Yes, you obviously can't watch sports and other live events before they happen. But that doesn't require the use of channels. You simply have a stream with the event title (i.e. "2018 World Series Game 1") that begins when the event begins. After the event has occurred, you can watch it any time.
Same way you do on Netflix and other streaming services- categories. Want to watch a World War II documentary but don't have a specific one in mind? Instead of going to the History Channel and hoping one is on, you go to the documentary section of your screening service and choose one that looks interesting. Streaming services also have algorithms that look at what you've watched in the past and suggest content that is similar.
The biggest issue is not cost per-se, but that the whole idea of "channels" is obsolete.
Why would I wait for a specific day or time to see the content of my choosing? Worse, even when what I want to see is playing on a given channel, 1/3 of the content is ads. Yes, DVR can ameliorate this, but it's really a crutch because I have to choose content I'm interested in advance and then wait. When I moved, I was given "free" cable for a year along with my internet package. I think I may have watched it for 30 minutes the entire year. I go over to friends/family's houses who still watch live TV and I feel like I've been transported back in time to the 20th century.
The headline implies an incorrect conclusion: that where a specific individual lives within the United States will have a great impact on how long such individual is likely to live. But that is not what this study examined. It looked at averages over entire populations.
First, the study considered life expectancy from birth. If you are reading this, you've probably survived infancy, so infant mortality is not a relevant metric to your personal lifespan forecast. Second, you are not the hypothetical average person. You have your own individual risk profile based on health history, genetics, diet and exercise, and access to care. Simply moving to a Native American reservation with high incidence of alcoholism will not necessarily make you an alcoholic. Likewise, an obese alcoholic won't necessarily get fit or sober just because they moved to the mountains of Colorado.
I'm a lawyer licensed in New York. There's no law prohibiting me from telling people I'm a lawyer in social conversations or public debate when I'm outside of New York. What I'm prohibited from doing is going to another state and holding myself out as a lawyer for the purpose of attracting clients in that state (or representing clients in that state outside of special provisions allowing out of state lawyers limited practice rights).
I haven't looked at the Oregon statute, but it seems to me it was likely misinterpreted and/or being interpreted in a way that is contrary to the First Amendment. He should be able to say "I'm an Engineer" when debating public policy (just as he can legally say "I'm an alien from the planet Zorg"). Perhaps the letter was interpreted by the state as a solicitation for professional services rather than a public comment.
This post appears to be based on a story that was reported wildly inaccurately. The state department did not "lose" the money. It was spent on actual goods and services. The records department in State could not produce the original contracts corresponding to the payments when the internal audit was conducted- it was a failure of internal controls. There was still a record of who they had paid and how much. Yes, this spoke to bad accounting and record retention practices, but it's not the same thing as what was alleged. And to anyone who understands how accounting in a giant organization like the State department works, it's laughable to think Clinton shared primary blame, or that it was only a problem on her watch.
I have very mixed feelings about Uber (and ride sharing in general), and I think it's hard not to when you really think about it.
One one hand, cost aside, the user experience for Uber is simply much better than cab companies. If I need a ride somewhere, all I have to do is pull up an app. It will tell me exactly how soon someone can get to me, when I will likely arrive at my destination, and how much it will cost. By contrast, if I call a cab, I have no idea where they will dispatch it from or when it will arrive. With meters, it can be hard to even guess how much it's going to cost me. Another feature is the ability to contact your driver. My wife recently left her phone in an Uber. In a cab, she would have probably been totally SOL. With Uber, we were able to contact the driver who was nice enough to mail it to us (out of town even). Regarding background checks, I've had far more sketchy drivers in yellow cabs than Ubers. As a result of this, I take ubers on trips I would have never called a cab for- especially when I'm traveling. I now rely on Uber when I might otherwise have rented a car, or might otherwise have just not taken the trip at all.
On the other hand, I totally see what Uber is doing by essentially "dumping" services by driving the cab companies out of business, when they can jack up the rates. I also object to their treatment of customers and horrid corporate culture. And its hard to reconcile that with use of their service.
Overall, I just don't see how the traditional cab model makes it in the long run, unless yellow cab companies form a national app of equivalent quality (not the flaky local ones that often exist) and start being able to compete on service as well as price. I think our salvation (to the extent we get it) is more likely to be competition from other ride sharing companies. However, with automation, I think the game will change yet again. I'm not convinced that Uber will necessarily be the winner if and when autonomous vehicles become common.
Instability of income and expenses aren't problems in and of themselves. Think of CEOs who get irregular (but giant) paydays from things like exercising stock options, or highly successful trial lawyers who win a big contingency case. There is only an issue if insufficient savings cause a mismatch between the timing of income and expense, or there is insufficient access to cost-effective credit to smooth the mismatch through borrowing. The linked article mentions that the study did look at how to resolve those issues, but the linked material doesn't really provide any meaningful discussion.
Yes and no. Often times, the "low price" room from an aggregator is in a higher quality hotel than you would otherwise visit. For example, a $100 room might be the regular rate at a two-star hotel, or the super-bargain mystery rate at a four-star hotel. Even if the four-star hotel sticks me in their worst room, it will probably be a better experience than the best room at the two-star. Whether things are slow or not can also be a big determining factor. If you are traveling off-peak, they won't necessarily be stingy about giving out good rooms. If you are traveling on-peak, the aggregator sites often aren't all that much cheaper anyways.
I think the entire concept of a "channel" (except for perhaps live sports or news broadcasts) is a slowly dying concept in the streaming age. On-demand content bundles (like buying the rights to all Netflix content) are what this will shape into.
The most elite Ivy League schools are essentially free to middle class students. Several of them have explicit no-loan policies for students from families making less than a very generous threshold (over $100,000 in most cases). Those who pay full freight generally aren't suffering for it. So if those country clubs will let you in, you'd be a fool to turn them down.
Even the author must recognize that a 4% real increases in college costs (after 2% inflation) cannot continue indefinitely. If that were the case, a state school that currently costs $10,000 annually would cost $500,000 annually by 2117 in today's dollars, while a private school would be a cool 2.5 million in today's dollars! Clearly, the market would correct before such a scenario ever came to pass. Even debt-funded bubbles hit a breaking point.
So the question is, how close are we to that breaking point where consumers lose their willingness to pay? I think for some less-regarded private schools, that breaking point has already been hit. Some second-tier private schools with very high tuitions have started to suffer declining enrollments. However, I think we are a long way from it with most public schools. It's also worth noting that a big driver of public school tuition inflation has been declining state support. Public support for public institutions probably won't go below zero, so there is a limit to how long those increases can be driven by declining public support.
Right, clearly imposing a goal of 10,000 steps is absurd for someone paralyzed from the waist down or someone with a degenerative muscular disease. But for an otherwise healthy person, it's hardly an extreme target. No, there's no scientific magic to it. But why does there need to be? Science does support exercise being vastly beneficial, and all the 10,000 steps really amounts to is an admonition to move more than most people probably do already.
How would they do that without divulging the test questions? To offer more than twice a year, they'd have to write quite a few more test questions, which they don't have staff for. The exam writers and graders do it as a temp gig.
They also don't have permanent test location facilities. I took the exam in the basement of a convention center. Keep in mind that most states write their own bar, and especially with smaller states, the number of takers may only be in the hundreds. Also, it may take an entire day to take an essay exam consisting of only 5-6 questions- which makes options like an adaptive exam not possible. Centralized test centers and/or an adaptive exam might work for the multistate bar exam (which is a component of every state's exam), but that's 1/2 or less of the exam.
In most states, the bars actually aren't that well funded. Despite popular belief, a lot of lawyers are far from rich, and bar dues need to be set so the public defender making $40k a year can still pay them.
Most of my law school exams were open book, even if the bar was closed book. Even on open book exams, it was fairly rare for me to spend much time actually referring to reference materials. There wasn't enough time. If you hadn't already internalized the concept, there is no way you were going to figure them out from the book during the exam. The bar would have been the same way.
I am a lawyer. I agree that autocorrect can be a huge nuisance when typing legal documents. I suppose if the Mac predictive text app has a good learning algorithm, it's possible that it could help a text taker remember the exact wording of a statute, but I find it hard to believe it would be a material benefit to a bar exam taker.
The justification for the bar exam being closed-book is that a lawyer making an oral argument or in trial will, at some level, have to memorize the law. Also keep in mind that the bar exam doesn't necessarily reward rote memorization so much as internalizing the concepts. You don't need to memorize the law verbatim- you just have to be able to be able to recite and apply its meaning.
Because there is no test company. The written portion of the bar exam is written and administered by the state bars, who do not have the budget or the facilities to keep the thousands of computers at the ready for an exam that is only given twice a year.
Country club prisons are a myth (at least in the United States). I have an family member in a minimum security "trustee camp" who committed a relatively innocuous white-collar crime. This was actually an upgrade from the minimum security prison where they were initially sent. It is not a happy place by any means. It has no heat or air conditioning (it's often 110F in the summer inside), few recreation opportunities, and constant harassment by the guards. Food is so bad, my relative lost 20% of their body weight within the first 6 months, and they were slender to begin with.
It depends which 172/182 you are talking about- they've been making them since the 1950s. They've made faster and slower variants (fixed gear/retrac, turbocharged non-turbocharged). My dad used to own a 1970s vintage 172 and now owns an 80s vintage 182 (both fixed gear). We took plenty of trips in it. With the 172, it was not at all unusual to bump around at sub 100mph ground speed with a 30-40mph headwind. A 30-40mph headwind is pretty common at altitude. The 182 is a bit faster, but I've never seen 170mph groundspeed except with a tail wind. Bottom line, Cessnas are slow.
It seems to be that whatever difficulties exist in making human civilization sustainable on Earth, they pale in comparison to the difficulties of colonizing a planet many light years away.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you obviously can't watch sports and other live events before they happen. But that doesn't require the use of channels. You simply have a stream with the event title (i.e. "2018 World Series Game 1") that begins when the event begins. After the event has occurred, you can watch it any time.
Same way you do on Netflix and other streaming services- categories. Want to watch a World War II documentary but don't have a specific one in mind? Instead of going to the History Channel and hoping one is on, you go to the documentary section of your screening service and choose one that looks interesting. Streaming services also have algorithms that look at what you've watched in the past and suggest content that is similar.
The biggest issue is not cost per-se, but that the whole idea of "channels" is obsolete.
Why would I wait for a specific day or time to see the content of my choosing? Worse, even when what I want to see is playing on a given channel, 1/3 of the content is ads. Yes, DVR can ameliorate this, but it's really a crutch because I have to choose content I'm interested in advance and then wait. When I moved, I was given "free" cable for a year along with my internet package. I think I may have watched it for 30 minutes the entire year. I go over to friends/family's houses who still watch live TV and I feel like I've been transported back in time to the 20th century.
The headline implies an incorrect conclusion: that where a specific individual lives within the United States will have a great impact on how long such individual is likely to live. But that is not what this study examined. It looked at averages over entire populations.
First, the study considered life expectancy from birth. If you are reading this, you've probably survived infancy, so infant mortality is not a relevant metric to your personal lifespan forecast. Second, you are not the hypothetical average person. You have your own individual risk profile based on health history, genetics, diet and exercise, and access to care. Simply moving to a Native American reservation with high incidence of alcoholism will not necessarily make you an alcoholic. Likewise, an obese alcoholic won't necessarily get fit or sober just because they moved to the mountains of Colorado.
I'm a lawyer licensed in New York. There's no law prohibiting me from telling people I'm a lawyer in social conversations or public debate when I'm outside of New York. What I'm prohibited from doing is going to another state and holding myself out as a lawyer for the purpose of attracting clients in that state (or representing clients in that state outside of special provisions allowing out of state lawyers limited practice rights).
I haven't looked at the Oregon statute, but it seems to me it was likely misinterpreted and/or being interpreted in a way that is contrary to the First Amendment. He should be able to say "I'm an Engineer" when debating public policy (just as he can legally say "I'm an alien from the planet Zorg"). Perhaps the letter was interpreted by the state as a solicitation for professional services rather than a public comment.
Interestingly enough, Spike Jonze claims not to have seen Electric Dreams before making Her.
I wouldn't say the following are necessarily the best for eating popcorn, but they are the ones that I think really show how the genre can be great:
2001 (enough said)
Ghost in the Shell (the anime version)
Solaris (Tarkovsky version)
Metropolis
Honorable mentions:
Primer
Gattaca
Her
Moon
San Junipero (Short from the series "Black Mirror")
It might explain some plot elements, but 2010 does't bother to begin addressing what 2001 is actually about.
This post appears to be based on a story that was reported wildly inaccurately. The state department did not "lose" the money. It was spent on actual goods and services. The records department in State could not produce the original contracts corresponding to the payments when the internal audit was conducted- it was a failure of internal controls. There was still a record of who they had paid and how much. Yes, this spoke to bad accounting and record retention practices, but it's not the same thing as what was alleged. And to anyone who understands how accounting in a giant organization like the State department works, it's laughable to think Clinton shared primary blame, or that it was only a problem on her watch.
I have very mixed feelings about Uber (and ride sharing in general), and I think it's hard not to when you really think about it.
One one hand, cost aside, the user experience for Uber is simply much better than cab companies. If I need a ride somewhere, all I have to do is pull up an app. It will tell me exactly how soon someone can get to me, when I will likely arrive at my destination, and how much it will cost. By contrast, if I call a cab, I have no idea where they will dispatch it from or when it will arrive. With meters, it can be hard to even guess how much it's going to cost me. Another feature is the ability to contact your driver. My wife recently left her phone in an Uber. In a cab, she would have probably been totally SOL. With Uber, we were able to contact the driver who was nice enough to mail it to us (out of town even). Regarding background checks, I've had far more sketchy drivers in yellow cabs than Ubers. As a result of this, I take ubers on trips I would have never called a cab for- especially when I'm traveling. I now rely on Uber when I might otherwise have rented a car, or might otherwise have just not taken the trip at all.
On the other hand, I totally see what Uber is doing by essentially "dumping" services by driving the cab companies out of business, when they can jack up the rates. I also object to their treatment of customers and horrid corporate culture. And its hard to reconcile that with use of their service.
Overall, I just don't see how the traditional cab model makes it in the long run, unless yellow cab companies form a national app of equivalent quality (not the flaky local ones that often exist) and start being able to compete on service as well as price. I think our salvation (to the extent we get it) is more likely to be competition from other ride sharing companies. However, with automation, I think the game will change yet again. I'm not convinced that Uber will necessarily be the winner if and when autonomous vehicles become common.
Given that animals have been taught basic addition, I'm somewhat skeptical that any human is incapable of learning or applying basic math.
Instability of income and expenses aren't problems in and of themselves. Think of CEOs who get irregular (but giant) paydays from things like exercising stock options, or highly successful trial lawyers who win a big contingency case. There is only an issue if insufficient savings cause a mismatch between the timing of income and expense, or there is insufficient access to cost-effective credit to smooth the mismatch through borrowing. The linked article mentions that the study did look at how to resolve those issues, but the linked material doesn't really provide any meaningful discussion.
Yes and no. Often times, the "low price" room from an aggregator is in a higher quality hotel than you would otherwise visit. For example, a $100 room might be the regular rate at a two-star hotel, or the super-bargain mystery rate at a four-star hotel. Even if the four-star hotel sticks me in their worst room, it will probably be a better experience than the best room at the two-star. Whether things are slow or not can also be a big determining factor. If you are traveling off-peak, they won't necessarily be stingy about giving out good rooms. If you are traveling on-peak, the aggregator sites often aren't all that much cheaper anyways.
I think the entire concept of a "channel" (except for perhaps live sports or news broadcasts) is a slowly dying concept in the streaming age. On-demand content bundles (like buying the rights to all Netflix content) are what this will shape into.
The most elite Ivy League schools are essentially free to middle class students. Several of them have explicit no-loan policies for students from families making less than a very generous threshold (over $100,000 in most cases). Those who pay full freight generally aren't suffering for it. So if those country clubs will let you in, you'd be a fool to turn them down.
Even the author must recognize that a 4% real increases in college costs (after 2% inflation) cannot continue indefinitely. If that were the case, a state school that currently costs $10,000 annually would cost $500,000 annually by 2117 in today's dollars, while a private school would be a cool 2.5 million in today's dollars! Clearly, the market would correct before such a scenario ever came to pass. Even debt-funded bubbles hit a breaking point.
So the question is, how close are we to that breaking point where consumers lose their willingness to pay? I think for some less-regarded private schools, that breaking point has already been hit. Some second-tier private schools with very high tuitions have started to suffer declining enrollments. However, I think we are a long way from it with most public schools. It's also worth noting that a big driver of public school tuition inflation has been declining state support. Public support for public institutions probably won't go below zero, so there is a limit to how long those increases can be driven by declining public support.
Right, clearly imposing a goal of 10,000 steps is absurd for someone paralyzed from the waist down or someone with a degenerative muscular disease. But for an otherwise healthy person, it's hardly an extreme target. No, there's no scientific magic to it. But why does there need to be? Science does support exercise being vastly beneficial, and all the 10,000 steps really amounts to is an admonition to move more than most people probably do already.
How would they do that without divulging the test questions? To offer more than twice a year, they'd have to write quite a few more test questions, which they don't have staff for. The exam writers and graders do it as a temp gig.
They also don't have permanent test location facilities. I took the exam in the basement of a convention center. Keep in mind that most states write their own bar, and especially with smaller states, the number of takers may only be in the hundreds. Also, it may take an entire day to take an essay exam consisting of only 5-6 questions- which makes options like an adaptive exam not possible. Centralized test centers and/or an adaptive exam might work for the multistate bar exam (which is a component of every state's exam), but that's 1/2 or less of the exam.
In most states, the bars actually aren't that well funded. Despite popular belief, a lot of lawyers are far from rich, and bar dues need to be set so the public defender making $40k a year can still pay them.
Most of my law school exams were open book, even if the bar was closed book. Even on open book exams, it was fairly rare for me to spend much time actually referring to reference materials. There wasn't enough time. If you hadn't already internalized the concept, there is no way you were going to figure them out from the book during the exam. The bar would have been the same way.
I am a lawyer. I agree that autocorrect can be a huge nuisance when typing legal documents. I suppose if the Mac predictive text app has a good learning algorithm, it's possible that it could help a text taker remember the exact wording of a statute, but I find it hard to believe it would be a material benefit to a bar exam taker.
The justification for the bar exam being closed-book is that a lawyer making an oral argument or in trial will, at some level, have to memorize the law. Also keep in mind that the bar exam doesn't necessarily reward rote memorization so much as internalizing the concepts. You don't need to memorize the law verbatim- you just have to be able to be able to recite and apply its meaning.
Because there is no test company. The written portion of the bar exam is written and administered by the state bars, who do not have the budget or the facilities to keep the thousands of computers at the ready for an exam that is only given twice a year.
Country club prisons are a myth (at least in the United States). I have an family member in a minimum security "trustee camp" who committed a relatively innocuous white-collar crime. This was actually an upgrade from the minimum security prison where they were initially sent. It is not a happy place by any means. It has no heat or air conditioning (it's often 110F in the summer inside), few recreation opportunities, and constant harassment by the guards. Food is so bad, my relative lost 20% of their body weight within the first 6 months, and they were slender to begin with.
It depends which 172/182 you are talking about- they've been making them since the 1950s. They've made faster and slower variants (fixed gear/retrac, turbocharged non-turbocharged). My dad used to own a 1970s vintage 172 and now owns an 80s vintage 182 (both fixed gear). We took plenty of trips in it. With the 172, it was not at all unusual to bump around at sub 100mph ground speed with a 30-40mph headwind. A 30-40mph headwind is pretty common at altitude. The 182 is a bit faster, but I've never seen 170mph groundspeed except with a tail wind. Bottom line, Cessnas are slow.
It seems to be that whatever difficulties exist in making human civilization sustainable on Earth, they pale in comparison to the difficulties of colonizing a planet many light years away.