Personally, I think life's too short, and I have more stuff to do than work.
Its great that you have this position for yourself, which I do have as well, but that doesn't mean that everyone who is working harder shouldn't be rewarded for it.
But we currently have moved toward a cutthroat environment that often rewards those who work long hours, never take vacation, sick days, or other leave, etc. Is that really the working environment you prefer?
If those people do these sacrifices, and their overall performance actually does get better, then it should only be natural to reward them. Everything else would be unfair.
Currently, well-educated "career women" tend to have some of the lowest birthrates, likely because of the feedback factors you identify. They prioritize work to get ahead, and then either wait until it's too late to have kids, or only have one or whatever.
There are even many great men who didn't have children because they didn't have the time, Nikola Tesla is an example. But this is simply the deal you have to make, raising children takes time, such as doing work.
but there are actually good long-term social reasons to support parents, particularly those who are intelligent enough, educated enough, and responsible enough to do well at work.
I agree with the idea of helping such parents to raise children. However, this can be done e.g. by tax cuts if you have children / extra taxes if you have none. Why should the employer be part of the story? The employer the same benefit in an employee leaving to take care of their children than if that employee stayed home to watch TV or to drink in a bar.
However, what do you do if most of the people around you want a more moderating society, and they expect an economic environment that promotes working and raising a family?
Yes but most of the reasoning those people who want such a society use is claiming that women get less for doing the same work, or similar. They either lie about or don't even know it themselves.
And yes, I do think that each couple should decide for themselves whether they want a single payer household, or where both parents work, or one parent works only half time, or similar. But I think its ridiculous to give the parent who works only half time the same money as the full time parent just to be "fair to women" or some bullshit like that. Its not fair if you don't devote as much time to it.
If you want to promote people who make money to raise children, just give them tax cuts instead. It should not be the responsibility of the companies to raise the children of their workers, just as it isn't the responsibility of your lawnmower company to plant grass seeds.
The problem was, this also meant a career-first woman who doesn't want to start having children is penalized because it's assumed she'll want to marry, have kids, etc.
Yes, if this is happening (and I guess it does), it an actual bad thing and needs to be fought. Most feminist don't make this difference though, and claim the pay gap is due to evil men hating women and wanting them to "stay in the kitchen" or something.
Yes, but being a single parent is a risk factor. You usually don't have as much time to focus on your job, etc. Or it can be the opposite: if you have a child, you want the best for them and maybe make extra sure you keep your current job, etc.
And about skin color, blacks have a larger unemployment rate than whites:
So you are not supposed to look at the employment status because due to this you might infer the skin color and apply racist bias? This is just totally nuts. Of course, you should not use skin color information to infer employment status, which would be racist, but using employment status information to make your loan decision should be possible, just as using information on whether you are a single parent or not.
If even machines come up with measurable differences between work performance of males and females, then I think giving them in average the same amount of money or the same promotions is discrimination. I'm all for giving a woman who performs just as well as a man the same money, but if there are additional risk factors like a pregnancy or when the parent has to raise child, the person usually prioritizes these things over work, so why should work not be allowed to prioritize that person over others who do not raise children or do not drop out for weeks and months out of some work-external reason.
If you have modern browsers at both sides of the connection (supporting webrtc: http://caniuse.com/#feat=rtcpe...), there are many online sites that require no account setup or anything else, and where a connection can be done by clicking a link. No plugins required.
It needs a separate channel e.g. chat to set it up (where you can send your communication partner the link, or ask them to talk via the webrtc), but it works.
When I said "nuclear makes very few things really really dirty and that for a very long time" I've meant the different kinds of radioactive waste that the operation of a nuclear plant creates.
Also, lots of chemical waste gets created too by the uranium mines.
And when I see how various countries treat the problem of nuclear waste I'm quite certain that I don't want it.
Nuclear has long been skewed positively to support weapon making with it. You may build a more or less safe nuclear plant in theory, but usually that's not happening for economic reasons. Also in the case of a major nuclear incident, the company running the reactors simply declares bankruptcy and lets the taxpayer pay for the damage. Look at Japan for how its done. That is yet another subvention of the technology.
Also, nuclear is not a clean energy. Its dirty like coal. The only difference is that coal makes lots of things a little dirty, and nuclear makes very few things really really dirty and that for a very long time.
While many countries in central europe may not have as much solar irradiance that they can ever go to 100% renewables that stand inside their borders, many countries of the development world have much stronger solar irradiance, and therefore renewables are far more viable for them.
Also, renewables are already now the more economic option, if you add in the externalities like climate change effects on the economy or health degradation. However, as they are not internalized, their prices may appear cheaper for you as customer.
Sorry, but I think right now machines are not the thing one should fear. Its still humans. Maybe they will use machines to express their power, and then those machines will surely be scary, but I doubt that AI will enslave humans without actually having some root ssh terminal or similar to an actual human controlling it. At least not in this stage of our civilisation.
Movie theaters are like shops the end of the retail chain, and the digitalisation of the retail sector makes them obsolete. You can order your TV over amazon now, just as you can watch your movie over netflix. The retail sector is getting terribly efficient in the process, with very low margins. While obviously the traditional retail industry sees giant losses, its good for people living in the countryside or remote areas, where there is no cinema/shop nearby and you previously either had the choice between two TVs the retailer had in stock, or you had to drive to the city in order to buy one.
It also makes it available. If google hadn't released it as open source, companies which might have needed such a functionality would have been required to roll their own. This would have been a terrible waste of money and time, as google already has a perfectly working implementation. Now they have resources free to do different things, e.g. to improve the existing implementation, or to focus some other feature of their products.
The problem here is that the TOR browser does one separate circuit per domain. So if you visit site A through TOR and have to solve a captcha because of cloudflare, and then visit site B, your IP will be different, and you'll have to solve a captcha again. AFAIK this problem only surfaced (doing captchas for every cloudflare site) when TOR adopted that behaviour. Before, everything was routed through one circuit, and you only had to fill in one captcha.
What I hate about that argumentation is that it is a justification for ever longer copyright terms in the future as life expectancies rise, and for limitless copyright once age doesn't kill humans anymore (one day that will happen). Probably by then the copyright term by individuals will be near infinite already as they won't die.
I don't think that a copyright term of 50, or even 20 years after the author's death will stop the author from producing new works, as its still plenty of time to exploit it. The only people who benefit from this are obscure investors who have bought rights on old works, then lobby legislation to prolong copyright, and then sell off the rights with a bonus. Or big corporations like Disney who benefitted from public domain themselves.
Totally wrong. Everything we know about the greece is thanks to the muslims preserving it over the middle ages. In europe, the old greek philosophers and mathematicians were all considered heathens and therefore not worth the parchment their writings were written on.
Spoiler alert: the bad guys will win, as buying exploits is the only way they can do their business, while apple still sells iphones when there is a super secret vulnerability that gets used three times and thats it. They don't really care and only do the bug bounty program for PR reasons. And you can make more money with breaking into stuff than with selling stuff. Just look at the recent heists where part of the attack was social engineering, part of it was to manufacture emails to look like coming from management. Having access to management iphones is really helping here.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I think life's too short, and I have more stuff to do than work.
Its great that you have this position for yourself, which I do have as well, but that doesn't mean that everyone who is working harder shouldn't be rewarded for it.
But we currently have moved toward a cutthroat environment that often rewards those who work long hours, never take vacation, sick days, or other leave, etc. Is that really the working environment you prefer?
If those people do these sacrifices, and their overall performance actually does get better, then it should only be natural to reward them. Everything else would be unfair.
Currently, well-educated "career women" tend to have some of the lowest birthrates, likely because of the feedback factors you identify. They prioritize work to get ahead, and then either wait until it's too late to have kids, or only have one or whatever.
There are even many great men who didn't have children because they didn't have the time, Nikola Tesla is an example. But this is simply the deal you have to make, raising children takes time, such as doing work.
but there are actually good long-term social reasons to support parents, particularly those who are intelligent enough, educated enough, and responsible enough to do well at work.
I agree with the idea of helping such parents to raise children. However, this can be done e.g. by tax cuts if you have children / extra taxes if you have none. Why should the employer be part of the story? The employer the same benefit in an employee leaving to take care of their children than if that employee stayed home to watch TV or to drink in a bar.
However, what do you do if most of the people around you want a more moderating society, and they expect an economic environment that promotes working and raising a family?
Yes but most of the reasoning those people who want such a society use is claiming that women get less for doing the same work, or similar. They either lie about or don't even know it themselves.
And yes, I do think that each couple should decide for themselves whether they want a single payer household, or where both parents work, or one parent works only half time, or similar. But I think its ridiculous to give the parent who works only half time the same money as the full time parent just to be "fair to women" or some bullshit like that. Its not fair if you don't devote as much time to it.
If you want to promote people who make money to raise children, just give them tax cuts instead. It should not be the responsibility of the companies to raise the children of their workers, just as it isn't the responsibility of your lawnmower company to plant grass seeds.
The problem was, this also meant a career-first woman who doesn't want to start having children is penalized because it's assumed she'll want to marry, have kids, etc.
Yes, if this is happening (and I guess it does), it an actual bad thing and needs to be fought. Most feminist don't make this difference though, and claim the pay gap is due to evil men hating women and wanting them to "stay in the kitchen" or something.
Yes, but being a single parent is a risk factor. You usually don't have as much time to focus on your job, etc. Or it can be the opposite: if you have a child, you want the best for them and maybe make extra sure you keep your current job, etc.
And about skin color, blacks have a larger unemployment rate than whites:
http://www.theatlantic.com/bus...
So you are not supposed to look at the employment status because due to this you might infer the skin color and apply racist bias? This is just totally nuts. Of course, you should not use skin color information to infer employment status, which would be racist, but using employment status information to make your loan decision should be possible, just as using information on whether you are a single parent or not.
If even machines come up with measurable differences between work performance of males and females, then I think giving them in average the same amount of money or the same promotions is discrimination. I'm all for giving a woman who performs just as well as a man the same money, but if there are additional risk factors like a pregnancy or when the parent has to raise child, the person usually prioritizes these things over work, so why should work not be allowed to prioritize that person over others who do not raise children or do not drop out for weeks and months out of some work-external reason.
I think the ID number is some sort of public key, so you can't impersonate other people.
If you have modern browsers at both sides of the connection (supporting webrtc: http://caniuse.com/#feat=rtcpe...), there are many online sites that require no account setup or anything else, and where a connection can be done by clicking a link. No plugins required.
It needs a separate channel e.g. chat to set it up (where you can send your communication partner the link, or ask them to talk via the webrtc), but it works.
https://talky.io/
https://appear.in/
https://meet.jit.si/
https://apprtc.appspot.com/
Seems above command doesn't download all files. This one does:
curl 'http://www.oreilly.com/programming/free/' | grep '\.csp' | sed 's/^.*href="//' | sed 's/free\/\(.*\).csp.*">/free\/files\/\1.pdf/' | tr -d '\r' | xargs wget
Usual disclaimers apply, ask your lawyer before doing this kind of stuff, etc etc.
Wow, that's great!
For the lazy ones, this is the full command to download the stuff to your disk:
curl 'http://www.oreilly.com/programming/free/' | grep '\.csp' | sed 's/^.*href="//' | sed 's/free\/\(.*\).csp">/free\/files\/\1.pdf/' | grep pdf | tr -d '\r' | xargs wget
When I said "nuclear makes very few things really really dirty and that for a very long time" I've meant the different kinds of radioactive waste that the operation of a nuclear plant creates.
Also, lots of chemical waste gets created too by the uranium mines.
And when I see how various countries treat the problem of nuclear waste I'm quite certain that I don't want it.
Nuclear has long been skewed positively to support weapon making with it. You may build a more or less safe nuclear plant in theory, but usually that's not happening for economic reasons. Also in the case of a major nuclear incident, the company running the reactors simply declares bankruptcy and lets the taxpayer pay for the damage. Look at Japan for how its done. That is yet another subvention of the technology.
Also, nuclear is not a clean energy. Its dirty like coal. The only difference is that coal makes lots of things a little dirty, and nuclear makes very few things really really dirty and that for a very long time.
While many countries in central europe may not have as much solar irradiance that they can ever go to 100% renewables that stand inside their borders, many countries of the development world have much stronger solar irradiance, and therefore renewables are far more viable for them.
Also, renewables are already now the more economic option, if you add in the externalities like climate change effects on the economy or health degradation. However, as they are not internalized, their prices may appear cheaper for you as customer.
Sorry, but I think right now machines are not the thing one should fear. Its still humans. Maybe they will use machines to express their power, and then those machines will surely be scary, but I doubt that AI will enslave humans without actually having some root ssh terminal or similar to an actual human controlling it. At least not in this stage of our civilisation.
Movie theaters are like shops the end of the retail chain, and the digitalisation of the retail sector makes them obsolete. You can order your TV over amazon now, just as you can watch your movie over netflix. The retail sector is getting terribly efficient in the process, with very low margins. While obviously the traditional retail industry sees giant losses, its good for people living in the countryside or remote areas, where there is no cinema/shop nearby and you previously either had the choice between two TVs the retailer had in stock, or you had to drive to the city in order to buy one.
And they are contributing back to the community. Now YOU can build an empire on the back of work open sourced by google.
It also makes it available. If google hadn't released it as open source, companies which might have needed such a functionality would have been required to roll their own. This would have been a terrible waste of money and time, as google already has a perfectly working implementation. Now they have resources free to do different things, e.g. to improve the existing implementation, or to focus some other feature of their products.
The problem here is that the TOR browser does one separate circuit per domain. So if you visit site A through TOR and have to solve a captcha because of cloudflare, and then visit site B, your IP will be different, and you'll have to solve a captcha again. AFAIK this problem only surfaced (doing captchas for every cloudflare site) when TOR adopted that behaviour. Before, everything was routed through one circuit, and you only had to fill in one captcha.
What I hate about that argumentation is that it is a justification for ever longer copyright terms in the future as life expectancies rise, and for limitless copyright once age doesn't kill humans anymore (one day that will happen). Probably by then the copyright term by individuals will be near infinite already as they won't die.
I don't think that a copyright term of 50, or even 20 years after the author's death will stop the author from producing new works, as its still plenty of time to exploit it. The only people who benefit from this are obscure investors who have bought rights on old works, then lobby legislation to prolong copyright, and then sell off the rights with a bonus. Or big corporations like Disney who benefitted from public domain themselves.
Thanks for the link, didn't know that!
Totally wrong. Everything we know about the greece is thanks to the muslims preserving it over the middle ages. In europe, the old greek philosophers and mathematicians were all considered heathens and therefore not worth the parchment their writings were written on.
The term "Algebra" comes from a book about mathematics written by a muslim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Its sad how development continued, and europe had the period of enlightenment while the muslim world is pursuing wahabism and worse ideologies.
It was a tough fight, but the courts have confirmed that happy birthday is in the public domain now: https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
Still I think that the current term of 70 years is far too long. 50 was sort of okay.
When two companies fight about something it usually boils down to money being their motivation.
No mention of vorbis, flac, alac or opus. Great, isn't it?
PCM_IEC60958
AC-3
MPEG-1_Layer1
MPEG-1_Layer2/3 or MPEG-2_NOEXT
MPEG-2_EXT
MPEG-2_AAC_ADTS
MPEG-2_Layer1_LS
MPEG-2_Layer2/3_LS
DTS-I
DTS-II
DTS-III
ATRAC
ATRAC2/3
WMA
E-AC-3
MAT
DTS-IV
MPEG-4_HE_AAC
MPEG-4_HE_AAC_V2
MPEG-4_AAC_LC
DRA
MPEG-4_HE_AAC_SURROUND
MPEG-4_AAC_LC_SURROUND
MPEG-H_3D_AUDIO
AC4
MPEG-4_AAC_ELD
Its pretty obvious that some of their customers are governments. Who else would be interested in tor browser exploits:
https://www.zerodium.com/image...
Spoiler alert: the bad guys will win, as buying exploits is the only way they can do their business, while apple still sells iphones when there is a super secret vulnerability that gets used three times and thats it. They don't really care and only do the bug bounty program for PR reasons. And you can make more money with breaking into stuff than with selling stuff. Just look at the recent heists where part of the attack was social engineering, part of it was to manufacture emails to look like coming from management. Having access to management iphones is really helping here.
Yeah the problem of AI. The moment we figure out how to do an aspect of "AI" we call it algorithm and its no "AI" anymore.
With your logic, humans are not intelligent, as the human body is just a complex machine that follows certain rules (algorithms).