I don't like either Hillary or Trump, but just because you don't want to air your dirty laundry doesn't mean you have something to hide.
Just as a thought experiment, why don't you post nude pictures of yourself on the internet to prove that you don't have a small penis? And if you don't, is that evidence of guilt?
As much as I don't like Hillary, I think the Goldwater case applies and doctors shouldn't be commenting on her fitness without two conditions being met:
1) The doctor has personally evaluated her, and 2) She has waived her doctor-patient confidentiality privilege.
This should apply in any situation for any patient as a universal rule.
I've personally had a job where after a while I wasn't having much to do. I even thought at the time that if I were them, I'd lay me off. And then a bad quarter came, and they shed about 10% of the workforce, and I wasn't at all surprised with what happened next.
And to be honest, I saw a lot of people let go that we probably didn't really need. The purpose of a business isn't too create work and give people paychecks, so I honestly have no complaints about layoffs when I hear about them.
Besides, getting laid off turned out to be highly profitable since I got a decent severance and within two months got hired at a new place with 60% better pay, better benefits, and my own office instead of a cubicle. So I'm actually rather glad that I was laid off, because I wouldn't have looked for greener pastures otherwise, and I wouldn't have gotten two months of paid vacation.
Hmm...That doesn't seem far off from what mine cost at about $1400 per year. I went to a local community college for my technical skills. I only did an IT Management degree at university, and that was basically just a resume filler and not exactly something I needed.
There are some other little niche devices that used the headphone jack as well, for example some company made a diabetes tester that did so, which meant it could be compatible with other smartphones. But now they're making a lightning port version to replace it.
Though based on my own experience on logging health stats from another (non diabetes) chronic condition, I have to say that I've found smartphone based devices to be overall less convenient than using traditional devices combined with my own custom Google Sheets based logging system.
No, I wasn't saying that at all. A 1.5+ million person area is not a "nowhere place".
That doesn't tell me anything. Phoenix has a population of over 1.5 million. Not the Phoenix metro area; that's much larger. Just plain ol Phoenix. And, if you head to the Rio Vista district, which is a large area that is very much part of Phoenix, then you're officially out in bumblefuck nowhere while still being able to claim that the city you live in has a population of 1.5 million. Hell, you don't even need to go that far, North Gateway and Desert View also qualify as being bumblefuck nowhere, and they're still part of Phoenix.
I think GP assumes that "most people" (his words) absolutely must have coverage in remote bumblefuck nowhere places, of which verizon is marginally better at since T-Mobile can roam on most of AT&T's network, which is almost as big as Verizons. Though I have to say, he probably lives in bumblefuck nowhere if most people he knows need coverage there. As for myself, if I'm going to a place like that, I'm probably on vacation and the last thing I want is people bugging me.
A fruit company didn't overthrow anything, rather they bought out already corrupt politicians in those regions, forming so called banana republics. This is a much different thing than a corporation having its own military and executing its own invasion.
I'd mention that such a thing hasn't happened in a long time, but I won't bother because I'll get a ton of AC conspiracy theories from people who read too many cyberpunk novels, using terms like "megacorps" intermittently.
He's saying that the wealth disparity is harmful, and giving too much power to too little people is not ideal. If you don't understand that, you might want to read up on the economic issues of the early US. Better yet, you might want to study history at any time, and any place.
Well let's look at history then. The corporations in the era you speak of had the power to wage war, jail and execute people who didn't pay their debts, and the most wealthy corporation to ever exist was worth 8 trillion dollars in today's money at its peak in 1637, which basically rivals today's US government. We haven't seen any corporations anywhere even closely being that powerful or wealthy in over two centuries.
The world's most powerful and wealthy people today pale in comparison to that as well. The saying "The sun never sets over England" comes to mind, not only to give you how much of an idea of just how much power England wielded over the entire fucking planet, but also the Lieutenants of the crown. The world's present richest person, Bill Gates, is nothing compared to ANY government official of that era.
And in spite of all of that, we're somehow in the worst of times?
Watching fox news would require a cable subscription, which I don't have. Though to be honest, people who attribute fox news as a source of every opinion that they don't like are even bigger fools than those who they attack.
Given the 1% pay far more taxes than corporations do, I'm not sure what your rant is getting at. And given they earn 19% of the country's AGI while playing 37% of the country's income taxes, I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind saying that it's unfair, nor do I quite understand why some people write books akin to mein kampf about how much they're perceived to be ruining humanity.
Obama was a law professor? I thought he was a community organizer?
At any rate, there's nothing he or anybody else can do to "stop" a cyberweapons arms race. It's pretty damn easy to deploy a cyberweapon without in any way leaving a trace as to where it came from. Besides, it's probably best to let it proceed anyways that way we can learn from security issues (like the upcoming IoT security nightmare) before we get too entrenched in it and suddenly somebody decides to create something worse than stuxnet...Speak of which, I wonder what Obama's comments on that would be, given that he likely authorized its deployment.
I guess I probably should mention that Edge sends every search term and link you click to Microsoft for Bing analytics, and there is no way to avoid it, unlike in Chrome where you can switch to Chromium without losing anything. Microsoft also wanted to be in the ad business just like Google, and even spent some $7 billion towards that end, but ultimately failed. Though that failure wasn't as spectacular as the $20+ billion net loss they made on Windows Phone, which they hide on their financial statements by patent trolling Android OEMs and listing it as phone division revenue.
Cost of living is cheap so long as you don't insist on living in deep urban centers. I live far better off in the outskirts of Phoenix than people in Oakland for probably half what their monthly costs are.
But this whole premise that money can solve any problem is stupid to begin with. What sets apart rich and poor is what you own, not your income. Money is just a medium of exchange. If you give money to people for nothing, they'll probably value it less.
That could be the case in a paradigm shift that I described above. Though not quite in those terms.
Consider the present status quo for people with >400k/year incomes: When they move to a new location, they typically don't care about the house, rather they just care about the location. It's basically a gimme that when they move somewhere, they bulldoze the house and build one the way they'd like it built.
Now, if everything is automatic, then presumably building houses to the owners specification could be automated as well, therefore meaning it's also done cheaper. Think like building a sand castle, only in this case you're building a real house from nothing more than the land you own (imagine for example, a 3d printer that grinds up rocks on your land and builds them into a cement foundation, walls, roof, etc.) So even people with low incomes could shift from buying a house that they want to buying the land that they want, just like rich people today (remember that similar things thought out of reach for the poor have become commonplace, like car phones for example -- now the poor have cell phones, which are much better than car phones.)
However one thing that will always be in finite supply is the land itself. So it could be that what separates rich from poor is not how much money you have, and not material goods (if we're fully automated, you can have any material good you want.) This means the car you drive or size of your house is notwithstanding because anybody can automatically create any car or any house to their exact liking. Instead what separates rich from poor is simply where you live, and nothing else. Think how living in New York or San Francisco is in higher demand than living in other places. At the end of the day, land would be land, but it becomes more about what scenery you desire and/or who you live next to. If you desire beachfront property, maybe we can automate the creation of pacific islands? Dubai has created islands off of its shores for extra beach front housing, perhaps a more advanced version of the same could be a thing in the future.
I can't help but wonder if this is only a measure of publicly known hacking, which is often ignored in Russia and China when it's discovered, whereas in the US it's aggressively prosecuted, hence it must be done more discretely.
Take for example stuxnet, which is perhaps the most sophisticated hack ever done and nobody has even managed to fully disassemble it even after all these years. It's pretty much a gimme that it is a US project with some joint Israeli effort, but who is it actually associated with in metrics like these? Without proof, it shouldn't be associated with anybody, but then that means that somebody isn't getting credit.
You'd be looking at a complete paradigm shift when it comes to economies. That is to say, not communism, not capitalism, nor any other economic system of the past. Things like housing could very well become irrelevant, much as not everything you currently take for granted has always been relevant.
For example: Why would you need to commute if there's no need for it? 200 years ago, nobody bothered; instead where they "worked" was less than an hour walk from where they lived. And since 90% of the population were farmers, there wasn't really even a concept of weekdays and weekends (Fun fact: That didn't truly begin until Henry Ford started the idea of taking Saturdays off and having an 8x5 40 hour work week to retain quality workers; a concept that many misattribute to labor unions.) Kind of like how school sessions are seasonal, work was also seasonal in those days, depending on your particular trade, and work was only done as it was necessary, rather than being done to make money as is the norm today.
However the main thing that did (and still does) set apart the rich from the poor are material goods, which has for a long time been, and still is, a motivation for having an income. That is a constant that has always existed throughout history, and as time has gone by, and contrary to popular belief, the goalpost for "poor" keeps increasing. Kings of even 3 centuries ago could only dream of the things today's poor now have access to. Imagine for example how long it would have taken King George to travel from Edinburgh to London, and compare that to how long it takes for even a poor person to do the same today.
But more to the point, if automation makes having material goods cheaper and cheaper, and if they eventually become free (who knows, maybe somebody will invent Star Trek style replicators?) then who needs to work? Work life would end up being like before the industrial revolution, where work is only done when it needs to be done, only now we have more nice things, but this time without the need for an income.
Using antivirus on Android is...basically retarded. Not only is it completely pointless, but it's a waste of time, data, and battery, meaning that you're overall worse off for having installed it while gaining no actual benefit at all.
Anything your antivirus software claims to protect against is already mitigated against on Google Play prior to you even downloading it, (yes, Google very aggressively and often scans and re-scans its apps) and if something is found after the fact then GMS will kill the app on your phone. Really, there's no point at all in using it. Oh but what's that you say? Third party app sources? Well that's kind of like anything on a traditional PC or mac: Why are you downloading just anything with the word "free" on it and then counting on your antivirus to protect you? If you do things like this, then please disconnect your PC from the internet and never reconnect it because you're probably contributing to the global botnet problem, participating in DDoS, spam distribution, and god knows what else.
Or alternatively, use some due diligence and common sense. If in doubt, send the apk to virustotal first, it will do a better job of vetting the app than anything you can install locally on your phone.
Sometimes sharing valuable information can be trolling. But either way, on the internet, there are no such thing as safe spaces that trolls like myself cannot penetrate.
Apple is the same, but they've always been like that to a degree.
What do you mean 'to a degree'? They've always been super controlling of their platforms. Microsoft was more open until just recently when they came up with stupid windows RT and windows phone which were very locked down. In those products, Microsoft surrendered the one thing that was keeping them ahead of Apple, and then wondered why their mobile ambitions spectacularly failed.
Yeah it was for nerve gas, and yeah there were three of them. I'm not saying that the choice of autoinjector was wrong, just that autoinjectors scare me more than a syringe does.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't like either Hillary or Trump, but just because you don't want to air your dirty laundry doesn't mean you have something to hide.
Just as a thought experiment, why don't you post nude pictures of yourself on the internet to prove that you don't have a small penis? And if you don't, is that evidence of guilt?
3 full terms; he died in his 4th. Anyways if you want a precedent on this, here's a much better (and legally binding) one:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
As much as I don't like Hillary, I think the Goldwater case applies and doctors shouldn't be commenting on her fitness without two conditions being met:
1) The doctor has personally evaluated her, and
2) She has waived her doctor-patient confidentiality privilege.
This should apply in any situation for any patient as a universal rule.
I've personally had a job where after a while I wasn't having much to do. I even thought at the time that if I were them, I'd lay me off. And then a bad quarter came, and they shed about 10% of the workforce, and I wasn't at all surprised with what happened next.
And to be honest, I saw a lot of people let go that we probably didn't really need. The purpose of a business isn't too create work and give people paychecks, so I honestly have no complaints about layoffs when I hear about them.
Besides, getting laid off turned out to be highly profitable since I got a decent severance and within two months got hired at a new place with 60% better pay, better benefits, and my own office instead of a cubicle. So I'm actually rather glad that I was laid off, because I wouldn't have looked for greener pastures otherwise, and I wouldn't have gotten two months of paid vacation.
Hmm...That doesn't seem far off from what mine cost at about $1400 per year. I went to a local community college for my technical skills. I only did an IT Management degree at university, and that was basically just a resume filler and not exactly something I needed.
There are some other little niche devices that used the headphone jack as well, for example some company made a diabetes tester that did so, which meant it could be compatible with other smartphones. But now they're making a lightning port version to replace it.
Though based on my own experience on logging health stats from another (non diabetes) chronic condition, I have to say that I've found smartphone based devices to be overall less convenient than using traditional devices combined with my own custom Google Sheets based logging system.
No, I wasn't saying that at all. A 1.5+ million person area is not a "nowhere place".
That doesn't tell me anything. Phoenix has a population of over 1.5 million. Not the Phoenix metro area; that's much larger. Just plain ol Phoenix. And, if you head to the Rio Vista district, which is a large area that is very much part of Phoenix, then you're officially out in bumblefuck nowhere while still being able to claim that the city you live in has a population of 1.5 million. Hell, you don't even need to go that far, North Gateway and Desert View also qualify as being bumblefuck nowhere, and they're still part of Phoenix.
I think GP assumes that "most people" (his words) absolutely must have coverage in remote bumblefuck nowhere places, of which verizon is marginally better at since T-Mobile can roam on most of AT&T's network, which is almost as big as Verizons. Though I have to say, he probably lives in bumblefuck nowhere if most people he knows need coverage there. As for myself, if I'm going to a place like that, I'm probably on vacation and the last thing I want is people bugging me.
It's called a side rant.
A fruit company didn't overthrow anything, rather they bought out already corrupt politicians in those regions, forming so called banana republics. This is a much different thing than a corporation having its own military and executing its own invasion.
I'd mention that such a thing hasn't happened in a long time, but I won't bother because I'll get a ton of AC conspiracy theories from people who read too many cyberpunk novels, using terms like "megacorps" intermittently.
He's saying that the wealth disparity is harmful, and giving too much power to too little people is not ideal. If you don't understand that, you might want to read up on the economic issues of the early US. Better yet, you might want to study history at any time, and any place.
Well let's look at history then. The corporations in the era you speak of had the power to wage war, jail and execute people who didn't pay their debts, and the most wealthy corporation to ever exist was worth 8 trillion dollars in today's money at its peak in 1637, which basically rivals today's US government. We haven't seen any corporations anywhere even closely being that powerful or wealthy in over two centuries.
The world's most powerful and wealthy people today pale in comparison to that as well. The saying "The sun never sets over England" comes to mind, not only to give you how much of an idea of just how much power England wielded over the entire fucking planet, but also the Lieutenants of the crown. The world's present richest person, Bill Gates, is nothing compared to ANY government official of that era.
And in spite of all of that, we're somehow in the worst of times?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G...
Watching fox news would require a cable subscription, which I don't have. Though to be honest, people who attribute fox news as a source of every opinion that they don't like are even bigger fools than those who they attack.
Given the 1% pay far more taxes than corporations do, I'm not sure what your rant is getting at. And given they earn 19% of the country's AGI while playing 37% of the country's income taxes, I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind saying that it's unfair, nor do I quite understand why some people write books akin to mein kampf about how much they're perceived to be ruining humanity.
Obama was a law professor? I thought he was a community organizer?
At any rate, there's nothing he or anybody else can do to "stop" a cyberweapons arms race. It's pretty damn easy to deploy a cyberweapon without in any way leaving a trace as to where it came from. Besides, it's probably best to let it proceed anyways that way we can learn from security issues (like the upcoming IoT security nightmare) before we get too entrenched in it and suddenly somebody decides to create something worse than stuxnet...Speak of which, I wonder what Obama's comments on that would be, given that he likely authorized its deployment.
I guess I probably should mention that Edge sends every search term and link you click to Microsoft for Bing analytics, and there is no way to avoid it, unlike in Chrome where you can switch to Chromium without losing anything. Microsoft also wanted to be in the ad business just like Google, and even spent some $7 billion towards that end, but ultimately failed. Though that failure wasn't as spectacular as the $20+ billion net loss they made on Windows Phone, which they hide on their financial statements by patent trolling Android OEMs and listing it as phone division revenue.
Cost of living is cheap so long as you don't insist on living in deep urban centers. I live far better off in the outskirts of Phoenix than people in Oakland for probably half what their monthly costs are.
But this whole premise that money can solve any problem is stupid to begin with. What sets apart rich and poor is what you own, not your income. Money is just a medium of exchange. If you give money to people for nothing, they'll probably value it less.
And that makes it trolling?
That could be the case in a paradigm shift that I described above. Though not quite in those terms.
Consider the present status quo for people with >400k/year incomes: When they move to a new location, they typically don't care about the house, rather they just care about the location. It's basically a gimme that when they move somewhere, they bulldoze the house and build one the way they'd like it built.
Now, if everything is automatic, then presumably building houses to the owners specification could be automated as well, therefore meaning it's also done cheaper. Think like building a sand castle, only in this case you're building a real house from nothing more than the land you own (imagine for example, a 3d printer that grinds up rocks on your land and builds them into a cement foundation, walls, roof, etc.) So even people with low incomes could shift from buying a house that they want to buying the land that they want, just like rich people today (remember that similar things thought out of reach for the poor have become commonplace, like car phones for example -- now the poor have cell phones, which are much better than car phones.)
However one thing that will always be in finite supply is the land itself. So it could be that what separates rich from poor is not how much money you have, and not material goods (if we're fully automated, you can have any material good you want.) This means the car you drive or size of your house is notwithstanding because anybody can automatically create any car or any house to their exact liking. Instead what separates rich from poor is simply where you live, and nothing else. Think how living in New York or San Francisco is in higher demand than living in other places. At the end of the day, land would be land, but it becomes more about what scenery you desire and/or who you live next to. If you desire beachfront property, maybe we can automate the creation of pacific islands? Dubai has created islands off of its shores for extra beach front housing, perhaps a more advanced version of the same could be a thing in the future.
I can't help but wonder if this is only a measure of publicly known hacking, which is often ignored in Russia and China when it's discovered, whereas in the US it's aggressively prosecuted, hence it must be done more discretely.
Take for example stuxnet, which is perhaps the most sophisticated hack ever done and nobody has even managed to fully disassemble it even after all these years. It's pretty much a gimme that it is a US project with some joint Israeli effort, but who is it actually associated with in metrics like these? Without proof, it shouldn't be associated with anybody, but then that means that somebody isn't getting credit.
You'd be looking at a complete paradigm shift when it comes to economies. That is to say, not communism, not capitalism, nor any other economic system of the past. Things like housing could very well become irrelevant, much as not everything you currently take for granted has always been relevant.
For example: Why would you need to commute if there's no need for it? 200 years ago, nobody bothered; instead where they "worked" was less than an hour walk from where they lived. And since 90% of the population were farmers, there wasn't really even a concept of weekdays and weekends (Fun fact: That didn't truly begin until Henry Ford started the idea of taking Saturdays off and having an 8x5 40 hour work week to retain quality workers; a concept that many misattribute to labor unions.) Kind of like how school sessions are seasonal, work was also seasonal in those days, depending on your particular trade, and work was only done as it was necessary, rather than being done to make money as is the norm today.
However the main thing that did (and still does) set apart the rich from the poor are material goods, which has for a long time been, and still is, a motivation for having an income. That is a constant that has always existed throughout history, and as time has gone by, and contrary to popular belief, the goalpost for "poor" keeps increasing. Kings of even 3 centuries ago could only dream of the things today's poor now have access to. Imagine for example how long it would have taken King George to travel from Edinburgh to London, and compare that to how long it takes for even a poor person to do the same today.
But more to the point, if automation makes having material goods cheaper and cheaper, and if they eventually become free (who knows, maybe somebody will invent Star Trek style replicators?) then who needs to work? Work life would end up being like before the industrial revolution, where work is only done when it needs to be done, only now we have more nice things, but this time without the need for an income.
Using antivirus on Android is...basically retarded. Not only is it completely pointless, but it's a waste of time, data, and battery, meaning that you're overall worse off for having installed it while gaining no actual benefit at all.
Anything your antivirus software claims to protect against is already mitigated against on Google Play prior to you even downloading it, (yes, Google very aggressively and often scans and re-scans its apps) and if something is found after the fact then GMS will kill the app on your phone. Really, there's no point at all in using it. Oh but what's that you say? Third party app sources? Well that's kind of like anything on a traditional PC or mac: Why are you downloading just anything with the word "free" on it and then counting on your antivirus to protect you? If you do things like this, then please disconnect your PC from the internet and never reconnect it because you're probably contributing to the global botnet problem, participating in DDoS, spam distribution, and god knows what else.
Or alternatively, use some due diligence and common sense. If in doubt, send the apk to virustotal first, it will do a better job of vetting the app than anything you can install locally on your phone.
Oh, and I forgot to add: Trolling on the internet can and does spill out IRL, and no amount of government money can stop it. Case in point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Sometimes sharing valuable information can be trolling. But either way, on the internet, there are no such thing as safe spaces that trolls like myself cannot penetrate.
Apple is the same, but they've always been like that to a degree.
What do you mean 'to a degree'? They've always been super controlling of their platforms. Microsoft was more open until just recently when they came up with stupid windows RT and windows phone which were very locked down. In those products, Microsoft surrendered the one thing that was keeping them ahead of Apple, and then wondered why their mobile ambitions spectacularly failed.
What about technology powered by this kind of drive?
http://www.screanews.us/SouthS...
Yeah it was for nerve gas, and yeah there were three of them. I'm not saying that the choice of autoinjector was wrong, just that autoinjectors scare me more than a syringe does.