Two things about software-based instruction: it can improve over time and it can be widely distributed. Human-based instruction is limited in both those areas. Someday the software-based instruction will be really good. Human teachers can get better for a while, but they eventually retire -- losing all their instructional capability.
Please cite some examples of similar services that were attacked by a similar attack and managed to stay up and still be useful to the users. I don't doubt it's possible. But let's see some examples.
Because of Sony haters. And entitlement mentality. Sony was a victim of this attack. They don't need anyone's sympathy, but they shouldn't be treated like they did something wrong in this incident. It's not like there are simple countermeasures to prevent or fix DDoS attacks.
All of these things have pluses and minuses. Rather than picking a side and defending it, companies should regularly weigh the benefits versus the costs of these choices and watch for opportunities that might tip the scales away from the current policy.
Why not? Who does "listening" harm? What would be the specific benefit from not listening? Do you have a plan of action for living together peacefully in a civil society that doesn't involve "listening"? If so, please describe this plan.
Building a factory in most African countries is far too risky. Even if the wages were zero, you can't make a long term profit if the government nationalizes your factory. It's also not worth building anything in places where the government might decide to tax away or otherwise take the profits. Moving production to Africa won't be a trend until honest government prevails in Africa.
I think it's sad that people in your area are so poor they can't afford basic transportation, but also so economically secure that no one is willing to become an Uber driver and give people rides during non-peak hours at regular rates. And it's doubly sad that the combination of poverty and economic security you are describing is completely immune to changes in the price of car rides. That place must truly be cursed.
Once people realize they're paying more than conventional cabs, they'll be gone.
If so, it's a self-correcting problem. If not, customers must be satisfied with Uber's service and pricing. Either way, there's no reason for anyone besides Uber and Uber's customers to be involved in the decision.
Why should you get a first-class airline seat just because you are rich? Because you're willing to pay the amount it costs. Do you also want to ban eBay auctions? Why should people be able to buy what they want on eBay just because they are the high bidder?
Please cite an instance when this was banned somewhere and it caused good things. Until you do, I will assert that such a ban has never achieved a single positive result anywhere.
That should lure every driver, including drivers who are tired, or distant, or taking a day off, out onto the roads to serve the people who need rides. When people need a ride, that's when you want drivers to have a big incentive to provide them.
If it's too expensive for you, either wait or find another way. Then someone else who needs it more or values it more can get a ride. Why should you get a ride ahead of someone who values a ride more than you?
Different people value their time vs. their money differently. The "price gouging" whine is essentially: my value choices are more important than your value choices because... have sympathy for me.
And the result is that more people wait a longer time and drivers get paid less. And people who would become drivers to make some easy money driving only at peak times -- in other words, when they are needed most -- don't bother.
People are worse off overall, but sympathy is served.
Uber should create an algorithm to automatically detect when people will start whining to politicians about "price gouging".
Then they can send their extra drivers home -- drivers who would be happy to provide high-priced rides. And they can make riders wait for hours -- riders who would be happy to get a ride now, even if it meant paying a high price. Everyone will be poorly served, but no one will be "price gouging".
These people will inevitably hurt the people they interact with. You can spot destructive people by what they say. The claim they'll "redefine discipline" and "change our culture".
Non-destructive people would say "we're studying different approaches", "we'll try things and see what works", "we may not redefine discipline or drastically change the culture, but maybe we'll come up with something that works". Humility is the key. Without it, you end up hurting people recklessly or accidentally.
The cost of means-tested benefits is already about $60k per beneficiary household. There's no need for more taxes. If we stripped out all the overhead, we could easily guarantee a $50-60k income without spending another dime.
That sounds like generalized complaining. Are you arguing for anything, or just saying everything anyone might think about trying is off-limits because... slogan time... "race to the bottom"?
Isn't it possible that we don't need The Davis Bacon Act, which was enacted to protect white union members from having to compete with black workers on highway construction projects? Is "race to the bottom" really a counter-argument to the re-examination of The Davis Bacon Act?
Slashdot Mirror
If they don't care about the 4th Amendment, why would they care about FCC licensing laws? Besides, what is the FCC going to do? Fine the FBI?
Two things about software-based instruction: it can improve over time and it can be widely distributed. Human-based instruction is limited in both those areas. Someday the software-based instruction will be really good. Human teachers can get better for a while, but they eventually retire -- losing all their instructional capability.
Like I said, no simple countermeasures.
Please cite some examples of similar services that were attacked by a similar attack and managed to stay up and still be useful to the users. I don't doubt it's possible. But let's see some examples.
Because of Sony haters. And entitlement mentality. Sony was a victim of this attack. They don't need anyone's sympathy, but they shouldn't be treated like they did something wrong in this incident. It's not like there are simple countermeasures to prevent or fix DDoS attacks.
All of these things have pluses and minuses. Rather than picking a side and defending it, companies should regularly weigh the benefits versus the costs of these choices and watch for opportunities that might tip the scales away from the current policy.
Why not? Who does "listening" harm? What would be the specific benefit from not listening? Do you have a plan of action for living together peacefully in a civil society that doesn't involve "listening"? If so, please describe this plan.
Venezuela is on the way there. It's taking a while.
Planned Parenthood does not perform mammograms. (Unless they started doing it since late-2012.)
The President should definitely listen to the Tea Party. He's supposed to be the President of everyone in the US, not just another partisan asshole.
He says he is open to ideas from anyone. As President, that is the correct attitude for him to have.
Building a factory in most African countries is far too risky. Even if the wages were zero, you can't make a long term profit if the government nationalizes your factory. It's also not worth building anything in places where the government might decide to tax away or otherwise take the profits. Moving production to Africa won't be a trend until honest government prevails in Africa.
I think it's sad that people in your area are so poor they can't afford basic transportation, but also so economically secure that no one is willing to become an Uber driver and give people rides during non-peak hours at regular rates. And it's doubly sad that the combination of poverty and economic security you are describing is completely immune to changes in the price of car rides. That place must truly be cursed.
Arguing is rarely rewarding period. But these discussions hone my and others' understanding of the world. Understanding of the world can be rewarding.
I'm always hoping thought can win out over feelings -- especially negative feelings like envy.
Once people realize they're paying more than conventional cabs, they'll be gone.
If so, it's a self-correcting problem. If not, customers must be satisfied with Uber's service and pricing. Either way, there's no reason for anyone besides Uber and Uber's customers to be involved in the decision.
Why should you get a first-class airline seat just because you are rich? Because you're willing to pay the amount it costs. Do you also want to ban eBay auctions? Why should people be able to buy what they want on eBay just because they are the high bidder?
Please cite an instance when this was banned somewhere and it caused good things. Until you do, I will assert that such a ban has never achieved a single positive result anywhere.
That should lure every driver, including drivers who are tired, or distant, or taking a day off, out onto the roads to serve the people who need rides. When people need a ride, that's when you want drivers to have a big incentive to provide them.
If it's too expensive for you, either wait or find another way. Then someone else who needs it more or values it more can get a ride. Why should you get a ride ahead of someone who values a ride more than you?
Different people value their time vs. their money differently. The "price gouging" whine is essentially: my value choices are more important than your value choices because ... have sympathy for me.
And the result is that more people wait a longer time and drivers get paid less. And people who would become drivers to make some easy money driving only at peak times -- in other words, when they are needed most -- don't bother.
People are worse off overall, but sympathy is served.
Uber should create an algorithm to automatically detect when people will start whining to politicians about "price gouging".
Then they can send their extra drivers home -- drivers who would be happy to provide high-priced rides. And they can make riders wait for hours -- riders who would be happy to get a ride now, even if it meant paying a high price. Everyone will be poorly served, but no one will be "price gouging".
Now build the same dam out of aluminum and repeat the experiment.
If you check it, they charge you $25.
Why do you keep repeating facts? You're interfering with story-time.
These people will inevitably hurt the people they interact with. You can spot destructive people by what they say. The claim they'll "redefine discipline" and "change our culture".
Non-destructive people would say "we're studying different approaches", "we'll try things and see what works", "we may not redefine discipline or drastically change the culture, but maybe we'll come up with something that works". Humility is the key. Without it, you end up hurting people recklessly or accidentally.
The cost of means-tested benefits is already about $60k per beneficiary household. There's no need for more taxes. If we stripped out all the overhead, we could easily guarantee a $50-60k income without spending another dime.
Solution: a pallet tax. The money from the tax will go to ... well, nevermind where the money goes. We need to tax these job-killing pallets now!
It's an interesting thing to wish for, I guess. Anyone can make any story about the distant future. Personally, I hope we can have Stargates.
That sounds like generalized complaining. Are you arguing for anything, or just saying everything anyone might think about trying is off-limits because ... slogan time ... "race to the bottom"?
Isn't it possible that we don't need The Davis Bacon Act, which was enacted to protect white union members from having to compete with black workers on highway construction projects? Is "race to the bottom" really a counter-argument to the re-examination of The Davis Bacon Act?