean-depth seems like a good start.
But yes, lets all click their bait, and cry, and get mad. Then lets go shop at the lowest cost retailer for the lowest cost goods coming out of the most carbon-emitting factories, shipped from half a world away. We just don't care as a society to really do anything about it.
Also, what these articles always fail to mention is that the planet is in an unnatural state, with so much carbon sequestered. There was an evolutionary gap when plants learned to make bark in their ever-escalating war with each other to be the tallest. Fungi took an additional 300 million years to learn to break it down, so a bunch of it got buried as trees fell on top of more dead trees for a very long time. For most of the earth's history, that carbon was a part of the natural carbon cycle. It will be released. By tectonic forces, by us, by upheaval, by deep-living bacteria, it wont stay down there forever.
I'm not suggesting we all rush down there to speed it up any faster than we will, just that we have to think about that, and plan for it, rather than think we can freeze the earth in its current state, which our science has taught us: always changes. Always.
Besides that, how is this not a freedom of speech violation? I hate big tobacco as much as the next guy, but it was legal to make and sell cigarettes, and still is. How can the government force a company to actively advocate against itself?
This. You dont have to look at anything from Facebook or Google if you don't want to. Walled gardens? Those are web sites. They are not walled gardens. Just because you can't see the code behind the UI doesn't mean its a walled garden.
Now, why its not the same thing. Call me a right-wing nut, call me whatever, but the big telecom companies are not the same thing. Big Tech didn't get subsidized to build out their sites. Sure, maybe some of them got some tax breaks by the local townships they choose to locate their next DC in, but almost all companies of a certain size bringing X jobs to the local market and investment dollars benefit from the same thing. What Bit Telecom gets on the other hand is strait-up tax-funded subsidies to build out that infrastructure. Cable companies enjoy local monopolies in various cities to exclusively lace coax cables in the ground, and don't have to share that infrastructure with anyone, unlike the ILECs (Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier), who have to allow other companies the right to use phone lines. That is why you can buy a T1 from just about anyone in the telecom space.
You, my dear taxpayer, have already paid the telecom companies to build out that infrastructure, and again, when your elected city councilperson granted them exclusive market access to provide each person with internet.
Under normal circumstances, where the telecom companies paid for their own poles, filed all their own permits, and paid for the access permits, equipment, and grew organically, I would agree with repealing net-neutrality. Companies should be able to use their resources how best they see fit.
But these companies are not operating in normal circumstances. I believe it was the Mann–Elkins Act that forced a walled-garden industry where you can only talk to other telephones in your telephone company network. The act forced the telecom companies to interchange calls and allow anyone in the country to talk to anyone. It did this, and gave the companies funds to complete the build-out of the phone network to the remainder of the country. Tit for tat. Thats what we have here, but backwards. We gave them what they asked for, and forgot to insist that we can all use these publicly funded networks to talk to whomever we want.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't a Hz effectively a measurement of time? (1/60'th of a second for example?)
Why not measure them in their fractions of a second? Programmatically, simple.
Fuck that. It's a boon to the oil and coal industry. Solar panels just went up by 30%, slowing down our energy independence. We could have moved so much more energy production on-shore. Who cares where manufacturing happens except the manufacturers? Are we going to impose the same 30% tariff on imported coal-mining equipment?
Fuck that.
This. We elected and installed these asshats. The police are overbearing and overtly militarized. There's a reason you can't use the military for civil ip law enforcement, so they went around and created a "non-military military".
Tough on crime and tough on drugs is "weak on civil liberties".
Why not? These individuals are not slaves. They freely entered into these arrangements, and may voluntarily leave them. Just because they lack better alternatives is not Apple's fault, its their local economy (which is communist, so theres that). These people do not have better education, better opportunities, access to investment capital or upward mobility because of their government restrictions, policies, and regulations; not because Apple (and its sub-contractors) is employing them.
Don't shoot the company thats actually over there paying them. IF Apple voluntarily paid them more than it had to though, its management would be guilty of defrauding the shareholders, since they have a fiduciary responsibility to protect and maximize returns by negotiating the best possible deal.
But, before you jump up and down screaming robber baron myths, remember that the shareholders in such a huge company includes pension funds of school teachers, police officers, and others, 401Ks and many, many mutual funds who invest on the behalf of literally millions of people in all walks of life and many, many countries.
Yes you do. But you think China is evil because they have different policies than your beliefs. That doesn't make them evil. And even if they were, what harm can giving Chinese consumers access to map data do? The state already knows enough through their own services. There's not much more bad that can be done by giving them access to more mapping applications.
It's not googles job to dictate to China what the laws should be. That's up to the Chinese and their system of government. If their citizens have a problem with their government and we wish to help them, fine. But a private entity is not the vehicle to do that, it's out government and military. Google doesn't have any authority in China but to follow Chinese laws or stay out. Sorry
Not so. The states have a right to collect taxes on things you buy if you buy them in the state. Where you receive them is where you "buy" them. What is up for debate here is whether or not they collect the taxes from the merchant or the purchaser.
Merchants contend that they have no filing requirements for states they do not have presence in, but the consumers do. Individuals are supposed to report and pay Sales Tax on things they bought and didn't pay sales tax.
This is where enforcement should happen. Otherwise, e-tailers in Canada or other overseas places will have an edge over US e-tailers who will have to collect the tax. Also, once you pay sales tax, you cant deduct it. If your tax liability hits "0" on your income tax and you have deductions which are not refundable, then you lost out because of where the collection and reporting happens. If you report your purchases and pay the sales taxes yourselves, you may deduct more taxes since the number reported will be higher, and non-refundable deductions will lower your liability.
Besides, do we really want a system where every e-tailer has to collect, report, and pay taxes to every jurisdiction in every country? The US alone has thousands of jurisdictions for sales tax at the state, county, and even city level. This is one of the effects of globalization. Sales tax should be collected from purchasers, not from retailers.
Going by your question, it shouldn't. That's the point. Imagine if land was sold in 10,000 acre plots. Only millionaires and billionaires could own it, and then everyone would have to rent from them to live, and abide by whatever rules they imposed on that land. The smaller ISPs who serve a rural community or fill in a market gap can't use the spectrum at acution here, whether or not T-Mobile uses it, since it will be the only one who has a license to use it (since it's the only one who can afford to use it). By making the plots small, anyone could afford to use it (yes, even the billionaires).
Believe whatever you want. Network analysis would have determined ages ago if that app communicated with Apple servers, which would have to be periodic.
Security researchers analyze network traffic in controlled environments all the time, and it would be a ton of damage control and egg on face if it was ever subpoenaed or hacked. I doubt this to be the case.
No, in USA, the construction workers would have been represented by the union, who would demand full wages while the authorities determine if anything else needs preserving, and the lions share of any value derived from any future finds.
What? Why? I bet the triceratops was infact sitting in a comfy chair, sipping on... well something non-alcoholic I hope, contemplating where to lay her eggs. On the lake shore is nice, but the prices would have made providing them with all they need and want a hard thing to do, if you are also working to afford said lake shore.
Thanks! That worked.
Testing punctuation bug
"This"
That's
'That'
What does daughters âoemaking a good matchâ for centuries have to do with this debate?
Look, every time something is illegal, no matter what it is, making it legal makes it better for everyone, except those willing to risk the punishment to take advantage of.
Take alcohol for example. Remember prohibition? If you think that was good for society, go watch âoeThe Untouchablesâ. Great movie. The reason there was so much violence is because there was a demand which created a market and thugs willing to exploit it. Now, we have a healthy, vibrant, regulated liquor industry in its place.
Prostitution is the same way. We have thugs and pimps who kidnap, murder, rape, and threaten their way to a captive market, and there is nothing you can do about the demand. Even if you threaten the Johns with death, they will still seek it.
If you legalize it, companies can form to provide it, run their establishments with good busiess practices, have sex workers who provide a high quality product, and have the establishments ensure health and safety for those involved. Any thinking to the contrary is just idiotic.
Look at drugs. You have some drugs that are by prescription only, and those that are in demand carry a high quality which can be all but guaranteed, but at a high price unless you have the prescription. There is no murder, coercion, or other unrelated crime in supply. But if you look at those that are illegal all the way around, like heroin: there is murder in its supply. There is extortion, drug mules, and a whole underbelly of society involved in its production, trafficking, and distribution. Plus, the quality varies widely, and safety can not be guaranteed.
Prostitution is like illegal drugs. Legalize it, and the underbelly goes away, and the parties involved will be much better off, and the underbelly will vanish, especially if you license the companies to provide it. If you can go to an establishment and get services for relatively low cost, why would you go to a âoefreelancerâ and get fined for using ones service who is unlicensed? The only ones who would be against this is women who use sex as leverage.
No, I didnâ(TM)t read it like that. I read it as âoeLook, you like running your gizmos off the Internet, and it works now. If you ignore our piracy warnings, we will have to shut you off. These gizmos wonâ(TM)t work anymore if we do.â. They are correct. The Nest Thermostat will only be able to be remotely managed if the Internet connection is working. They arenâ(TM)t saying âoewe will change itâ(TM)s password! Bwahahahaha! All your base are belong to us! Pwned MoFo!â
That would be a good story though.
They are only pointing out what other ancillary services might be interrupted if the ISP shuts off the Internet. The ISP is hoping scare tactics will result in compliance. I donâ(TM)t think the ISP intends to log into the device and change its password or anything like that. They are merely saying âoethink of everything else you use the Internet for, donâ(TM)t lose all that functionality because you are piratingâ.
That is a terrific idea. The university would have to spend a lot of money to build a payload, even if the launch is âoepro bonoâ. Satellites cost a small fortune, which is why they test using blocks of concrete.
Since you do not, you are not their end user. The ones paying the subscriptions are, and they are out-numbering those who have purchased the software traditionally, and it is more profitable, which is why companies are abandoning their purchase-ware.
It also affects your ability to trust your system. When there is unauditable code, you have no idea of its malicious or poorly written. Thatâ(TM)s the problem. There are going to be asshats on here who say no one does code review anyway, but that isnâ(TM)t the point. The point is you become no longer free to even if you wanted to. In this day and age of all the software bugs, bad implementations and massive data breaches and hacks, how on earth is closed-source client-side code or hardware still a thing?
With the Apple Watch 3 LTE you donâ(TM)t need your phone while on a run, it will even stream music to your Bluetooth headphones (I use and love my Airpods).
Sure, you need an iPhone to set it up the first time, but it has a pretty decent interface for use while on a run. Also, I think with the myriad of bands and screens, they look stylish enough. Being able to handle calls and text messages sans your iPhone is an added bonus. The only thing Iâ(TM)m not fond of is lack of a web browser in a pinch. Sure, it would be a horrible experience to use, but if you leave your phone behind, something crappy is better than nothing.
Iâ(TM)m not planning on anything. I just know what our future ambitions mean, and I donâ(TM)t believe we will find all the requisite water we will need when we get there. How we get water? Who knows. Maybe when we become a Type II civilization, we can use a technology not yet developed. 100 years is a lot of time to give society to progress enough to move mountains. Remember, it took less time to go from Kittt Hawk to Apollo 11.
Said the AC. And no, Iâ(TM)m not denying anything. Iâ(TM)m simply questioning the 100 year predictions when so many havenâ(TM)t resulted in complete collapse as was predicted. Oh, and learn to have a civil discussion, ass hat.
This article seems sensationalist. 100 years from now is a long time to predict much of anything, never mind the fact that the article just doubles the worst case scenario the scientists postulate. Carbon emissions won't continue at their current clip indefinitely, since the green revolution will displace our industrial-revolution based fuel sources. Also, any amount of terrain we lose will be dwarfed by the terrain gained from Antarctica, no longer covered in 3 miles of ice.
Then, theres the need to take water off earth. Are we going to colonize the moon, Mars? Thats going to take terraforming on a planetary scale, and 11 meters of ocean-depth seems like a good start.
But yes, lets all click their bait, and cry, and get mad. Then lets go shop at the lowest cost retailer for the lowest cost goods coming out of the most carbon-emitting factories, shipped from half a world away. We just don't care as a society to really do anything about it.
Also, what these articles always fail to mention is that the planet is in an unnatural state, with so much carbon sequestered. There was an evolutionary gap when plants learned to make bark in their ever-escalating war with each other to be the tallest. Fungi took an additional 300 million years to learn to break it down, so a bunch of it got buried as trees fell on top of more dead trees for a very long time. For most of the earth's history, that carbon was a part of the natural carbon cycle. It will be released. By tectonic forces, by us, by upheaval, by deep-living bacteria, it wont stay down there forever.
I'm not suggesting we all rush down there to speed it up any faster than we will, just that we have to think about that, and plan for it, rather than think we can freeze the earth in its current state, which our science has taught us: always changes. Always.
Besides that, how is this not a freedom of speech violation? I hate big tobacco as much as the next guy, but it was legal to make and sell cigarettes, and still is. How can the government force a company to actively advocate against itself?
This. You dont have to look at anything from Facebook or Google if you don't want to. Walled gardens? Those are web sites. They are not walled gardens. Just because you can't see the code behind the UI doesn't mean its a walled garden.
Now, why its not the same thing. Call me a right-wing nut, call me whatever, but the big telecom companies are not the same thing. Big Tech didn't get subsidized to build out their sites. Sure, maybe some of them got some tax breaks by the local townships they choose to locate their next DC in, but almost all companies of a certain size bringing X jobs to the local market and investment dollars benefit from the same thing. What Bit Telecom gets on the other hand is strait-up tax-funded subsidies to build out that infrastructure. Cable companies enjoy local monopolies in various cities to exclusively lace coax cables in the ground, and don't have to share that infrastructure with anyone, unlike the ILECs (Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier), who have to allow other companies the right to use phone lines. That is why you can buy a T1 from just about anyone in the telecom space.
You, my dear taxpayer, have already paid the telecom companies to build out that infrastructure, and again, when your elected city councilperson granted them exclusive market access to provide each person with internet.
Under normal circumstances, where the telecom companies paid for their own poles, filed all their own permits, and paid for the access permits, equipment, and grew organically, I would agree with repealing net-neutrality. Companies should be able to use their resources how best they see fit.
But these companies are not operating in normal circumstances. I believe it was the Mann–Elkins Act that forced a walled-garden industry where you can only talk to other telephones in your telephone company network. The act forced the telecom companies to interchange calls and allow anyone in the country to talk to anyone. It did this, and gave the companies funds to complete the build-out of the phone network to the remainder of the country. Tit for tat. Thats what we have here, but backwards. We gave them what they asked for, and forgot to insist that we can all use these publicly funded networks to talk to whomever we want.