If you can't trust your suppliers, then you shouldn't be manufacturing anything. They're not buying their supplies off of Amazon like stupid individuals. They're entering into massive, long-term financial relationships with other companies.
If you aren't auditing your suppliers you shouldn't be manufacturing anything. FTFY
And the blockchain itself cannot be trusted if controlled by a single entity (Nestle), so no help there either.
Nestle doesn't care if Nestle controls the blockchain. Nestle prefers that Nestle controls the blockchain.
Exactly. For PR purposes they might want to make sure it's externally verifiable at some point, but the first step is to get control of your supply chain.
Or is it better to leave the standards alone, let the car makers get their factories well set up to make cars to that standard, and let the costs of new cars gradually fall over time?
Just like CD prices came down after all the music companies recouped the cost of switching from making cassettes?
This is one of the few cases where I don't think it's just buzzword marketing. Everyone saying this is an "internal" tracking issue must have never heard the phrase "global supply chain". They're not just trying to track their internal logistics, they're trying to push verifiable tracking out to all their suppliers.
Devil in the details, blah blah... I know, but this isn't obviously stupid.
That the innovation isn't present... it's all just standard kit and standard batteries bolted together with the one thing that they WOULDN'T want to replicate as he's done it - the automated driving computer.
This is about companies wanting to *prevent* states from passing their own privacy laws, because of things like states passing laws against using facial recognition. Congress will pass a law to keep states from doing that, and that law will give big data companies legal cover both for (1) continuing to use their massive existing amounts of data, which is a large corporate asset, in AI work and (2) collecting additional data.
Exactly. And I'd also add, this:
Through the White House National Economic Council, the Trump Administration aims to craft a consumer privacy protection policy that is the appropriate balance between privacy and prosperity.
It's setting up the idea, soon to be enshrined in law, that more privacy always mean less prosperity.
Little was done with it until Oliver Heaviside re-wrote the theory in 1884 using the curl and divergence concepts of vector calculus, replacing 12 of the 20 equations with four short differential equations.
With a name like that, he's got to be an Avenger, right?
Every time I see a story about them I tell myself, "Hey, self, you've got to remember to sign up for this! It sounds like a great deal." Looks like this may be my last chance to sign up.
If you had read the actual article, (or even the damn summary) you might have realized that many of the posts were SATIRE!
That's how shitposting works. Make the lie entertaining, and people will spread it just because it makes them smile. Then once people have heard the story three hundred times in their feed, it starts to feel true even if their logic is telling them it's not.
In a free country we allow the truth to replace the falsehoods.
When have you ever seen that happen before the damage was done?
You're missing the reason that the transit pass is cheap: each trip of a bus or subway carries double-digit numbers of people. The math doesn't work when you're talking about a taxi-like vehicle that carries just you
I'm not missing that at all. My point is that I don't care about the per-mile cost of owning a car vs. using a taxi-like vehicle. What I care about is the total cost of transportation.
For two years I lived around the corner from a train station that dropped off across the street from my office. My next job, the bus stop was even closer to my house and that also dropped me across the street from my (new) office. I put less than a thousand miles on my car. The only reason I kept it was it was already paid off.
And the same will be true of self-driving taxi services. The taxi fleet companies will have to pay for the cost of upkeep and make a profit. Because of that profit margin, the only way such a service could possibly be cheaper than owning a car would be if you live in an environment where unused cars decay significantly over time, e.g. road salt territory. In those areas, driving a car all day long until it drops might save enough money over driving a car less frequently to make a pay-per-use fleet cheaper than owning
I can get a monthly pass for the local transit system for $95. I could pay that for 10 years and it would be just over $11k, which isn't enough to buy a Nissan Versa, the current cheapest new car you can buy in the U.S. I could rent a lot of vehicles for weekend trips and vacations for what I'm saving.
This is where someone points out that a transit pass isn't the same as taking a taxi. If it goes where I want, when I want, yes it is. And no, that's not true for me, which is why I have a car. But it's true for lots of people.
So I suppose it'll also tag a copy/paste sequence directly from another message? That's just as hard (easy) as forwarding. (Actually, it's ever-so-slightly harder, but not really.)
Are they going to spin off and begin creating x86 compatible processors, completely neglecting patents?
Yes, and what are you going to do to stop them?
A single change and your x86 software becomes a buggy mess, I'd like to see them try to copy it.
China made 90.6% of all PCs produced in 2011. (Most recent number I could find in a quick search.) If your software doesn't work on them, who has more incentive to "fix" it?
Probably a good strategy would be to drive to the outer limit of the carpark where it is generally empty except for staff cars, which would also limit the outrage from the general public about unsupervised cars driving around the lot and stealing their parks.
I predict in the next 5 years someone is going to paint corners on parking spaces specifically to enable self-driving cars to pick them out easier.
Their strategy of giving preference to HTTPS sites is perfectly reasonable though, all the more reasonable because of the fact that HTTP sites are generally old and unmaintained. I want old data to show up in my search results, but I rarely want it to show up first.
Yes, because when I want to know what people thought about an event as it was happening, the last thing I want to see is contemporary coverage.
And of course who could possibly be interested in Julia Child when you could be reading about Guy Fieri?
Some things aren't better just because they're newer. Maybe even most things.
Not to mention - why the FUCK would I need HTTPS to view a page that has been sitting around since 1998, is static HTML, likely has no ads plastered all over its face, and contains information on something obscure and random that newer pages don't have anymore? There's no reason for encryption for these older pages. Ever. There is no login information, user credentials, or even scripts being executed.
Four answers to this question so far, and all of them explain why I as a site owner should want HTTPS. The question is, if I don't want HTTPS - if I've decided the updates have negative ROI - why should I be coerced into using it?
Note that I'm only saying "coerced" instead of "forced" so someone doesn't say, "They're not forcing anything." They're not fording it yet, but I predict in a year Chrome will do the same thing it does today with flagged malware sites and prevent you from accessing them.
The La Liga app, which is the official streaming app for Spain’s most popular football league, has reportedly been using the microphones on fans’ phones to root out unauthorized broadcasts of matches in public venues like bars and restaurants.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can't trust your suppliers, then you shouldn't be manufacturing anything. They're not buying their supplies off of Amazon like stupid individuals. They're entering into massive, long-term financial relationships with other companies.
If you aren't auditing your suppliers you shouldn't be manufacturing anything. FTFY
And the blockchain itself cannot be trusted if controlled by a single entity (Nestle), so no help there either.
Nestle doesn't care if Nestle controls the blockchain. Nestle prefers that Nestle controls the blockchain.
Exactly. For PR purposes they might want to make sure it's externally verifiable at some point, but the first step is to get control of your supply chain.
The cost of computers has come down over the years, and cars are more like computers than they are like CDs in terms of competition based on price.
Then why is the cost of cars going up so much?
Or is it better to leave the standards alone, let the car makers get their factories well set up to make cars to that standard, and let the costs of new cars gradually fall over time?
Just like CD prices came down after all the music companies recouped the cost of switching from making cassettes?
This is one of the few cases where I don't think it's just buzzword marketing. Everyone saying this is an "internal" tracking issue must have never heard the phrase "global supply chain". They're not just trying to track their internal logistics, they're trying to push verifiable tracking out to all their suppliers.
Devil in the details, blah blah ... I know, but this isn't obviously stupid.
Taiwan was going to conquer the mainland lol.
Vizzini agrees.
That the innovation isn't present... it's all just standard kit and standard batteries bolted together with the one thing that they WOULDN'T want to replicate as he's done it - the automated driving computer.
I guess you've missed the multiple battery tear-down articles going back 4 years.
This is about companies wanting to *prevent* states from passing their own privacy laws, because of things like states passing laws against using facial recognition. Congress will pass a law to keep states from doing that, and that law will give big data companies legal cover both for (1) continuing to use their massive existing amounts of data, which is a large corporate asset, in AI work and (2) collecting additional data.
Exactly. And I'd also add, this:
Through the White House National Economic Council, the Trump Administration aims to craft a consumer privacy protection policy that is the appropriate balance between privacy and prosperity.
It's setting up the idea, soon to be enshrined in law, that more privacy always mean less prosperity.
Little was done with it until Oliver Heaviside re-wrote the theory in 1884 using the curl and divergence concepts of vector calculus, replacing 12 of the 20 equations with four short differential equations.
With a name like that, he's got to be an Avenger, right?
Every time I see a story about them I tell myself, "Hey, self, you've got to remember to sign up for this! It sounds like a great deal." Looks like this may be my last chance to sign up.
If you had read the actual article, (or even the damn summary) you might have realized that many of the posts were SATIRE!
That's how shitposting works. Make the lie entertaining, and people will spread it just because it makes them smile. Then once people have heard the story three hundred times in their feed, it starts to feel true even if their logic is telling them it's not.
In a free country we allow the truth to replace the falsehoods.
When have you ever seen that happen before the damage was done?
"Very Large Telescope"
I suppose the next will be the "Quite Big, Actually, Telescope".
You're missing the reason that the transit pass is cheap: each trip of a bus or subway carries double-digit numbers of people. The math doesn't work when you're talking about a taxi-like vehicle that carries just you
I'm not missing that at all. My point is that I don't care about the per-mile cost of owning a car vs. using a taxi-like vehicle. What I care about is the total cost of transportation.
For two years I lived around the corner from a train station that dropped off across the street from my office. My next job, the bus stop was even closer to my house and that also dropped me across the street from my (new) office. I put less than a thousand miles on my car. The only reason I kept it was it was already paid off.
And the same will be true of self-driving taxi services. The taxi fleet companies will have to pay for the cost of upkeep and make a profit. Because of that profit margin, the only way such a service could possibly be cheaper than owning a car would be if you live in an environment where unused cars decay significantly over time, e.g. road salt territory. In those areas, driving a car all day long until it drops might save enough money over driving a car less frequently to make a pay-per-use fleet cheaper than owning
I can get a monthly pass for the local transit system for $95. I could pay that for 10 years and it would be just over $11k, which isn't enough to buy a Nissan Versa, the current cheapest new car you can buy in the U.S. I could rent a lot of vehicles for weekend trips and vacations for what I'm saving.
This is where someone points out that a transit pass isn't the same as taking a taxi. If it goes where I want, when I want, yes it is. And no, that's not true for me, which is why I have a car. But it's true for lots of people.
Someone with points please mod this up.
So I suppose it'll also tag a copy/paste sequence directly from another message? That's just as hard (easy) as forwarding. (Actually, it's ever-so-slightly harder, but not really.)
Never worked tech support, have you?
Are they going to spin off and begin creating x86 compatible processors, completely neglecting patents?
Yes, and what are you going to do to stop them?
A single change and your x86 software becomes a buggy mess, I'd like to see them try to copy it.
China made 90.6% of all PCs produced in 2011. (Most recent number I could find in a quick search.) If your software doesn't work on them, who has more incentive to "fix" it?
How about a mansion unt a yacht? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
... the FASTER player is usually victorious. Bots aren't better players; they're just WAY faster.
If the faster player is usually victorious, then for this game the faster player is the better player.
Probably a good strategy would be to drive to the outer limit of the carpark where it is generally empty except for staff cars, which would also limit the outrage from the general public about unsupervised cars driving around the lot and stealing their parks.
I predict in the next 5 years someone is going to paint corners on parking spaces specifically to enable self-driving cars to pick them out easier.
Their strategy of giving preference to HTTPS sites is perfectly reasonable though, all the more reasonable because of the fact that HTTP sites are generally old and unmaintained. I want old data to show up in my search results, but I rarely want it to show up first.
Yes, because when I want to know what people thought about an event as it was happening, the last thing I want to see is contemporary coverage.
And of course who could possibly be interested in Julia Child when you could be reading about Guy Fieri?
Some things aren't better just because they're newer. Maybe even most things.
Not to mention - why the FUCK would I need HTTPS to view a page that has been sitting around since 1998, is static HTML, likely has no ads plastered all over its face, and contains information on something obscure and random that newer pages don't have anymore? There's no reason for encryption for these older pages. Ever. There is no login information, user credentials, or even scripts being executed.
Four answers to this question so far, and all of them explain why I as a site owner should want HTTPS. The question is, if I don't want HTTPS - if I've decided the updates have negative ROI - why should I be coerced into using it?
Note that I'm only saying "coerced" instead of "forced" so someone doesn't say, "They're not forcing anything." They're not fording it yet, but I predict in a year Chrome will do the same thing it does today with flagged malware sites and prevent you from accessing them.
But you cannot give consent for me.
True, but in that case the person who gave consent is the one doing the recording, not Facebook. At least that's what their lawyers will argue.
Can someone tell me how many dollars 46 votes converts to? I can't work with these the American Imperial units.
Roughly 1.8 million pats of butter per vote.
The La Liga app, which is the official streaming app for Spain’s most popular football league, has reportedly been using the microphones on fans’ phones to root out unauthorized broadcasts of matches in public venues like bars and restaurants.
Sounds like the same thing.