Can you imagine a physics paper that shows that Einstein's GR has been vindicated once again, and then ends by urging the establishment of an International Einstein Day? When you make the transition from saying what is to what should be, then you've climbed down from your scientist pedestal and joined the rest of us riff-raff know-it-alls.
Once upon a time, when Microsoft ruled the world, its Internet Explorer was undisputed King of browsers. But when upstart browsers started to make inroads, Microsoft baked its browser into the bowels of Windows, making it not only preinstalled, but impossible to remove. Believe it or not, Microsoft spun this borgian action as a Good Thing, making sure that the "user experience" was up to Microsoft's standards. Now, however, it seems to be Google that is swinging its hefty weight around, positioning its ever growing assimilation of the Internet as something it's doing for our own good.
For what it's worth, there are claims that transgender folk have a high risk of attempted suicide. If true, this alone is an indication that mental fitness is a question mark. Also, Chelsea Manning's betrayal of trust is at least suggestive, given the small number of transgenders in the military, of possibly bigger security risks. Finally, let's keep in mind that physical and mental fitness, as well as age, are all bars to military participation, and it would be silly to claim that this means those kept out of the military are somehow second-class citizens.
Wrong. The Queen is Head of State. Only the very uneducated think otherwise, and it has never been a "common aspect of successive governments for decades". The website of the Governor General plainly states: "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Head of State. The Governor General is the representative of the Queen in Canada."
It sounds like the organization is basing its complaint on headlines, instead of what was actually requested. The committee did not ask for private information, or for information that it would be illegal to provide. Rather, the committee asked for information that was available to the public. Essentially, it seems to me, the committee was looking to save a few bucks by getting the data gift-wrapped, instead of going out and getting the data itself.
A government of the idiots, by the idiots and for the idiots.
Given Trump's penchant for conferring with CEOs and movers and shakers, it's more likely that his administration is using "big league" advisors, rather than ordinary policy wonks.
What rings so false about the hacking claims is that a presumed elite hacker or hacking team would be so clumsy as to leave evidence of its true origins. I think that the more valuable question is to ask "who benefits from leaving Russian fingerprints?" The Democrats, obviously, because it feeds into their pre-built narrative, but from all appearances, they're too technologically inept. If it truly was a state actor, then my guess would be China or North Korea, since both have the skill, and both would benefit from the ensuing political chaos, giving them more latitude to advance their interests. More likely, however, is that the Russia connection was simply a by-product of the hackers covering their tracks.
The tech giants -- Microsoft, Amazon, Google, etc. -- did not depend on an infusion of cash from governments to become leaders. Although there are likely exceptions, governments tend to do poorly when picking winners and losers. My guess is that China's major gains in A.I. will occur from spycraft, in other words, stealing the intellectual property from companies in the West.
It sounds to me like the demand is getting into the "takings clause" territory, which prevents private property from being used for public purposes without just compensation. I'm guessing the reason it would cost so much is because Google doesn't want to return a simple "SELECT GENDER, SALARY FROM EMPLOYEES", but provide more detailed information that it believes supports its position.
However, your example does not apply to the issue because it is too broad with lots of competitors. Most areas in the U.S. only have ONE broad band provider in each area. Then the provider would do whatever it can to get itself to be the ONLY one in the area; thus, there is NO competition. Allowing no price cap in this case actually opens a can of worm. The no-limit cap could work if and only if there is a competition.
It seems to me that the imposition of price caps acts as a barrier to new competitors. It's just another form of rent control. With the pricing cap gone, prices would almost certainly rise in the short term, and this would lure new providers into the marketplace. This is exactly what happened to American oil producers when world oil prices rose sharply a couple years ago.
Have I missed a change in law? My understanding is that phone companies, ISPs, etc., are not responsible for what is carried on their network because they are considered "common carriers". However, it seems to me that the more a company "curates" the content it carries, the greater the responsibility it has for that content. I'm wondering whether Twitter has stepped into a huge legal minefield by effectively censoring content that is not clearly illegal.
If Hillary wins, but Republicans keep control of Congress, Kaine will become president in a year or two, if Nixon's career is any guide. Of course, if the Dems win everything, then the troubles will go away, and she'll probably be able to serve two terms, barring issues with her health.
Exactly. In a democracy, the successful politician is the one who gets the most support. In other words, he appeals to the lowest common denominator. If Hawking has such an odd comprehension of politics, I think we also need to look more critically at his opinion of Brexit.
Funny. The other day someone on TV was saying that in America you still have the right to be obnoxious. Did he and I both miss the memo where Freedom of Speech is still Free, but only as long as you say the right things?"
I'm sure this is an ongoing issue, but given that FOSS database alternatives are available, can you tell us where it is that DB/2 (and presumably Oracle, etc.) vastly outclasses these alternatives to the extent that your company is willing to pay serious coin to use? Is Postgres, for example, simply unable to keep up with high throughput demands?
Programmers are taught to code for a specific, well-defined objective, whereas untrained ordinary folk think more along the lines of "do what I mean". Recently, however, through the ACA state funding case, decided that what is *said* is immaterial, and that the law should reflect what Congress obviously *meant*. In other words, "do what I mean". Given this, language is no longer important, and it is up to the high priests of the US Supreme Court to view the auguries to determine true meaning. In other words, thanks to the Supreme Court it is not programmers that are needed, but magicians.
I'm afraid that willfull, destructive ignorance and barbarism isn't a problem that technology can solve. A digital copy, however perfect, remains a copy, and by nature, can't be used as proof that there ever *was* an original, which is the entire purpose of ISIS's destruction of these relics.
Even having a physical object is not proof that it is the original. Moreover, I submit that even backups of purported original texts of the Library of Alexandria, for example, would be extremely informative, especially when the only other options is nothing.
It seems to me that if museums, as a matter of course, scan and extensively photograph all new inventory as well as old inventory -- and put the data on the interwebs -- that will provide some protection from the pigshit known as ISIL as well as other semi-human garbage. It would generate a lot of data, but these days that seems pretty cheap.
Part of the problem is that, although it is possible for museums from stable nations to storehouse collections from museums in unstable regions, the practical end result could be that those regions would be unable to show artefacts for decades or centuries. Further, if an official from semi-civilized country Y says, "give us back our junk", who is authorized to say yes or no, even if the purpose of getting stuff back is to destroy it? As I understand it, even now, items in museums in stable democracies are being returned to the country from which they were were taken, because those countries are asking for them back. Scanning such items before returning them at least provides the possibility to make a backup in case the original is damaged or destroyed.
If this is 70 years, period, and not lifetime plus 70 years, then it may be tolerable, I think. If 50 years was the previous term of copyright, it would conceivably be possible for an artist to create a work when very young and outlive its copyright. This is even true for 70 years, but that seems like a better balance between public and private good.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you imagine a physics paper that shows that Einstein's GR has been vindicated once again, and then ends by urging the establishment of an International Einstein Day? When you make the transition from saying what is to what should be, then you've climbed down from your scientist pedestal and joined the rest of us riff-raff know-it-alls.
Once upon a time, when Microsoft ruled the world, its Internet Explorer was undisputed King of browsers. But when upstart browsers started to make inroads, Microsoft baked its browser into the bowels of Windows, making it not only preinstalled, but impossible to remove. Believe it or not, Microsoft spun this borgian action as a Good Thing, making sure that the "user experience" was up to Microsoft's standards. Now, however, it seems to be Google that is swinging its hefty weight around, positioning its ever growing assimilation of the Internet as something it's doing for our own good.
Hilarious answer (and too true).
For what it's worth, there are claims that transgender folk have a high risk of attempted suicide. If true, this alone is an indication that mental fitness is a question mark. Also, Chelsea Manning's betrayal of trust is at least suggestive, given the small number of transgenders in the military, of possibly bigger security risks. Finally, let's keep in mind that physical and mental fitness, as well as age, are all bars to military participation, and it would be silly to claim that this means those kept out of the military are somehow second-class citizens.
Wrong. The Queen is Head of State. Only the very uneducated think otherwise, and it has never been a "common aspect of successive governments for decades". The website of the Governor General plainly states: "Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Head of State. The Governor General is the representative of the Queen in Canada."
Case closed.
It sounds like the organization is basing its complaint on headlines, instead of what was actually requested. The committee did not ask for private information, or for information that it would be illegal to provide. Rather, the committee asked for information that was available to the public. Essentially, it seems to me, the committee was looking to save a few bucks by getting the data gift-wrapped, instead of going out and getting the data itself.
A government of the idiots, by the idiots and for the idiots.
Given Trump's penchant for conferring with CEOs and movers and shakers, it's more likely that his administration is using "big league" advisors, rather than ordinary policy wonks.
What rings so false about the hacking claims is that a presumed elite hacker or hacking team would be so clumsy as to leave evidence of its true origins. I think that the more valuable question is to ask "who benefits from leaving Russian fingerprints?" The Democrats, obviously, because it feeds into their pre-built narrative, but from all appearances, they're too technologically inept. If it truly was a state actor, then my guess would be China or North Korea, since both have the skill, and both would benefit from the ensuing political chaos, giving them more latitude to advance their interests. More likely, however, is that the Russia connection was simply a by-product of the hackers covering their tracks.
The tech giants -- Microsoft, Amazon, Google, etc. -- did not depend on an infusion of cash from governments to become leaders. Although there are likely exceptions, governments tend to do poorly when picking winners and losers. My guess is that China's major gains in A.I. will occur from spycraft, in other words, stealing the intellectual property from companies in the West.
It sounds to me like the demand is getting into the "takings clause" territory, which prevents private property from being used for public purposes without just compensation. I'm guessing the reason it would cost so much is because Google doesn't want to return a simple "SELECT GENDER, SALARY FROM EMPLOYEES", but provide more detailed information that it believes supports its position.
However, your example does not apply to the issue because it is too broad with lots of competitors. Most areas in the U.S. only have ONE broad band provider in each area. Then the provider would do whatever it can to get itself to be the ONLY one in the area; thus, there is NO competition. Allowing no price cap in this case actually opens a can of worm. The no-limit cap could work if and only if there is a competition.
It seems to me that the imposition of price caps acts as a barrier to new competitors. It's just another form of rent control. With the pricing cap gone, prices would almost certainly rise in the short term, and this would lure new providers into the marketplace. This is exactly what happened to American oil producers when world oil prices rose sharply a couple years ago.
Have I missed a change in law? My understanding is that phone companies, ISPs, etc., are not responsible for what is carried on their network because they are considered "common carriers". However, it seems to me that the more a company "curates" the content it carries, the greater the responsibility it has for that content. I'm wondering whether Twitter has stepped into a huge legal minefield by effectively censoring content that is not clearly illegal.
If Hillary wins, but Republicans keep control of Congress, Kaine will become president in a year or two, if Nixon's career is any guide. Of course, if the Dems win everything, then the troubles will go away, and she'll probably be able to serve two terms, barring issues with her health.
Alternatively, you're not as smart as you think you are.
Racist, stoopid Trump has once again seen and voiced what politicians are loathe to even acknowledge.
Exactly. In a democracy, the successful politician is the one who gets the most support. In other words, he appeals to the lowest common denominator. If Hawking has such an odd comprehension of politics, I think we also need to look more critically at his opinion of Brexit.
You mean the data that suppressionists are withholding?
Sorry, you lose. Suppression of data is a huge red flag.
Funny. The other day someone on TV was saying that in America you still have the right to be obnoxious. Did he and I both miss the memo where Freedom of Speech is still Free, but only as long as you say the right things?"
Someone I know is a satanist. He sent a copy of Oracle's license docs down to hell with a note attached saying "Guys, learn".
A reference to Pratchett/Gaiman's 'Good Omens', btw, and essential reading.
I'm sure this is an ongoing issue, but given that FOSS database alternatives are available, can you tell us where it is that DB/2 (and presumably Oracle, etc.) vastly outclasses these alternatives to the extent that your company is willing to pay serious coin to use? Is Postgres, for example, simply unable to keep up with high throughput demands?
Programmers are taught to code for a specific, well-defined objective, whereas untrained ordinary folk think more along the lines of "do what I mean". Recently, however, through the ACA state funding case, decided that what is *said* is immaterial, and that the law should reflect what Congress obviously *meant*. In other words, "do what I mean". Given this, language is no longer important, and it is up to the high priests of the US Supreme Court to view the auguries to determine true meaning. In other words, thanks to the Supreme Court it is not programmers that are needed, but magicians.
I'm afraid that willfull, destructive ignorance and barbarism isn't a problem that technology can solve. A digital copy, however perfect, remains a copy, and by nature, can't be used as proof that there ever *was* an original, which is the entire purpose of ISIS's destruction of these relics.
Even having a physical object is not proof that it is the original. Moreover, I submit that even backups of purported original texts of the Library of Alexandria, for example, would be extremely informative, especially when the only other options is nothing.
It seems to me that if museums, as a matter of course, scan and extensively photograph all new inventory as well as old inventory -- and put the data on the interwebs -- that will provide some protection from the pigshit known as ISIL as well as other semi-human garbage. It would generate a lot of data, but these days that seems pretty cheap.
Part of the problem is that, although it is possible for museums from stable nations to storehouse collections from museums in unstable regions, the practical end result could be that those regions would be unable to show artefacts for decades or centuries. Further, if an official from semi-civilized country Y says, "give us back our junk", who is authorized to say yes or no, even if the purpose of getting stuff back is to destroy it? As I understand it, even now, items in museums in stable democracies are being returned to the country from which they were were taken, because those countries are asking for them back. Scanning such items before returning them at least provides the possibility to make a backup in case the original is damaged or destroyed.
If this is 70 years, period, and not lifetime plus 70 years, then it may be tolerable, I think. If 50 years was the previous term of copyright, it would conceivably be possible for an artist to create a work when very young and outlive its copyright. This is even true for 70 years, but that seems like a better balance between public and private good.