Uber pays 80% of the fare to the driver. What the drivers are saying is that their income is X per day. If they were to drop driving their taxis and drive for Uber instead, they would take a hit to their income. If Uber were to increase fares by 30% above today's rate, they would give up being taxi drivers and become Uber drivers. But because Uber's fares are so cheap, they can't earn a living. But another 30% and they could.
Protection of religion is a central tenet of the US system of government. If you want to change that, you can convince 2/3 of both house of congress to propose an amendment. Or you can get 2/3 of the states to call a constitutional convention. Then you need 3/4 of the states to ratify it.
Until then, separation of church and state is the law of our land. There are many legal ways that you can mock the system. You can write an editorial. You can post on/. You can stand outside either a church or the DMV with your spaghetti strainer on your head. What you can't legally do is to file a petition claiming that you have a sincerely held religious belief when you have no such belief.
Now maybe she thinks that she is the Rosa Parks of spaghetti strainers and that suddenly everybody who is deeply devout will see her and give up their convictions. Her case is going to go to the supreme court and her stunt so creative that suddenly the court will be willing to overturn centuries of well established case law with regards to separation of church and state?
The DMV has to provide religious accommodation when it's legitimate. And they have to avoid spiraling into chaos by providing it under false pretenses. And the only way to do that is to ensure that those making these types of claims are punished severely.
I'm all for protesting. And I respect willingness to get arrested for the cause. But in this case, it was just a stupid an ineffective thing to do.
Driver psychology is to try to "beat the light." If a driver is expecting a 3 second yellow and you increase it to 4 seconds, they will always make it. Until they realize that the yellow is now 4 seconds. Then expectations will be adjusted and you're back to the original problem without changing psychology. Then what? Extend to 5 seconds? An hour? Why stop there? 24 hour yellow light so everybody has time to text their friends that a red light is coming? Really?
If you add red light cameras, you are safer in the short term (lower T-bones, higher rear-end) but then driver psychology changes. The first guy might slam the brakes but the second guy accurately predicts that and is prepared.
What *would* be good is a system is that detects that your car is approaching the light and automatically applies the brakes for you so that the driver doesn't have to make the decision. It's hard to do that now because you would need some sort of communications framework that may turn out to be buggy or insecure. With self-driving vehicles, this is going to happen.
No my logic is that claiming to be X when you are really Y is wrong because it hurts the Y group. If I disguise my finances in order to claim a scholarship reserved for a low income student, I've harmed the group of low income students.
If I bundle a bunch of subprime mortgages together and lie and claim that it's a AAA investment, I've harmed the investors. You don't have to go very far to find the path from deception to harm. It shouldn't be so hard for you to understand. By your logic, you can justify any type of deceit as long as you get the outcome that you want and then you can blame the victim.
There's nothing wrong with standing at a freeway intersection with a sign that says "I need heroin money." There is something wrong with standing there with a sign saying "Need money for my newborn to have milk" and then spending the received money on heroin.
By your logic, it's okay for a banker to rip off all of their poorest clients because they *need* to make their Lamborghini payment. You're trying to make a simple issue complicated. Deception is wrong.
That doesn't mean you can't sympathize with the addict whose life has gone so far off the rails that they are willing to engage in deception to support their habit. But you don't do that by justifying the wrong behavior.
If they *need* heroin, is it okay if they engage in armed robbery?
What if I *need* laid, is it okay if I force your wife?
Yes and I see not wanting to use the word slave twice so close together. So how about forced-laborer or something that doesn't have any connotations of being partially voluntary.
Ed
Because you can't really find any economist who disagree on the general principle of free markets. They debate quite vigorously things like how much the free market should be regulated, but you can't find an economist to support a centrally planned economy. Even in China, they've given up that ship. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to minimize some of the negative effects that completely unregulated markets bring. Look at the terrible toll those experiments with planned economies took on the people of eastern Europe.
What it means is that Apple and Google are facilitating the encryption while retaining zero knowledge of the keys. Therefore, neither company is able to decrypt the user's data on behalf of law enforcement. They are doing this because, if they didn't, somebody else would offer apps to do it and then take over part of their ecosystem.
Which doesn't change anything for the poor taxi drivers. I'm surprised that this is as big of an issue in NYC and I wonder who is really behind this. I've talked to taxi drivers in other jurisdictions who said that if Uber would just raise the price by about 30%, they would drive for Uber instead. In NYC where the prices are high, I'm surprised that drivers are staying within the system at all.
I took a taxi recently in Santa Clara. The driver pays $1400/month for dispatch! That's a significant cost. The dispatch companies are rent-seekers and they are quite effective at it. Maybe in some places, dispatch is a co-op but certainly not everywhere.
It seems that in this case, if there are multiple reports, the transgressor then gets a chance to face their accuser. We all see the concern of collusion to "get somebody" but I don't see how this program increases that problem. After all I could get five of my friends and all agree to walk into the dean's office telling the same story without any online tools.
I agree with your point, but one of the many challenges that we face when discussing here is that often we can't get to the original studies (paywall) but only a summary written by a journalist who doesn't include the relevant parts. So we have no way to know if there is an agenda by the original authors of the study or agenda by the person writing the news article and/or summary.
They ship signed binaries and post the hashes. That's not a perfect solution since somebody could load a different binary with a rootkit that makes it look like the real one. But if you download the firmware and verify the signature, that's a pretty good start. We all hated TPM when MSFT tried to introduce it to kill Linux but now it's starting to make sense.
There are 15 million lines of code in the Linux kernel so this doesn't seem surprising at all. They probably have a smaller kernel and less userland but we're still within this order of magnitude.
Uh JIT compilation produces faster code than fully pre-compiling. This sounds like somebody read - decades ago - that Java was slow and now subject to primacy confirmation bias and perseverance confirmation bias. A JIT language is faster because the JIT compiler can profile the code and then reoptimize. To get this with a direct-to-object-code compilation, you have to build it once, profile, then build again with the new information. And then if the usage changes somehow, the optimizations become out of date.
Yes I am going to blame him if he asks me for money to buy food and instead buys heroin. Who else would I blame for that? I think your argument is that I should assume that the money won't be spent properly. And, therefore, when I see a person in legitimate need and have no way to separate them from those just looking for drug money, I can assume that they are in the latter group and not feel any pangs from my conscience. Which is pretty much what I end up doing. But that's a pretty exacting price that has been extracted.
No, I don't own a drone of any type. But I do donate, on a monthly basis, an amount of money about equal to the cost of buying one. I give it to charity organizations that can (hopefully) ensure that it goes to better use.
And when I see a person in distress begging for help, I can display a callous disregard because I know that most likely they are playing on my sympathies but don't want real assistance. So now I am partially immune to the suffering of other human beings.
It's a pretty significant cost in many respects and it's a shame that the world is this way.
Neal Stephenson at least has a reputation to maintain. A KS where he takes money and mismanages may cost him in his other business areas. For some projects, it's enough money for the recipients just to go hide out on an island somewhere.
I am affected by their choices in that I wouldn't have given the money knowing that it was going to be misappropriated. But more importantly, the victim is the person in genuine need who I can no longer help since I have a maximum amount of charity that I can give (If I'm very generous that's 100% of everything I have but it's still finite). So that person is causing a great deal of harm to society. If they piss in a well that I don't use, I'm still upset about it.
Forget being deemed a hipster, companies like Mobile Iron have sold their crap to large organizations. And now if you don't have iOS or Android, the mail server won't let you sync!
Slashdot Mirror
At some point it is no longer an athletic competition and rather an equipment competition. That's what the governing bodies are trying to avoid.
Uber pays 80% of the fare to the driver. What the drivers are saying is that their income is X per day. If they were to drop driving their taxis and drive for Uber instead, they would take a hit to their income. If Uber were to increase fares by 30% above today's rate, they would give up being taxi drivers and become Uber drivers. But because Uber's fares are so cheap, they can't earn a living. But another 30% and they could.
Protection of religion is a central tenet of the US system of government. If you want to change that, you can convince 2/3 of both house of congress to propose an amendment. Or you can get 2/3 of the states to call a constitutional convention. Then you need 3/4 of the states to ratify it. Until then, separation of church and state is the law of our land. There are many legal ways that you can mock the system. You can write an editorial. You can post on /. You can stand outside either a church or the DMV with your spaghetti strainer on your head. What you can't legally do is to file a petition claiming that you have a sincerely held religious belief when you have no such belief.
Now maybe she thinks that she is the Rosa Parks of spaghetti strainers and that suddenly everybody who is deeply devout will see her and give up their convictions. Her case is going to go to the supreme court and her stunt so creative that suddenly the court will be willing to overturn centuries of well established case law with regards to separation of church and state?
The DMV has to provide religious accommodation when it's legitimate. And they have to avoid spiraling into chaos by providing it under false pretenses. And the only way to do that is to ensure that those making these types of claims are punished severely.
I'm all for protesting. And I respect willingness to get arrested for the cause. But in this case, it was just a stupid an ineffective thing to do.
Driver psychology is to try to "beat the light." If a driver is expecting a 3 second yellow and you increase it to 4 seconds, they will always make it. Until they realize that the yellow is now 4 seconds. Then expectations will be adjusted and you're back to the original problem without changing psychology. Then what? Extend to 5 seconds? An hour? Why stop there? 24 hour yellow light so everybody has time to text their friends that a red light is coming? Really? If you add red light cameras, you are safer in the short term (lower T-bones, higher rear-end) but then driver psychology changes. The first guy might slam the brakes but the second guy accurately predicts that and is prepared. What *would* be good is a system is that detects that your car is approaching the light and automatically applies the brakes for you so that the driver doesn't have to make the decision. It's hard to do that now because you would need some sort of communications framework that may turn out to be buggy or insecure. With self-driving vehicles, this is going to happen.
No my logic is that claiming to be X when you are really Y is wrong because it hurts the Y group. If I disguise my finances in order to claim a scholarship reserved for a low income student, I've harmed the group of low income students. If I bundle a bunch of subprime mortgages together and lie and claim that it's a AAA investment, I've harmed the investors. You don't have to go very far to find the path from deception to harm. It shouldn't be so hard for you to understand. By your logic, you can justify any type of deceit as long as you get the outcome that you want and then you can blame the victim. There's nothing wrong with standing at a freeway intersection with a sign that says "I need heroin money." There is something wrong with standing there with a sign saying "Need money for my newborn to have milk" and then spending the received money on heroin. By your logic, it's okay for a banker to rip off all of their poorest clients because they *need* to make their Lamborghini payment. You're trying to make a simple issue complicated. Deception is wrong. That doesn't mean you can't sympathize with the addict whose life has gone so far off the rails that they are willing to engage in deception to support their habit. But you don't do that by justifying the wrong behavior. If they *need* heroin, is it okay if they engage in armed robbery? What if I *need* laid, is it okay if I force your wife?
Yes and I see not wanting to use the word slave twice so close together. So how about forced-laborer or something that doesn't have any connotations of being partially voluntary. Ed
Because you can't really find any economist who disagree on the general principle of free markets. They debate quite vigorously things like how much the free market should be regulated, but you can't find an economist to support a centrally planned economy. Even in China, they've given up that ship. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to minimize some of the negative effects that completely unregulated markets bring. Look at the terrible toll those experiments with planned economies took on the people of eastern Europe.
What it means is that Apple and Google are facilitating the encryption while retaining zero knowledge of the keys. Therefore, neither company is able to decrypt the user's data on behalf of law enforcement. They are doing this because, if they didn't, somebody else would offer apps to do it and then take over part of their ecosystem.
Because she doesn't understand them and how bad the taxi market was before regulation.
Which doesn't change anything for the poor taxi drivers. I'm surprised that this is as big of an issue in NYC and I wonder who is really behind this. I've talked to taxi drivers in other jurisdictions who said that if Uber would just raise the price by about 30%, they would drive for Uber instead. In NYC where the prices are high, I'm surprised that drivers are staying within the system at all.
I took a taxi recently in Santa Clara. The driver pays $1400/month for dispatch! That's a significant cost. The dispatch companies are rent-seekers and they are quite effective at it. Maybe in some places, dispatch is a co-op but certainly not everywhere.
Yes. Especially if the perpetrator is somebody powerful. Like a celebrity or start football player. See Bill Cosby
It seems that in this case, if there are multiple reports, the transgressor then gets a chance to face their accuser. We all see the concern of collusion to "get somebody" but I don't see how this program increases that problem. After all I could get five of my friends and all agree to walk into the dean's office telling the same story without any online tools.
I agree with your point, but one of the many challenges that we face when discussing here is that often we can't get to the original studies (paywall) but only a summary written by a journalist who doesn't include the relevant parts. So we have no way to know if there is an agenda by the original authors of the study or agenda by the person writing the news article and/or summary.
They ship signed binaries and post the hashes. That's not a perfect solution since somebody could load a different binary with a rootkit that makes it look like the real one. But if you download the firmware and verify the signature, that's a pretty good start. We all hated TPM when MSFT tried to introduce it to kill Linux but now it's starting to make sense.
There are 15 million lines of code in the Linux kernel so this doesn't seem surprising at all. They probably have a smaller kernel and less userland but we're still within this order of magnitude.
A better performance comparison would be against a garbage-collected language like C++11 / 14 with unique_ptr and similar constructs.
Uh JIT compilation produces faster code than fully pre-compiling. This sounds like somebody read - decades ago - that Java was slow and now subject to primacy confirmation bias and perseverance confirmation bias. A JIT language is faster because the JIT compiler can profile the code and then reoptimize. To get this with a direct-to-object-code compilation, you have to build it once, profile, then build again with the new information. And then if the usage changes somehow, the optimizations become out of date.
Yes I am going to blame him if he asks me for money to buy food and instead buys heroin. Who else would I blame for that? I think your argument is that I should assume that the money won't be spent properly. And, therefore, when I see a person in legitimate need and have no way to separate them from those just looking for drug money, I can assume that they are in the latter group and not feel any pangs from my conscience. Which is pretty much what I end up doing. But that's a pretty exacting price that has been extracted.
No, I don't own a drone of any type. But I do donate, on a monthly basis, an amount of money about equal to the cost of buying one. I give it to charity organizations that can (hopefully) ensure that it goes to better use. And when I see a person in distress begging for help, I can display a callous disregard because I know that most likely they are playing on my sympathies but don't want real assistance. So now I am partially immune to the suffering of other human beings. It's a pretty significant cost in many respects and it's a shame that the world is this way.
And the MIT license is GPL compatible, so you're welcome to add your own GPL parts and release your improved version under GPL.
Neal Stephenson at least has a reputation to maintain. A KS where he takes money and mismanages may cost him in his other business areas. For some projects, it's enough money for the recipients just to go hide out on an island somewhere.
No need for step four!
I am affected by their choices in that I wouldn't have given the money knowing that it was going to be misappropriated. But more importantly, the victim is the person in genuine need who I can no longer help since I have a maximum amount of charity that I can give (If I'm very generous that's 100% of everything I have but it's still finite). So that person is causing a great deal of harm to society. If they piss in a well that I don't use, I'm still upset about it.
Forget being deemed a hipster, companies like Mobile Iron have sold their crap to large organizations. And now if you don't have iOS or Android, the mail server won't let you sync!