But it's not the type of competition that will lower prices. Maybe some people are willing to settle for whatever the streaming service they pay for has, but they are by and large getting an even trade; you pay less for netflix but they also have less desirable content to offer. On the contrary, if someone wanted to watch the Game of Throne finale last Sunday, there isn't exactly five streaming services begging you to watch it on their service, all feeling pressure to give the same quality service at a lower price.
There's HBOGo, Amazon and Google Play in addition to cable, so that's 4.
Put the bong down. There's no way the US government is THAT capable of doing what you claim.
Are you joking? Wannacry was based entirely on leaked CIA exploits, a mere 2 days after the leak. Moreover there was no followup, there were thousands of leaked CIA exploits and this single potentially-world-shattering one was turned into malware and released. A) That's a clear sign they wanted to show the "danger" of leakers. B) That's a clear sign they wanted the kill switch to shut it off if it damaged too many of their assets. C) That's a clear sign that when they realized it didn't have the intended effect via the media they gave up and changed tactics.
If this were a foreign power they wouldn't have stopped (and probably wouldn't have even included the kill switch,) if this were some kid out for the "lulz" they wouldn't have stopped because they didn't get caught. There's only one group it could logically be: the people who are pissed off their exploits leaked.
It's not capitalistic competition because multiple streaming services don't have the same shows.
We're comparing cable vs streaming directly to the consumer. That's at least two difference streaming services, when you add in things like Netflix, Amazon and Google Play you're up to 5. It's absolutely an example of a free market rising from the ashes of a monopoly.
I tend to buy the streams to everyone with good active sci-fi shows in roughly 3-4 month intervals where I can catch up on the other 8-9 months while viewing the current stuff. It costs more than cable by about 2x as much, but it doesn't give money to the leading proponents of SOPA/PIPA/CISPA and other such lobbying which infringes on my rights. It's worth the extra cost if only to defund the monopolistic cable companies. As an added bonus it means my money isn't going to pay for idiotic crap like reality TV. The net impact of that will likely be, since reality TV viewers are dim enough to watch whatever is in front of them and won't seek out plus pay for it explicitly, that more quality entertainment will be created. When there are a thousand channels on TV almost universally regarded as garbage outside of a handful of programs, why would anyone want to subsidize that? It's basically a hand-out to a bunch of liberal extremists in Hollywood who think they are more than the modern equivalent of the court jester, make them at least dance amusingly for it.
But it's a bigger PitA to give money to an organization which funds things like SOPA/PIPA/CISPA/etc and are generally a bunch of fuckers when it comes to customer service. I'd rather pay 2x as much in all across a dozen different providers to receive the same content without funding people who lobby against what I consider basic Human rights in the modern era - such as online privacy.
The saddest thing abouth the whole situation is that in the majority of cases getting 40 years in a federal prison vs walking free is matter of how big your bank account is.
Or in this case, who you piss off. Chances are Wannacry was a state-sponsored attack (probably by our own nation) to cause a distraction from politics, it failed because a vigilante decided to poke at it and stumbled upon a weakness to stop it. That kind of thing doesn't go unpunished (Hell, they probably used the stolen cards to donate to his legal defense in order to make it look worse on him,) and the guy probably still has no idea why. It's practically straight out of Clockwork Orange.
Most of the so-called religious myths attributed to ancient Sumer were not myths at all but advanced knowledge recorded in a metaphorical language, as was the practice all over the ancient world.
It would be a mistake to assume that ancient (or even slightly less modern) languages were metaphorical in nature, instead languages tend toward literal interpretations while adding their own metaphors.
You don't need to look beyond modern politics to see this in action: "well regulated" in terms of the second amendment meant "well oiled, calibrated, zeroed, etc" - just as when you take a gun to a range today and have it "regulated" you are having it "tuned up." Modern politicians however would have you believe "well regulated" means "supervised, controlled, registered in a database, etc" because they want to achieve something (no guns or reduced access to guns) which they aren't legally allowed to do, so they take the tack of redefining the words over time ("regulated" never meant "controlled under law" or anything of the sort when it was originally used in the constitution.) Similarly, "free speech" meant precisely that: "you cannot suffer anything for speaking." Modern interpretations however claim that to be a metaphor, that you can suffer for what you say.
Ancient tales of a great civilization being split into many tongues aren't that complex to deduce: they were talking about multiculturalism leading to the decline of the host culture, the same as we see today. When they spoke of a great flood it's because there was a great flood (recorded in geological records worldwide.) Some things certainly got embellished being that mostly theological records are all we have left (incidentally, why anyone destroying any historical landmarks or writings should be tried for treason - being functionally identical to ISIS in destroying history and dooming our progeny to repeat it) but the underlying pieces of the stories are usually based on real things.
They have 3 different machines for the powerball which they swap between at random (computer pick, dice roll, don't know how) for each drawing, each of which is supposed to be random. If you do a statistical analysis on them with that bit of info in mind you can roughly group them into 3 distinct sets, but the overlap is too much to do so with more than about 60% accuracy. Once you've gone that far they are still mostly random - some balls might have dents or slightly different weights or starting conditions which differ based on the last run, but there's not enough information to correlate it well enough to pick a winning set of numbers in under a million tries.
So that being said... the only people who would ever play this are people who are simply too stupid to figure out that that $5 a week they spend is really $260 a year or $5200 every 20 years which is a luxury cruise for two plus airfare when you retire. So, after 50 years of work, you can be guaranteed at least a little bit of the rich life... or you can pay the stupid tax and wonder why when you retire that you can't do those nice things.
I think you're leaving out the desperation factor. If you know for a fact the wealth you need to do anything substantial with your life is based on chance encounters, who you know and how well you can sell out others without getting caught and you have a reasonable assessment of your life while not being born into a billionaire family, you know that's not you. It's a case of 0% chance of ever achieving anything of note vs a 1-in-a-few-hundred-million chance. The lottery is infinitely better odds than zero.
There's some legitimacy to this. If you've ever seen a production environment of any kind people will fudge transactional logs all the time - though it usually doesn't matter because it's doing things like fixing a typo a month later. There is however the possibility that someone discovers something their company and in turn their group is responsible for that will just go away if they delete it or fudge the data, in which case it likely goes unnoticed or gets blamed on someone else. In the latter cases a blockchain system would make the process more reliable from an auditor's perspective because the log is either real (and they don't give a shit about typos anyway) or it is missing.
But honestly, I find many of these arguments (including my own)
suspect. Economics has little interesting predictive power. It
smells a bit of pseudo-science.
This is economics in a nutshell. Most central logic of the field were created by actual crazy people (some of the major ones after they went crazy) while it's mostly hand-waving to keep people fooled into believing it's not a house of cards, because if they believed that long enough it would collapse in on itself. The fact that last point is a central guidestone behind modern economics is itself terrifying.
There's no shortage of workers. There are lots of people around who'd be willing to do this work. It's a shortage of employers willing to pay the wage required to properly compensate people for doing the work. Pay a proper wage and this "labor shortage" will disappear immediately.
I think you're blaming the evil corporations when that's not really the case. A shortage of labor is a shortage of people willing to work at the market rate - that's a bad choice of words but if you accept that it will get you over the first bottleneck in understanding this issue.
Next up, that rate is determine by what people will pay, outside of government work everyone has a budget to stick to - that means the guy paying for a building has constraints which don't allow new construction at the rate people want to be paid for it, so it either doesn't get done or there is some give. Basic economics, supply vs demand, but there is a basis to both sides beyond the theory of it - the supply (labor) wants all they can get and the demand (client) wants all they can get, for the former that's a direct translation to wealth and for the latter it's a budgetary constraint saying how much they can build for x amount.
Now for the actual issue. We live in a debt-based economic system with runaway inflation of about 2.5% compounding annually. This means the dollars you get are worth less, but more insidiously it means changes to adapt to the lower dollar value over time have their own propagation delay through the economic network. Both of these have one net effect: the government gains more spending power (yes, they get more spending power than the inflation alone because that increased labor pool plus their willingness to pay at the prior market rate means more supply to choose from.)
To fix labor issues you have to first fix the government's out of control spending habits, this is why Trump was elected and why every globalist shill on the planet despises him.
They should have thought about that before deciding to become the internet police. They deserve to be nationalized if not outright disbanded under antitrust regulations.
Slashdot Mirror
But it's not the type of competition that will lower prices. Maybe some people are willing to settle for whatever the streaming service they pay for has, but they are by and large getting an even trade; you pay less for netflix but they also have less desirable content to offer. On the contrary, if someone wanted to watch the Game of Throne finale last Sunday, there isn't exactly five streaming services begging you to watch it on their service, all feeling pressure to give the same quality service at a lower price.
There's HBOGo, Amazon and Google Play in addition to cable, so that's 4.
Also AC's don't come back to check their posts unless they're vested shills.
Put the bong down. There's no way the US government is THAT capable of doing what you claim.
Are you joking? Wannacry was based entirely on leaked CIA exploits, a mere 2 days after the leak. Moreover there was no followup, there were thousands of leaked CIA exploits and this single potentially-world-shattering one was turned into malware and released. A) That's a clear sign they wanted to show the "danger" of leakers. B) That's a clear sign they wanted the kill switch to shut it off if it damaged too many of their assets. C) That's a clear sign that when they realized it didn't have the intended effect via the media they gave up and changed tactics.
If this were a foreign power they wouldn't have stopped (and probably wouldn't have even included the kill switch,) if this were some kid out for the "lulz" they wouldn't have stopped because they didn't get caught. There's only one group it could logically be: the people who are pissed off their exploits leaked.
You sure do seem to follow government prosecution of cybercrimes closely for someone implying objectivity.
It's not capitalistic competition because multiple streaming services don't have the same shows.
We're comparing cable vs streaming directly to the consumer. That's at least two difference streaming services, when you add in things like Netflix, Amazon and Google Play you're up to 5. It's absolutely an example of a free market rising from the ashes of a monopoly.
I tend to buy the streams to everyone with good active sci-fi shows in roughly 3-4 month intervals where I can catch up on the other 8-9 months while viewing the current stuff. It costs more than cable by about 2x as much, but it doesn't give money to the leading proponents of SOPA/PIPA/CISPA and other such lobbying which infringes on my rights. It's worth the extra cost if only to defund the monopolistic cable companies. As an added bonus it means my money isn't going to pay for idiotic crap like reality TV. The net impact of that will likely be, since reality TV viewers are dim enough to watch whatever is in front of them and won't seek out plus pay for it explicitly, that more quality entertainment will be created. When there are a thousand channels on TV almost universally regarded as garbage outside of a handful of programs, why would anyone want to subsidize that? It's basically a hand-out to a bunch of liberal extremists in Hollywood who think they are more than the modern equivalent of the court jester, make them at least dance amusingly for it.
But it's a bigger PitA to give money to an organization which funds things like SOPA/PIPA/CISPA/etc and are generally a bunch of fuckers when it comes to customer service. I'd rather pay 2x as much in all across a dozen different providers to receive the same content without funding people who lobby against what I consider basic Human rights in the modern era - such as online privacy.
The saddest thing abouth the whole situation is that in the majority of cases getting 40 years in a federal prison vs walking free is matter of how big your bank account is.
Or in this case, who you piss off. Chances are Wannacry was a state-sponsored attack (probably by our own nation) to cause a distraction from politics, it failed because a vigilante decided to poke at it and stumbled upon a weakness to stop it. That kind of thing doesn't go unpunished (Hell, they probably used the stolen cards to donate to his legal defense in order to make it look worse on him,) and the guy probably still has no idea why. It's practically straight out of Clockwork Orange.
Not exactly, since "well regulated" in the second amendment is referring to the milita, not to the arms.
The meaning of the word didn't change when it was used. It has a direct meaning in the context of a militia: well trained and well equipped.
Most of the so-called religious myths attributed to ancient Sumer were not myths at all but advanced knowledge recorded in a metaphorical language, as was the practice all over the ancient world.
It would be a mistake to assume that ancient (or even slightly less modern) languages were metaphorical in nature, instead languages tend toward literal interpretations while adding their own metaphors.
You don't need to look beyond modern politics to see this in action: "well regulated" in terms of the second amendment meant "well oiled, calibrated, zeroed, etc" - just as when you take a gun to a range today and have it "regulated" you are having it "tuned up." Modern politicians however would have you believe "well regulated" means "supervised, controlled, registered in a database, etc" because they want to achieve something (no guns or reduced access to guns) which they aren't legally allowed to do, so they take the tack of redefining the words over time ("regulated" never meant "controlled under law" or anything of the sort when it was originally used in the constitution.) Similarly, "free speech" meant precisely that: "you cannot suffer anything for speaking." Modern interpretations however claim that to be a metaphor, that you can suffer for what you say.
Ancient tales of a great civilization being split into many tongues aren't that complex to deduce: they were talking about multiculturalism leading to the decline of the host culture, the same as we see today. When they spoke of a great flood it's because there was a great flood (recorded in geological records worldwide.) Some things certainly got embellished being that mostly theological records are all we have left (incidentally, why anyone destroying any historical landmarks or writings should be tried for treason - being functionally identical to ISIS in destroying history and dooming our progeny to repeat it) but the underlying pieces of the stories are usually based on real things.
They aren't allowed to conduct any operations on domestic soil.
It's not a wish, if the ticket costs your life savings it's an expectation (and with suction.)
How dare the little people!??? Only corporations who purchased the proper politician get to evade their social contract.
FTFY.
TSA was created by Dubya. How is that leftist?
Pretty sure he meant "globalist" and was too dim to realize it. Obama, Clinton, Bush, etc are on the same side: the side of globalism.
Nationalism != NAZI, you globalist traitor.
Can you poop in it?
58. Do you like Donald Trump?
59. Does your employer feel the same?
60. Would your employer change their mind if pressured by the public?
61. Do you like your job?
Yeah, no. Fuck Google. Giving a company dedicated to pushing a political agenda personal details about yourself is dumb.
They have 3 different machines for the powerball which they swap between at random (computer pick, dice roll, don't know how) for each drawing, each of which is supposed to be random. If you do a statistical analysis on them with that bit of info in mind you can roughly group them into 3 distinct sets, but the overlap is too much to do so with more than about 60% accuracy. Once you've gone that far they are still mostly random - some balls might have dents or slightly different weights or starting conditions which differ based on the last run, but there's not enough information to correlate it well enough to pick a winning set of numbers in under a million tries.
So that being said... the only people who would ever play this are people who are simply too stupid to figure out that that $5 a week they spend is really $260 a year or $5200 every 20 years which is a luxury cruise for two plus airfare when you retire. So, after 50 years of work, you can be guaranteed at least a little bit of the rich life... or you can pay the stupid tax and wonder why when you retire that you can't do those nice things.
I think you're leaving out the desperation factor. If you know for a fact the wealth you need to do anything substantial with your life is based on chance encounters, who you know and how well you can sell out others without getting caught and you have a reasonable assessment of your life while not being born into a billionaire family, you know that's not you. It's a case of 0% chance of ever achieving anything of note vs a 1-in-a-few-hundred-million chance. The lottery is infinitely better odds than zero.
There's some legitimacy to this. If you've ever seen a production environment of any kind people will fudge transactional logs all the time - though it usually doesn't matter because it's doing things like fixing a typo a month later. There is however the possibility that someone discovers something their company and in turn their group is responsible for that will just go away if they delete it or fudge the data, in which case it likely goes unnoticed or gets blamed on someone else. In the latter cases a blockchain system would make the process more reliable from an auditor's perspective because the log is either real (and they don't give a shit about typos anyway) or it is missing.
But honestly, I find many of these arguments (including my own) suspect. Economics has little interesting predictive power. It smells a bit of pseudo-science.
This is economics in a nutshell. Most central logic of the field were created by actual crazy people (some of the major ones after they went crazy) while it's mostly hand-waving to keep people fooled into believing it's not a house of cards, because if they believed that long enough it would collapse in on itself. The fact that last point is a central guidestone behind modern economics is itself terrifying.
There's no shortage of workers. There are lots of people around who'd be willing to do this work. It's a shortage of employers willing to pay the wage required to properly compensate people for doing the work. Pay a proper wage and this "labor shortage" will disappear immediately.
I think you're blaming the evil corporations when that's not really the case. A shortage of labor is a shortage of people willing to work at the market rate - that's a bad choice of words but if you accept that it will get you over the first bottleneck in understanding this issue.
Next up, that rate is determine by what people will pay, outside of government work everyone has a budget to stick to - that means the guy paying for a building has constraints which don't allow new construction at the rate people want to be paid for it, so it either doesn't get done or there is some give. Basic economics, supply vs demand, but there is a basis to both sides beyond the theory of it - the supply (labor) wants all they can get and the demand (client) wants all they can get, for the former that's a direct translation to wealth and for the latter it's a budgetary constraint saying how much they can build for x amount.
Now for the actual issue. We live in a debt-based economic system with runaway inflation of about 2.5% compounding annually. This means the dollars you get are worth less, but more insidiously it means changes to adapt to the lower dollar value over time have their own propagation delay through the economic network. Both of these have one net effect: the government gains more spending power (yes, they get more spending power than the inflation alone because that increased labor pool plus their willingness to pay at the prior market rate means more supply to choose from.)
To fix labor issues you have to first fix the government's out of control spending habits, this is why Trump was elected and why every globalist shill on the planet despises him.
to google means to search on google.
They should have thought about that before deciding to become the internet police. They deserve to be nationalized if not outright disbanded under antitrust regulations.
So the ideal candidate would have secretly hacked in and found the "secret" job listing?
Pretty sure it's for an invite-based recruitment effort. Probably has something to do with datamining for a black budget project.