Mea culpa, I should have said the ratio of men to women in CS, not in university in general.
So? The only problem there is your implicit and erroneous assumption that people in fields of studies should be statistically representative of a bunch of categories that you are obsessed with.
It's interesting that your response is basically to call me an "SJW" (see my sig for what I think of that) and then pick up on what seems like an obvious mistake. Oh, and then back to the SJW ad-hominem. Nice.
He called you a "social justice warrior" because you advocate studying and using as the basis of public policy a specific set of statistics, like gender ratios in particular academic fields. It distinguishes you from other people (like myself) who believe that your advocacy and politics are rooted in fundamental misconceptions about statistics, biology, and social science. Calling you a "social justice warrior" is no more and no less insulting than calling a Lysenkoist a "Lysenkoist".
Political repression isn't such a good measure by itself. Many countries that seem politically non-repressive are socially very repressive; that is, legally, little is going to happen to you if you state an unpopular opinion, but you may greatly hurt your job or career chances. Many European nations fall into that category, and the US is increasingly moving in that direction as well. Just look at the current Title IX witch hunts and the wild accusations of racism against anybody who doesn't toe the progressive party line.
There's always the slightly less smart, offline, programmable thermostats that can do basically the same thing once you've set them up.
Really? They are going to know when I'm on my way home? They are going to know how long my commute takes? Whether I decided to go shopping or out on a date? Whether I decided to stay a day longer on vacation?
If you think that a "slightly less smart, offline, programmable thermostat" works as well as an Internet connected one, you must lead a very boring life and utterly lack in imagination.
So in your 'real world' the fact that absolutely NONE of that is spelled out in purchase terms
It is spelled out in the purchase terms: you get free service for the lifetime of the product, i.e., for as long as the product is commercially available. There are no guarantees beyond that.
The point here to us grown-ups is that in commerce words mean things, and these companies are attempting to redefine terms without reprecussions. Many of us are disinclined to allow that. Fools like you need to rationalize your own lack of intelligence in getting ripped off all the time.
Judging by the name and typography, this appears to be related to Kinder chocolates, a low quality, high sugar chocolate marketed to children. If you're worried about your kids' health and well being, that kind of junk food is much more likely to hurt them than some weird video sent to them by a stranger.
The reason to switch to smart, connected thermostats is that they give the same level of comfort with much less energy usage. That is, they can determine when to heat the home based on when you are going to be there. Now, maybe you don't care, but other people do.
If you want the sexy package and no nerdy electrical/software engineering work, you buy Nest. If you want to geek out and spin the solution yourself you build from X10.
I used to have lots of X10 equipment. The problem with X10 isn't that it requires a bit of work, the problem is that it isn't very reliable.
Along with a statement of warranty, what we need now from companies trying to sell us IoT things is a legal document claiming that they will not sell the company for X number of years. If they do sell, then breech of contract!
Who do you think is going to pay for that extended availability, other than the consumer? That means that instead of buying $200 Nest thermostats that may or may not work for a few years, everybody is now forced to pay $500 for the same hardware just so that the company accumulates enough reserves to live up to the support guarantees you want to impose. And for what? Because economic illiterates like you don't understand how the real world works? And, of course, that still doesn't protect you from bankruptcy, technological obsolescence, or key employees leaving.
When you "buy" a $200 consumer device, you don't "buy" something in the sense of real estate. What you buy is maybe 20 months of prepaid service at $10/month. It's actually the same for most other things you buy: hammers, houses, cars, keyboards, computers, blenders, etc. That's why hardware gets depreciated. In fact, even with real estate, given taxes, you don't really "buy" it, you just pay a lot of points on a long term lease. Furthermore, when you buy a novel consumer device, there is always the risk that it won't work at all, or that it will last less long than you think. Again, caveat emptor.
So, start living in the real world and stop proposing harmful fixes for things that aren't problems for most people.
Firstly: to anyone who owns a nest and is counting their fleeting blessings that this will never happen to them, see you on the front page in a few years.
So what alternatives do you suggest? If there was something like the Nest or Revolv based on open source software and self-contained, I'd be happy to use it. But I don't know of anything like that.
The fact is that most people who buy Nest or Revolv (and I have bought devices like that) understand that these devices have a lifetime of a couple of years, after which they are likely going to be unsupported or obsolete. That's why in the real world, hardware gets depreciated. If you expect stuff to last longer than that, the problem is with your expectations, not the stuff. The fact is also that there doesn't seem to be any money in creating something better. But if you think people are willing to pay for a standalone solution and you can make a business of it, by all means, go for it and found a company that creates such products! I'd be your first customer, provided it works and provided it is reasonably usable.
No, the owner of the servers is sending out one last update that intentionally breaks hardware you own. Somehow I see this biting them in the ass, hard.
No, the owner of the servers are simply turning off the servers.
If you believe that something like Revolv will keep working forever and ever, that's just foolish. Of course, devices like this often stop functioning after a few years, either because the company decides to move on to different products, or because it goes out of business, or because it gets acquired. (The phrase "free lifetime service" doesn't mean your lifetime or the hardware lifetime, it means "lifetime as we define it".)
However, just because this is common and legal doesn't make it a good idea. This is a stupid PR move on Google's behalf. Keeping the hardware working could only cost them a couple of developers, they'd get useful feedback, and they could send customers a 50% off upgrade coupon when they come out with their own next-generation device, by which time the Revolv radios will probably be obsolete anyway and people will be itching to upgrade.
Again, no real details. e.g. What does he say that 'other "advanced nations" do' that are 'also nonsense'?
What good would details do? You are a Green Party follower from British Columbia. You have had half a century, free education, and thousands of books, and you still cling to your nonsense. If facts, logic, and science could cure you of your ignorance, they would have done so already. So, debating you on your economic and historical follies makes about as much sense as debating a young earth creationist on evolution. All one can do is express one's disdain and ridicule for you and your beliefs. And, as someone who has grown up with socialism and the welfare state, one can attest to the fact of how dysfunctional and oppressive the systems that you advocate actually are in the real world.
Have you been to his site to examine what his actual principles and platforms are?
Yes, I have. His economic plan is nonsense, for the same reason all socialist economics fails. And his beliefs and statements about what other "advanced nations" do are also nonsense; having immigrated from one of those nations, I'm qualified to judge this.
Sanders is a mix of willfully ignorant and dishonest, playing on the gullibility and greed of Americans.
But, seriously, what is it to you anyway? You are from Canada. Why don't you keep your nose out of US politics?
Proctor found that ignorance spreads when firstly, many people do not understand a concept or fact and secondly, when special interest groups – like a commercial firm or a political group – then work hard to create confusion about an issue. In the case of ignorance about tobacco and climate change, a scientifically illiterate society will probably be more susceptible to the tactics used by those wishing to confuse and cloud the truth.
So true! "Green" politicians, renewable energy companies looking for investments and government funding, scientists eager for grants and public exposure, journalists looking for sensationalist articles, and non-profits looking for funding and donations have all been spreading ignorance about climate change.
Europe and Canada would love to have all those progressive tech workers that keep talking about European health care and European rail systems and European government services and social responsibility and recycling and social safety nets and renewable energy. But when push comes to shove, very few of those progressive tech workers actually move, because they realize that their after tax incomes and standard of living would likely drop precipitously and that those places are far from the open minded, progressive nirvanas they fantasize about.
So, my wish is: progressives, please follow through on your threats of leaving, instead of trying to turn the US into the kinds of places you yourself don't actually want to live in.
These figures are for an average passenger car, not one that is being driven 8 hours a day. Ask a taxi driver if their cars 'depreciate' $3,654 a year and they're likely to laugh in your face!
Your responses are as predictable as they are stupid. I suggest you figure out for yourself why the depreciation works out better for Uber drivers than for "the average passenger car".
I also find it fascinating that people like you try to argue that something results in substandard wages when Uber has 160000 drivers in the US alone and so many taxi drivers are switching to Uber that taxi companies have trouble filling their shifts. Do you think all these people aren't doing the math on their expenses? How utterly ignorant and arrogant do you have to be?
I didn't give you those numbers to prove a point, I was pointing you at those numbers to give you some background information for you to understand an economic reality that obviously baffles you. Now stop making a fool of yourself and stop trying to argue that the earth is flat.
There are many possible "internets", networks of interlinked networks. The "Internet" is one of them, by far the largest. That is, "Internet" is a proper noun, in the same way that "Bill", "Associated Press", and "Monica" are.
A civil liberties campaigner pointed out that filming with drones could raise privacy concerns.
The problem here isn't with drones. Nobody would give a fuck about these videos. The problem is that a consensual human activity, namely prostitution, has been made illegal. The fix for that isn't to restrict drones further, it is to get rid of laws banning prostitution.
The average cost per mile for US cars is about $0.60/mile. So, an hour or driving at around 20 mph (NYC, SF average speeds) amounts to about $12 in "cost of vehicle, maintenance, insurance, etc.", leaving the Uber driver with about $24/h. But, actually, Uber drivers can substantially lower their average costs per mile, so it's likely even higher.
But these musicians are on target here. DMCA is protecting entities like YouTube, which you have to admit has a ton of infringing content. You can pretty much download any song you want from YouTube without paying for it, or compensating anyone.
That's total bullshit. Christina Aguilera is signed with RCA records, and RCA has an agreement with Google for all her content. Therefore, she and her record label are both being compensated. In fact, RCA has has been trying to scam Google out of money through generating fake views.
Sadly, we have to admit to ourselves, this is a problem.
No, the actual problem is that gullible people like you are letting themselves be manipulated by wealthy "artists" like Christina who are in bed with big record labels. And together, jerks like her and their record labels screw over both the public and smaller artists.
"Dear Christina, We're sorry that you feel that we are using your name and your content on YouTube against your best interest. Unfortunately, our business model doesn't allow to pay you any more than we already do through the licensing organizations set up for that purpose. However, to eliminate any questions of improper use of your likeness, your voice, or your other creations, such as they are, we have simply eliminated you from all our search indexes. That means that users of our services searching for 'Christina Aguilera' or variants thereof, will now simply receive no results. Likewise, we will remove stories about you from our news channels as much as we can. Of course, you are still free to pay for advertising and self-promotion on any of our services. Sincerely, etc. etc."
People are debating that, but it appears that generally, Uber drivers generally make about the same or a bit more than taxi drivers after expenses. You can Google it yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
So? The only problem there is your implicit and erroneous assumption that people in fields of studies should be statistically representative of a bunch of categories that you are obsessed with.
He called you a "social justice warrior" because you advocate studying and using as the basis of public policy a specific set of statistics, like gender ratios in particular academic fields. It distinguishes you from other people (like myself) who believe that your advocacy and politics are rooted in fundamental misconceptions about statistics, biology, and social science. Calling you a "social justice warrior" is no more and no less insulting than calling a Lysenkoist a "Lysenkoist".
Political repression isn't such a good measure by itself. Many countries that seem politically non-repressive are socially very repressive; that is, legally, little is going to happen to you if you state an unpopular opinion, but you may greatly hurt your job or career chances. Many European nations fall into that category, and the US is increasingly moving in that direction as well. Just look at the current Title IX witch hunts and the wild accusations of racism against anybody who doesn't toe the progressive party line.
Really? They are going to know when I'm on my way home? They are going to know how long my commute takes? Whether I decided to go shopping or out on a date? Whether I decided to stay a day longer on vacation?
If you think that a "slightly less smart, offline, programmable thermostat" works as well as an Internet connected one, you must lead a very boring life and utterly lack in imagination.
It is spelled out in the purchase terms: you get free service for the lifetime of the product, i.e., for as long as the product is commercially available. There are no guarantees beyond that.
Fools like you need to learn to read.
Judging by the name and typography, this appears to be related to Kinder chocolates, a low quality, high sugar chocolate marketed to children. If you're worried about your kids' health and well being, that kind of junk food is much more likely to hurt them than some weird video sent to them by a stranger.
The reason to switch to smart, connected thermostats is that they give the same level of comfort with much less energy usage. That is, they can determine when to heat the home based on when you are going to be there. Now, maybe you don't care, but other people do.
I used to have lots of X10 equipment. The problem with X10 isn't that it requires a bit of work, the problem is that it isn't very reliable.
They didn't offer "lifetime service", they offered "free lifetime service"; that is, as long as the service is offered, it is free.
Who do you think is going to pay for that extended availability, other than the consumer? That means that instead of buying $200 Nest thermostats that may or may not work for a few years, everybody is now forced to pay $500 for the same hardware just so that the company accumulates enough reserves to live up to the support guarantees you want to impose. And for what? Because economic illiterates like you don't understand how the real world works? And, of course, that still doesn't protect you from bankruptcy, technological obsolescence, or key employees leaving.
When you "buy" a $200 consumer device, you don't "buy" something in the sense of real estate. What you buy is maybe 20 months of prepaid service at $10/month. It's actually the same for most other things you buy: hammers, houses, cars, keyboards, computers, blenders, etc. That's why hardware gets depreciated. In fact, even with real estate, given taxes, you don't really "buy" it, you just pay a lot of points on a long term lease. Furthermore, when you buy a novel consumer device, there is always the risk that it won't work at all, or that it will last less long than you think. Again, caveat emptor.
So, start living in the real world and stop proposing harmful fixes for things that aren't problems for most people.
So what alternatives do you suggest? If there was something like the Nest or Revolv based on open source software and self-contained, I'd be happy to use it. But I don't know of anything like that.
The fact is that most people who buy Nest or Revolv (and I have bought devices like that) understand that these devices have a lifetime of a couple of years, after which they are likely going to be unsupported or obsolete. That's why in the real world, hardware gets depreciated. If you expect stuff to last longer than that, the problem is with your expectations, not the stuff. The fact is also that there doesn't seem to be any money in creating something better. But if you think people are willing to pay for a standalone solution and you can make a business of it, by all means, go for it and found a company that creates such products! I'd be your first customer, provided it works and provided it is reasonably usable.
No, the owner of the servers are simply turning off the servers.
If you believe that something like Revolv will keep working forever and ever, that's just foolish. Of course, devices like this often stop functioning after a few years, either because the company decides to move on to different products, or because it goes out of business, or because it gets acquired. (The phrase "free lifetime service" doesn't mean your lifetime or the hardware lifetime, it means "lifetime as we define it".)
However, just because this is common and legal doesn't make it a good idea. This is a stupid PR move on Google's behalf. Keeping the hardware working could only cost them a couple of developers, they'd get useful feedback, and they could send customers a 50% off upgrade coupon when they come out with their own next-generation device, by which time the Revolv radios will probably be obsolete anyway and people will be itching to upgrade.
What good would details do? You are a Green Party follower from British Columbia. You have had half a century, free education, and thousands of books, and you still cling to your nonsense. If facts, logic, and science could cure you of your ignorance, they would have done so already. So, debating you on your economic and historical follies makes about as much sense as debating a young earth creationist on evolution. All one can do is express one's disdain and ridicule for you and your beliefs. And, as someone who has grown up with socialism and the welfare state, one can attest to the fact of how dysfunctional and oppressive the systems that you advocate actually are in the real world.
Yes, I have. His economic plan is nonsense, for the same reason all socialist economics fails. And his beliefs and statements about what other "advanced nations" do are also nonsense; having immigrated from one of those nations, I'm qualified to judge this.
Sanders is a mix of willfully ignorant and dishonest, playing on the gullibility and greed of Americans.
But, seriously, what is it to you anyway? You are from Canada. Why don't you keep your nose out of US politics?
That's because Sanders is spreading ignorance.
So true! "Green" politicians, renewable energy companies looking for investments and government funding, scientists eager for grants and public exposure, journalists looking for sensationalist articles, and non-profits looking for funding and donations have all been spreading ignorance about climate change.
Europe and Canada would love to have all those progressive tech workers that keep talking about European health care and European rail systems and European government services and social responsibility and recycling and social safety nets and renewable energy. But when push comes to shove, very few of those progressive tech workers actually move, because they realize that their after tax incomes and standard of living would likely drop precipitously and that those places are far from the open minded, progressive nirvanas they fantasize about.
So, my wish is: progressives, please follow through on your threats of leaving, instead of trying to turn the US into the kinds of places you yourself don't actually want to live in.
Your responses are as predictable as they are stupid. I suggest you figure out for yourself why the depreciation works out better for Uber drivers than for "the average passenger car".
I also find it fascinating that people like you try to argue that something results in substandard wages when Uber has 160000 drivers in the US alone and so many taxi drivers are switching to Uber that taxi companies have trouble filling their shifts. Do you think all these people aren't doing the math on their expenses? How utterly ignorant and arrogant do you have to be?
I didn't give you those numbers to prove a point, I was pointing you at those numbers to give you some background information for you to understand an economic reality that obviously baffles you. Now stop making a fool of yourself and stop trying to argue that the earth is flat.
There are many possible "internets", networks of interlinked networks. The "Internet" is one of them, by far the largest. That is, "Internet" is a proper noun, in the same way that "Bill", "Associated Press", and "Monica" are.
That includes everything.
Why do people like you insist on substituting their own prejudices and superstitions for facts?
The problem here isn't with drones. Nobody would give a fuck about these videos. The problem is that a consensual human activity, namely prostitution, has been made illegal. The fix for that isn't to restrict drones further, it is to get rid of laws banning prostitution.
The average cost per mile for US cars is about $0.60/mile. So, an hour or driving at around 20 mph (NYC, SF average speeds) amounts to about $12 in "cost of vehicle, maintenance, insurance, etc.", leaving the Uber driver with about $24/h. But, actually, Uber drivers can substantially lower their average costs per mile, so it's likely even higher.
That's total bullshit. Christina Aguilera is signed with RCA records, and RCA has an agreement with Google for all her content. Therefore, she and her record label are both being compensated. In fact, RCA has has been trying to scam Google out of money through generating fake views.
No, the actual problem is that gullible people like you are letting themselves be manipulated by wealthy "artists" like Christina who are in bed with big record labels. And together, jerks like her and their record labels screw over both the public and smaller artists.
"Dear Christina, We're sorry that you feel that we are using your name and your content on YouTube against your best interest. Unfortunately, our business model doesn't allow to pay you any more than we already do through the licensing organizations set up for that purpose. However, to eliminate any questions of improper use of your likeness, your voice, or your other creations, such as they are, we have simply eliminated you from all our search indexes. That means that users of our services searching for 'Christina Aguilera' or variants thereof, will now simply receive no results. Likewise, we will remove stories about you from our news channels as much as we can. Of course, you are still free to pay for advertising and self-promotion on any of our services. Sincerely, etc. etc."
People are debating that, but it appears that generally, Uber drivers generally make about the same or a bit more than taxi drivers after expenses. You can Google it yourself.