Most business leaders lean Republican so that fact that they are abandoning the administration is very telling.
A country needs good advocates for more conservative policies otherwise you end up with social safety nets that you can't afford. (Social safety nets are generally good but not if they bankrupt the county).
The current Republicans aren't good conservative advocates. They seem to think that tax cuts for the rich are a magic wand that can achieve all policy goals. They are downright hostile to facts.
I was a Republican 20 years ago and sometimes hope to be one again. But for all of their faults the Democrats tend to at least believe their own bullshit.
If you believe in your ideas and you win the election in terms of the rules but can clearly see that you've lost in the market place if ideas, you try to make your case. Obama won both popular and electoral votes but set out to be "everybody's president." When you win an election despite losing the popular vote *and* you know your ideas are wrong, you try to push through as much bad policy as you possibly can under the premise that you won't ever win another election. The Republicans aren't governing like winners, they're governing like hillbillies who get to spend a weekend at a mansion.
And more importantly, since Amazon already has a massive logistics network, they won't ever be out of stock on an item. And even if they are, you won't have customers coming in and leaving frustrated. Also no having to walk around and look for stuff. Really if you know what you want already, this is how shopping should be. Retail should become manufacturer showrooms.
Well this works great if, when you get there, the merchant actually *has* the item that you want. If not you end up making a trip for nothing, wasting time, and still don't have the item. Better if those stores had a web site where you could check inventory. Of course even that's not a solution as it may sell out before you get there. So maybe you could reserve it online and pay when you get there. Now you have the Amazon model. Only they offer additional value which is that, if it's not in the store, they'll bring it your house the next day!
When we start seeing the pushback from established industry players. Soon there will be discussions of "real" meat (meaning raised on a farm rather than in a laboratory). The minute this is price competitive, I can't imagine buying meat from an actual animal.
I'm as scared of the slippery-slope as anybody. But there are some things that just shouldn't be tolerated in a free society. Many places in Europe ban specific speech associated with the Nazis as well as the giving of the Nazi salute. I don't know all of the details. Coming from the US our knee-jerk reaction is to feel like this infringes on freedom. But the alternative is that, now, private corporations are forced to decide what speech they can and cannot swallow hard and tolerate. I wouldn't want to be the DNS provider for these people. Better if the government sets consistent rules. Some things are so harmful that advocating for them does actual harm to people. Admittedly I would hate to live in a society where almost everything is wrong think and I see why there is a fear of any regulation around this. But we do have courts that are good at litigating whether speech actually causes harm. If we did have such restrictions enshrined into law we could then give private corporations less discretion in terms of who they serve as customers and this may actually expand protections for unpopular speech. In any event its a hard problem.
In which case, what HBO did makes a lot of sense. Stall for time since the value of data is going down. Of course that assumes that the hole has been plugged.
There's an assumption in here (one that I would probably dispute) that if Target had better security people, the breach wouldn't have happened. I'm not convinced that's the case at all. Yes this was a silly oversight, but the security team (no matter how large) would probably have been looking at things like updating the OS on PoS systems or whether or not the fact that attackers have physical access to the self checkout machines creates new attack vectors.
The problem with being in the defensive team is that you can be almost perfect and the attackers still win. Sometimes it just takes one mistake. A mistake that is made because there is just so much attack surface.
Your argument makes no sense. The fact that both US and Canadian diplomats were affected makes it less likely that this was done by Cuban authorities as Cuba and Canada (as has already been pointed out) have good relations. Canada may have been collateral damage. Or the same third-party may have targeted both countries. Is it possible that this could be a malfunctioning eavesdropping device? Who knows!
Even when I've left jobs (I've never been fired in these circumstances), I had no issue with getting expenses paid. Sure if the company is bankrupt or something. Somebody will figure out the most economic way to end their trip and get them home, they will file expense reports for outstanding expenses, and everybody will move on. Companies this size aren't interested in vendettas over small amounts of money.
There are two types of safes. Fire safes and security safes. There may be safes that combine both sets of features but they aren't sold at everyday retailers. A fire safe is typically made up of insulating material and you could probably cut through it pretty easily. A security safe tends to be made of high-strength materials. As a DIY measure, I guess you could put a security safe inside of a fire safe! I wouldn't do the other way around as the fire might prevent the security safe from opening.
No the point is that if I think its impossible to go to the moon and you try to prove me wrong by building a rocket and having it explode and kill twenty people, I'm now even more sure of my belief that it's impossible. To change that belief you will have to actually go to the moon. You can't came and say "look how close my rocket was." I reread my comment and I don't think it was so hard to follow.
If you want proof of the staying power of the incompetent, look only at RIAA / MPAA. They are getting displaced in the sense that Netflix and Amazon are now creating original content. Established players create barriers to entry. If the established players have some sort of bias (not saying any of the above organizations do), those barriers to entry will protect the bias. It takes a long time for established players in any industry to get displaced.
Well if I already believe the exact opposite of a study and it comes out flawed, of course that reinforces the existing belief. A study tried to prove the opposite and failed. That's not evidence of absence but sure is a strong indicator.
It's probably very *hard* to get a census of all teams that have pitched for VC funding and any sampling would be rife with sampling bias problems.
If 5% of total teams have women on them and 10% of funding goes to teams with women, this shows a bias in *favor* of women. I'm not saying that's what happened here. The problem is the article is essentially stating the 10% number and saying that the VCs have bias against women.
If there are no women on the teams getting funded, there is *some* sort of gender problem for sure. But there's no reason to believe that the study has accurately identified it.
A better comment than mine was already posted by an AC. However, the other point here is that, the mechanisms you are describing require time to take effect. If people of a particular gender or nationality were available cheaper, exploiting the arbitrage would close it and the problem would self-correct. But lots of data says that this hasn't happened. Clearly this arbitrage is, in many areas, *closing* but that isn't the same as *closed*. So the conclusion is either that (a) there really are differences between genders and races that make one more valuable than the other or (b) the natural forces that you describe take a long time to take effect. I tend to think it's the latter.
If I'm a highly profitable sexist and racist company, I can stay that way for a *long* time. Eventually market conditions may change where somebody with better employees can eat my market share. But until then, I'm coming along making high returns (maybe not as high as if I weren't racist/sexist) and perpetuating discrimination.
I think you are right that these forces will *eventually* close the arbitrage but the time frame will be longer than the lifetime of those currently in the work force.
Right but apparently that was explicitly not allowed which is why a court has to sort this out. I struggle with the need for a gofundme for Snopes, though. Seems completely dishonest. The money is coming in and the courts will decide where it goes. Nobody has an interest in taking the site off of the internet. I assume that Dave will use this as a personal slush fund. He has an expensive new wife.
This isn't really about owning the DNS, though, it's about corporate structure. Snopes (Bardav/Proper Media) control the DNS. It's purely an internal company issue.
If the comic books are of low value, I have no idea why people would be flying anywhere to transact. If they are of high value, I have no idea why you would check them. They will get lost and you will get offered the original cover price as compensation!
And the problem with all of these "hammering out" of regulations is that those writing the regulations are typically underfunded compared to those protesting the regulations.
The writers will come up with a cost and benefit and decide the regulation is good. Those opposed to the regulation will say that the cost is half as much and the benefit may not be achievable.
Once the regulation is written, it suddenly gets met at half of the original estimate provided by the regulators.
Rinse and repeat ad nauseum.
If you object to a regulation saying it will cost X and then the implementation actually costs less, you ought to have to pay a tax that brings the cost up to your original estimate. That way at least there would be motivation to be honest.
Yes, but the fundamental problem is that we are letting incompetent people *become* powerful. If competence were a prerequisite, we wouldn't get into this situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Most business leaders lean Republican so that fact that they are abandoning the administration is very telling. A country needs good advocates for more conservative policies otherwise you end up with social safety nets that you can't afford. (Social safety nets are generally good but not if they bankrupt the county). The current Republicans aren't good conservative advocates. They seem to think that tax cuts for the rich are a magic wand that can achieve all policy goals. They are downright hostile to facts. I was a Republican 20 years ago and sometimes hope to be one again. But for all of their faults the Democrats tend to at least believe their own bullshit.
If you believe in your ideas and you win the election in terms of the rules but can clearly see that you've lost in the market place if ideas, you try to make your case. Obama won both popular and electoral votes but set out to be "everybody's president." When you win an election despite losing the popular vote *and* you know your ideas are wrong, you try to push through as much bad policy as you possibly can under the premise that you won't ever win another election. The Republicans aren't governing like winners, they're governing like hillbillies who get to spend a weekend at a mansion.
And more importantly, since Amazon already has a massive logistics network, they won't ever be out of stock on an item. And even if they are, you won't have customers coming in and leaving frustrated. Also no having to walk around and look for stuff. Really if you know what you want already, this is how shopping should be. Retail should become manufacturer showrooms.
Well this works great if, when you get there, the merchant actually *has* the item that you want. If not you end up making a trip for nothing, wasting time, and still don't have the item. Better if those stores had a web site where you could check inventory. Of course even that's not a solution as it may sell out before you get there. So maybe you could reserve it online and pay when you get there. Now you have the Amazon model. Only they offer additional value which is that, if it's not in the store, they'll bring it your house the next day!
When we start seeing the pushback from established industry players. Soon there will be discussions of "real" meat (meaning raised on a farm rather than in a laboratory). The minute this is price competitive, I can't imagine buying meat from an actual animal.
We have ToR
I'm as scared of the slippery-slope as anybody. But there are some things that just shouldn't be tolerated in a free society. Many places in Europe ban specific speech associated with the Nazis as well as the giving of the Nazi salute. I don't know all of the details. Coming from the US our knee-jerk reaction is to feel like this infringes on freedom. But the alternative is that, now, private corporations are forced to decide what speech they can and cannot swallow hard and tolerate. I wouldn't want to be the DNS provider for these people. Better if the government sets consistent rules. Some things are so harmful that advocating for them does actual harm to people. Admittedly I would hate to live in a society where almost everything is wrong think and I see why there is a fear of any regulation around this. But we do have courts that are good at litigating whether speech actually causes harm. If we did have such restrictions enshrined into law we could then give private corporations less discretion in terms of who they serve as customers and this may actually expand protections for unpopular speech. In any event its a hard problem.
In which case, what HBO did makes a lot of sense. Stall for time since the value of data is going down. Of course that assumes that the hole has been plugged.
There's an assumption in here (one that I would probably dispute) that if Target had better security people, the breach wouldn't have happened. I'm not convinced that's the case at all. Yes this was a silly oversight, but the security team (no matter how large) would probably have been looking at things like updating the OS on PoS systems or whether or not the fact that attackers have physical access to the self checkout machines creates new attack vectors. The problem with being in the defensive team is that you can be almost perfect and the attackers still win. Sometimes it just takes one mistake. A mistake that is made because there is just so much attack surface.
Enter a whole new age of improvised sonic weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Your argument makes no sense. The fact that both US and Canadian diplomats were affected makes it less likely that this was done by Cuban authorities as Cuba and Canada (as has already been pointed out) have good relations. Canada may have been collateral damage. Or the same third-party may have targeted both countries. Is it possible that this could be a malfunctioning eavesdropping device? Who knows!
I don't think they will have trouble finding jobs. If anything, after this, their market demand just went way up!
Even when I've left jobs (I've never been fired in these circumstances), I had no issue with getting expenses paid. Sure if the company is bankrupt or something. Somebody will figure out the most economic way to end their trip and get them home, they will file expense reports for outstanding expenses, and everybody will move on. Companies this size aren't interested in vendettas over small amounts of money.
"Fair and balanced" is a euphemism for state-propaganda machine!
There are two types of safes. Fire safes and security safes. There may be safes that combine both sets of features but they aren't sold at everyday retailers. A fire safe is typically made up of insulating material and you could probably cut through it pretty easily. A security safe tends to be made of high-strength materials. As a DIY measure, I guess you could put a security safe inside of a fire safe! I wouldn't do the other way around as the fire might prevent the security safe from opening.
No the point is that if I think its impossible to go to the moon and you try to prove me wrong by building a rocket and having it explode and kill twenty people, I'm now even more sure of my belief that it's impossible. To change that belief you will have to actually go to the moon. You can't came and say "look how close my rocket was." I reread my comment and I don't think it was so hard to follow.
If you want proof of the staying power of the incompetent, look only at RIAA / MPAA. They are getting displaced in the sense that Netflix and Amazon are now creating original content. Established players create barriers to entry. If the established players have some sort of bias (not saying any of the above organizations do), those barriers to entry will protect the bias. It takes a long time for established players in any industry to get displaced.
Apparently, both are so dirty that they're ultimately going to be banned in parts of the world. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
Well if I already believe the exact opposite of a study and it comes out flawed, of course that reinforces the existing belief. A study tried to prove the opposite and failed. That's not evidence of absence but sure is a strong indicator. It's probably very *hard* to get a census of all teams that have pitched for VC funding and any sampling would be rife with sampling bias problems. If 5% of total teams have women on them and 10% of funding goes to teams with women, this shows a bias in *favor* of women. I'm not saying that's what happened here. The problem is the article is essentially stating the 10% number and saying that the VCs have bias against women. If there are no women on the teams getting funded, there is *some* sort of gender problem for sure. But there's no reason to believe that the study has accurately identified it.
A better comment than mine was already posted by an AC. However, the other point here is that, the mechanisms you are describing require time to take effect. If people of a particular gender or nationality were available cheaper, exploiting the arbitrage would close it and the problem would self-correct. But lots of data says that this hasn't happened. Clearly this arbitrage is, in many areas, *closing* but that isn't the same as *closed*. So the conclusion is either that (a) there really are differences between genders and races that make one more valuable than the other or (b) the natural forces that you describe take a long time to take effect. I tend to think it's the latter. If I'm a highly profitable sexist and racist company, I can stay that way for a *long* time. Eventually market conditions may change where somebody with better employees can eat my market share. But until then, I'm coming along making high returns (maybe not as high as if I weren't racist/sexist) and perpetuating discrimination. I think you are right that these forces will *eventually* close the arbitrage but the time frame will be longer than the lifetime of those currently in the work force.
Right but apparently that was explicitly not allowed which is why a court has to sort this out. I struggle with the need for a gofundme for Snopes, though. Seems completely dishonest. The money is coming in and the courts will decide where it goes. Nobody has an interest in taking the site off of the internet. I assume that Dave will use this as a personal slush fund. He has an expensive new wife.
This isn't really about owning the DNS, though, it's about corporate structure. Snopes (Bardav/Proper Media) control the DNS. It's purely an internal company issue.
If the comic books are of low value, I have no idea why people would be flying anywhere to transact. If they are of high value, I have no idea why you would check them. They will get lost and you will get offered the original cover price as compensation!
And the problem with all of these "hammering out" of regulations is that those writing the regulations are typically underfunded compared to those protesting the regulations. The writers will come up with a cost and benefit and decide the regulation is good. Those opposed to the regulation will say that the cost is half as much and the benefit may not be achievable. Once the regulation is written, it suddenly gets met at half of the original estimate provided by the regulators. Rinse and repeat ad nauseum. If you object to a regulation saying it will cost X and then the implementation actually costs less, you ought to have to pay a tax that brings the cost up to your original estimate. That way at least there would be motivation to be honest.
Yes, but the fundamental problem is that we are letting incompetent people *become* powerful. If competence were a prerequisite, we wouldn't get into this situation.