One second is "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom."
Everything else is derived off of that. Why does one minute every few years have to be redefined just to keep "one day" relatively constant? They've effectively got two units of measurement that conflict with one another. We let "one year" drift enough that it only needs to be corrected once it's off by a whole day. Why not let those seconds accumulate and have a second leap day every hundred thousand years or so?
The FBI is part of the DOJ, which recently announced that they were going to get warrants before deploying their Stingrays. The IRS is part of the Treasury Department, which is OK with using them with only a Pen Register request.
In cases where the agencies are working together, it's likely they have IRS agents use their own device with the much lower standard of evidence, per department policy.
But is that really any different than "is this on NBC? TNT? AMC? Damn I can't remember." As long as the service is supported on my player of choice, switching streaming channels is not terribly different than switching broadcast channels.
I really should have said "additional" controls on alcohol and medications. All the industries mentioned are highly regulated already, and even if you believe that alcohol is more tightly controlled than guns are, what has all the extra regulation gotten us? A product with triple the kill rate of firearms.
OK, now define what's a drone and what's not.
RC planes have for decades been exempted from other FAA rules, are they now caught up in all this?
What about the micro-copters that can't fly outdoors if there's even a slight breeze?
Treating a 30g copter with a 10m range the same as a 5kg copter with a 1km range will mean the death of whole industries that pose no threat to anybody.
I was looking for an answer, thank you.
Purpose, in my opinion, is almost entirely beside the point. The numbers are the numbers. A product intended for relaxation is objectively more dangerous than a product intended for killing. As you say, we've tried prohibition, and it doesn't work; I'm certainly not advocating for a renewal of those policies. Education would do far more to prevent drug/alcohol deaths, so why is that such an offensive solution to gun deaths for so many people? If 30k deaths is enough to get half the country to call for many more restrictions on the sale of guns, how many deaths would it take to get people doing the same for other, more dangerous products?
Now, THAT'S mostly a rhetorical question. The answer is that the number of deaths isn't the real issue here; nobody would call for more regulations until it became a partisan political issue. It's all politics, not logic.
Of course there are regulations in place regarding medications and alcohol, as there are regulations in place for guns. But which item is getting the news cycles demanding MORE regulations? Perhaps I didn't make my point as clearly as I intended, but it's pretty clear which product gets the coverage. Despite being less dangerous than other products, and less dangerous than at any point in the last 50 years, guns are made out to be the evil one to push a political agenda, rather than an objectively logical one.
43 cases of toddler-involved shootings, and it's front page news. 100,000 cases of children going to the ER after getting grandpa's medication and nobody talks about it.
30,000 people per year die due to guns, and it's a top political story every week. 88,000 deaths per year due to alcohol and nobody talks about it.
Is anybody calling for medication or alcohol control? Maybe somewhere, somebody has this as their pet project, but nationwide, it (correctly) goes nowhere. What is it about guns and their fraction of deaths/injuries that scares people so much?
The long game is, 'build value for shareholders.' Company A with $100m in net income and $100m in cash reserves is worth more than Company B with $100m in net income and $0 in cash.
But you're right. Cash held overseas is simply worth less because it costs so much to transfer it back to the US. That's why I think a lower corporate tax (when combined with other tax changes) could encourage investment and higher salaries in the US by letting companies bring much of the $2.1 trillion currently held overseas back to the States.
Yes, this is important. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are not public entities, they are private groups formed and populated by people with agendas. If I'm a registered Socialist, the Democratic party has no obligation to let me run on their ticket or participate in their debates. The interests don't necessarily align.
Lessig isn't a Socialist, but is running on a platform of blowing up the system. Why on Earth would an establishment player want to support that platform?
He'd get farther by using the cash to start blowing holes in the notion that the US must only have two parties. Granted, he wouldn't get very far that way, either, but until voters give up the idea that we always have to choose between the lesser of two evils, that's all we'll ever end up with.
Sort of, yes.
The thing is, Facebook and other massive transnationals (Google, Apple, etc) stow their IP in a country with very low corporate tax rates (Ireland and Cayman Isl. are common), then that parent company charges huge "management fees" or other fees to use the IP in the target country (UK in this scenario). So if they projected to make an annual profit of £100m in the UK, the Irish entity would charge £100m in fees. Facebook UK now makes no profit, but Facebook Ireland makes an additional £100m. Any additional profits can be handed out as bonuses (if they're going to lose a significant portion of the money anyway, they'd rather give it to employees than the government).
This is all completely legal, and has been the bane of politicians around the world for decades. If there were an easy fix, it would have been done by now.
Of course, that's just the ELI5 version, it all gets much more complicated when used in the real world. See here for more.
What's their incentive? Altruism? Not even the darling of the automotive world does things out of the goodness of their aluminum heart.
They can't even keep up with demand for the high-priced vehicles. Start offering a car at $35k right now and what happens? The waiting list would be out 3+ years, the resale value would be triple the retail cost, and nobody would be better off but the scummy middle-men who contribute nothing to the supply chain.
Toyota sells over 400k Camrys per year in the US. Tesla just recently sold its 75k'th Model S worldwide. Over 7 years. The capacity just isn't there to offer something that will generate that much demand.
Apple specializes in selling to the hipster market, so their hipstermobile will probably have more in common with a Smart Car than a traditional automobile. Basically a golf cart with doors. It will cost $4,500 to manufacture, be marketed as saving the world, cost $19,999 at retail, and sell like hotcakes to a certain demographic.
Sony was already entrenched in the living room by the time they made a game console. Extending their entertainment empire made sense. And they had a first-party development team already in place to roll out good launch titles.
Microsoft was already the king of gaming on the PC, also had a development team, and they still took two full console generations to get it right.
Apple is more known for portable media consumption than living room interactive content. A full-blown gaming console isn't really a natural extension of any products or services they offer. They don't have any gaming franchises ready to roll out to serious gamers, and would be the 4th entrant into a market that has shown for 30 years it can really only support two major players. Would they have the patience to stick with a relatively unsuccessful version 1?
I think I was 13, and I can say unequivocally that breaking Windows 3.1 and having to fix shit before my parents got home taught me more about computers than the 4 years of college that came later.
"It's not clear if the Atlantic's below-normal season is related to climate change though.
"Hurricanes respond in complicated ways to their environment," said Timothy Hall, a research scientist who studies hurricanes at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in a NASA publication in May. "It's one of the areas of climate change research where reasonable people can still disagree.""
I'm glad the armchair philosopher-troll-climatologists on slashdot know best.
And the author of the article can't.
"Ubuntu has approximately 135,000 instances. In second place, a long, long way back, you'll find Amazon's own Amazon Linux Amazon Machine Image (AMI), with 54,000. Lagging even farther behind, there's Windows with 17,600 instances. In fourth and fifth place, you'll find CentOS, 8,500, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), 5,600."
There are 220,700 instances accounted for, and Ubuntu has a 61% share among those. As other smaller OSs are accounted for, the Ubuntu share only decreases. In other words, it's plainly NOT twice as popular as the rest put together. If I can make as assumption, I think he probably meant that it was "as popular as all others put together." That seems closer to reality.
Slashdot Mirror
One second is "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom."
Everything else is derived off of that. Why does one minute every few years have to be redefined just to keep "one day" relatively constant? They've effectively got two units of measurement that conflict with one another. We let "one year" drift enough that it only needs to be corrected once it's off by a whole day. Why not let those seconds accumulate and have a second leap day every hundred thousand years or so?
The FBI is part of the DOJ, which recently announced that they were going to get warrants before deploying their Stingrays. The IRS is part of the Treasury Department, which is OK with using them with only a Pen Register request.
In cases where the agencies are working together, it's likely they have IRS agents use their own device with the much lower standard of evidence, per department policy.
But is that really any different than "is this on NBC? TNT? AMC? Damn I can't remember." As long as the service is supported on my player of choice, switching streaming channels is not terribly different than switching broadcast channels.
And since time runs backwards as well, you can observe the reverse from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
I really should have said "additional" controls on alcohol and medications. All the industries mentioned are highly regulated already, and even if you believe that alcohol is more tightly controlled than guns are, what has all the extra regulation gotten us? A product with triple the kill rate of firearms.
OK, now define what's a drone and what's not.
RC planes have for decades been exempted from other FAA rules, are they now caught up in all this?
What about the micro-copters that can't fly outdoors if there's even a slight breeze?
Treating a 30g copter with a 10m range the same as a 5kg copter with a 1km range will mean the death of whole industries that pose no threat to anybody.
I was looking for an answer, thank you.
Purpose, in my opinion, is almost entirely beside the point. The numbers are the numbers. A product intended for relaxation is objectively more dangerous than a product intended for killing. As you say, we've tried prohibition, and it doesn't work; I'm certainly not advocating for a renewal of those policies. Education would do far more to prevent drug/alcohol deaths, so why is that such an offensive solution to gun deaths for so many people? If 30k deaths is enough to get half the country to call for many more restrictions on the sale of guns, how many deaths would it take to get people doing the same for other, more dangerous products?
Now, THAT'S mostly a rhetorical question. The answer is that the number of deaths isn't the real issue here; nobody would call for more regulations until it became a partisan political issue. It's all politics, not logic.
Of course there are regulations in place regarding medications and alcohol, as there are regulations in place for guns. But which item is getting the news cycles demanding MORE regulations? Perhaps I didn't make my point as clearly as I intended, but it's pretty clear which product gets the coverage. Despite being less dangerous than other products, and less dangerous than at any point in the last 50 years, guns are made out to be the evil one to push a political agenda, rather than an objectively logical one.
43 cases of toddler-involved shootings, and it's front page news. 100,000 cases of children going to the ER after getting grandpa's medication and nobody talks about it.
30,000 people per year die due to guns, and it's a top political story every week. 88,000 deaths per year due to alcohol and nobody talks about it.
Is anybody calling for medication or alcohol control? Maybe somewhere, somebody has this as their pet project, but nationwide, it (correctly) goes nowhere. What is it about guns and their fraction of deaths/injuries that scares people so much?
That's "a camera specifically designed to capture license plates." But that's not necessary.
The long game is, 'build value for shareholders.' Company A with $100m in net income and $100m in cash reserves is worth more than Company B with $100m in net income and $0 in cash.
But you're right. Cash held overseas is simply worth less because it costs so much to transfer it back to the US. That's why I think a lower corporate tax (when combined with other tax changes) could encourage investment and higher salaries in the US by letting companies bring much of the $2.1 trillion currently held overseas back to the States.
Yes, this is important. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are not public entities, they are private groups formed and populated by people with agendas. If I'm a registered Socialist, the Democratic party has no obligation to let me run on their ticket or participate in their debates. The interests don't necessarily align.
Lessig isn't a Socialist, but is running on a platform of blowing up the system. Why on Earth would an establishment player want to support that platform?
He'd get farther by using the cash to start blowing holes in the notion that the US must only have two parties. Granted, he wouldn't get very far that way, either, but until voters give up the idea that we always have to choose between the lesser of two evils, that's all we'll ever end up with.
Sort of, yes.
The thing is, Facebook and other massive transnationals (Google, Apple, etc) stow their IP in a country with very low corporate tax rates (Ireland and Cayman Isl. are common), then that parent company charges huge "management fees" or other fees to use the IP in the target country (UK in this scenario). So if they projected to make an annual profit of £100m in the UK, the Irish entity would charge £100m in fees. Facebook UK now makes no profit, but Facebook Ireland makes an additional £100m. Any additional profits can be handed out as bonuses (if they're going to lose a significant portion of the money anyway, they'd rather give it to employees than the government).
This is all completely legal, and has been the bane of politicians around the world for decades. If there were an easy fix, it would have been done by now.
Of course, that's just the ELI5 version, it all gets much more complicated when used in the real world. See here for more.
The Right Thing for civilization isn't usually evil. The Right Thing for shareholders often is.
What's their incentive? Altruism? Not even the darling of the automotive world does things out of the goodness of their aluminum heart.
They can't even keep up with demand for the high-priced vehicles. Start offering a car at $35k right now and what happens? The waiting list would be out 3+ years, the resale value would be triple the retail cost, and nobody would be better off but the scummy middle-men who contribute nothing to the supply chain.
Toyota sells over 400k Camrys per year in the US. Tesla just recently sold its 75k'th Model S worldwide. Over 7 years. The capacity just isn't there to offer something that will generate that much demand.
Apple specializes in selling to the hipster market, so their hipstermobile will probably have more in common with a Smart Car than a traditional automobile. Basically a golf cart with doors. It will cost $4,500 to manufacture, be marketed as saving the world, cost $19,999 at retail, and sell like hotcakes to a certain demographic.
They're never going to find the guy, he's a time traveler. He cut this line, then went back in time and did it 11 more times previously!
Apple doesn't have competition local to the EU and Russia that needs help by using farcical "trials" and bullshit legislation.
Sony was already entrenched in the living room by the time they made a game console. Extending their entertainment empire made sense. And they had a first-party development team already in place to roll out good launch titles.
Microsoft was already the king of gaming on the PC, also had a development team, and they still took two full console generations to get it right.
Apple is more known for portable media consumption than living room interactive content. A full-blown gaming console isn't really a natural extension of any products or services they offer. They don't have any gaming franchises ready to roll out to serious gamers, and would be the 4th entrant into a market that has shown for 30 years it can really only support two major players. Would they have the patience to stick with a relatively unsuccessful version 1?
I don't own a GM car, but it seems that at least some vehicles will have a separate fuse and/or control system for OnStar:
3 ways to deactivate OnStar
Firefox has some shitty default settings, but at least you can change them.
The path to promotion is proving you can put up with the company's bullshit by not quitting.
I think I was 13, and I can say unequivocally that breaking Windows 3.1 and having to fix shit before my parents got home taught me more about computers than the 4 years of college that came later.
"It's not clear if the Atlantic's below-normal season is related to climate change though.
"Hurricanes respond in complicated ways to their environment," said Timothy Hall, a research scientist who studies hurricanes at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in a NASA publication in May. "It's one of the areas of climate change research where reasonable people can still disagree.""
I'm glad the armchair philosopher-troll-climatologists on slashdot know best.
And the author of the article can't.
"Ubuntu has approximately 135,000 instances. In second place, a long, long way back, you'll find Amazon's own Amazon Linux Amazon Machine Image (AMI), with 54,000. Lagging even farther behind, there's Windows with 17,600 instances. In fourth and fifth place, you'll find CentOS, 8,500, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), 5,600."
There are 220,700 instances accounted for, and Ubuntu has a 61% share among those. As other smaller OSs are accounted for, the Ubuntu share only decreases. In other words, it's plainly NOT twice as popular as the rest put together. If I can make as assumption, I think he probably meant that it was "as popular as all others put together." That seems closer to reality.