The whole idea of "Basic Income" is a drive to the lowest common denominator and eventually it will fail as nobody does anything, and no income is being taxed to pay for the people who aren't doing anything.
Confusing. What is it about finding oneself at the lowest common denominator that you feel discourages ambition?
Score isn't everything. Sometimes there are especially good plays. Other times, the way in which the final score was reached plays a factor -- if there was a last-minute turnaround, for example.
To me, the same rules apply as with spoilers for movies. Personally, I really don't care about spoilers. If the "surprise twist" sounds really dumb, I guess I'll save some money. If it sounds good, I'll see the movie even though I know how it will end, because there's more to the experience of watching it than just the summary.
Seriously, who would hire a human being to do any job if they can have a one-time-purchase AI to do the same job that is literally superior in every way?
It's worse than that. AI will be a cloud-based service, and each time anyone needs to use it will cost 35 cents.
I mean, a private company doesn't have to respect anyone's civil rights, amiright?
To which civil rights are you referring? The ruling you bring up, in which a bakery was ordered to produce cakes for gay weddings if asked, was based on an Oregon State law (not Federal) that prohibited businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation. Depending on New York State law, with which I'm not familiar, Donald Trump's restaurants may have the same requirement.
Look at the history of heroin. Learn how it came to be in the first place. Without prohibition of safer drugs that came before it, there would be no heroin.
As I responded to your earlier comment to this effect, anyone who looks into the history of heroin and how it was synthesized will find it does not support your claim.
Problem is that people that abuse drugs are rarely able to avoid hurting others.
That unsupportable, puritanical supposition is so barking mad as to be legitimately bizarre. You sound like you don't have much experience with life, let alone drugs.
Thousands of people use and abuse what you would probably call the "really heavy drugs" -- cocaine and heroin -- for many years without ever hurting anybody but themselves (and sometimes not even that). If you're going to pivot now and start talking about all the psychological harm they do to their families and loved ones, then we might as well start crying for all the starving children in Africa.
Won't find a jury willing to convict a user, anywhere, not even 'bumfuck' Kansas.
Huh. Tell that to all the people serving sentences for marijuana possession. In the first nine months of 2016, the NYPD alone arrested 14,000 people for possessing marijuana. That's a whole lot of wasted man-hours if nobody ever goes to jail.
Interesting. After seeing what crystal methamphetamine does to people, I would (and did) try cocaine way before I'd mess around with speed. And as someone who has actually overdosed on caffeine -- you need clinical doses, pills; I don't think any amount of coffee would do it -- holy hell, is that one awful experience.
Well, actually no, because morphine didn't become a controlled substance until 20 years after Bayer brought commercially-available heroin to market. And the chemist at Bayer who synthesized heroin did it by accident.
It concludes that the most likely avenue for a successful challenge would be a freedom of religion argument, but would require an established religion to have a sincerely held belief in the use of cannabis specifically
So that's the Rastafarians, then. Surely it's been tried, too?
Sure, if you're a professional skier or whatever, you'll want the Rolls-Royce of action cameras, but if you're just a weekend warrior who wants to record his bike ride, a knockoff for a fraction of the price is going to be all you really want or need.
A weekend warrior who spent $3,500 on a carbon fiber bicycle or set of skis might be convinced otherwise.
It doesn't. But preventing large donors who have a vested interest in the failure of Linux as FOSS does.
So let's look at the other platinum donors.
- Oracle has a vested interest in the failure of Linux since it owns Solaris. It has also arguably been actively trying to damage Red Hat by forking its distro. - Intel has a vested interest in the failure of Linux because it has a very close economic partnership with Microsoft. - HPE has a vested interest in the failure of Linux because it sells hardware that runs Windows and HP/UX. - IBM has a vested interest in the failure of Linux because it sells mainframes and servers running AIX.... and so on.
Or maybe these companies are all platinum members of the Linux Foundation because they see Linux both as a massive market opportunity in its own right and also an enabler of new product development.
Last I checked, Microsoft is also spending in excess of a billion dollars per quarter on capital expenditures. Think about that for a second: What kind of software company spends that much on capex? No kind, that's who. But a cloud company that's building out data centers to compete with AWS just might.
I am shocked, absolutely shocked that both Microsoft and Apple would cheat customers by not releasing computers powered by CPUs that are not yet available. I demand an explanation!
Slashdot Mirror
The whole idea of "Basic Income" is a drive to the lowest common denominator and eventually it will fail as nobody does anything, and no income is being taxed to pay for the people who aren't doing anything.
Confusing. What is it about finding oneself at the lowest common denominator that you feel discourages ambition?
Score isn't everything. Sometimes there are especially good plays. Other times, the way in which the final score was reached plays a factor -- if there was a last-minute turnaround, for example.
To me, the same rules apply as with spoilers for movies. Personally, I really don't care about spoilers. If the "surprise twist" sounds really dumb, I guess I'll save some money. If it sounds good, I'll see the movie even though I know how it will end, because there's more to the experience of watching it than just the summary.
Seriously, who would hire a human being to do any job if they can have a one-time-purchase AI to do the same job that is literally superior in every way?
It's worse than that. AI will be a cloud-based service, and each time anyone needs to use it will cost 35 cents.
I hope the 1st Amendment wins.
The 1st Amendment will win. No matter whether Twitter shuts down his account or not, Donald Trump will still be free to say whatever he wants.
He doesn't have the right to come over to my place and paint it in yard-high letters on my garage door, though.
I mean, a private company doesn't have to respect anyone's civil rights, amiright?
To which civil rights are you referring? The ruling you bring up, in which a bakery was ordered to produce cakes for gay weddings if asked, was based on an Oregon State law (not Federal) that prohibited businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation. Depending on New York State law, with which I'm not familiar, Donald Trump's restaurants may have the same requirement.
I'm not sure I can think of a digital storage medium that has been proven to last 200 years.
Look at the history of heroin. Learn how it came to be in the first place. Without prohibition of safer drugs that came before it, there would be no heroin.
As I responded to your earlier comment to this effect, anyone who looks into the history of heroin and how it was synthesized will find it does not support your claim.
Problem is that people that abuse drugs are rarely able to avoid hurting others.
That unsupportable, puritanical supposition is so barking mad as to be legitimately bizarre. You sound like you don't have much experience with life, let alone drugs.
Thousands of people use and abuse what you would probably call the "really heavy drugs" -- cocaine and heroin -- for many years without ever hurting anybody but themselves (and sometimes not even that). If you're going to pivot now and start talking about all the psychological harm they do to their families and loved ones, then we might as well start crying for all the starving children in Africa.
Won't find a jury willing to convict a user, anywhere, not even 'bumfuck' Kansas.
Huh. Tell that to all the people serving sentences for marijuana possession. In the first nine months of 2016, the NYPD alone arrested 14,000 people for possessing marijuana. That's a whole lot of wasted man-hours if nobody ever goes to jail.
Interesting. After seeing what crystal methamphetamine does to people, I would (and did) try cocaine way before I'd mess around with speed. And as someone who has actually overdosed on caffeine -- you need clinical doses, pills; I don't think any amount of coffee would do it -- holy hell, is that one awful experience.
Well, actually no, because morphine didn't become a controlled substance until 20 years after Bayer brought commercially-available heroin to market. And the chemist at Bayer who synthesized heroin did it by accident.
It concludes that the most likely avenue for a successful challenge would be a freedom of religion argument, but would require an established religion to have a sincerely held belief in the use of cannabis specifically
So that's the Rastafarians, then. Surely it's been tried, too?
Sure, if you're a professional skier or whatever, you'll want the Rolls-Royce of action cameras, but if you're just a weekend warrior who wants to record his bike ride, a knockoff for a fraction of the price is going to be all you really want or need.
A weekend warrior who spent $3,500 on a carbon fiber bicycle or set of skis might be convinced otherwise.
Wait, I thought only Verizon stores had Droids.
It doesn't. But preventing large donors who have a vested interest in the failure of Linux as FOSS does.
So let's look at the other platinum donors.
- Oracle has a vested interest in the failure of Linux since it owns Solaris. It has also arguably been actively trying to damage Red Hat by forking its distro. ... and so on.
- Intel has a vested interest in the failure of Linux because it has a very close economic partnership with Microsoft.
- HPE has a vested interest in the failure of Linux because it sells hardware that runs Windows and HP/UX.
- IBM has a vested interest in the failure of Linux because it sells mainframes and servers running AIX.
Or maybe these companies are all platinum members of the Linux Foundation because they see Linux both as a massive market opportunity in its own right and also an enabler of new product development.
Last I checked, Microsoft is also spending in excess of a billion dollars per quarter on capital expenditures. Think about that for a second: What kind of software company spends that much on capex? No kind, that's who. But a cloud company that's building out data centers to compete with AWS just might.
Better choice to avoid using all those altogether.
Active Directory is a way of life for many, many organizations. If that includes yours, good luck "avoiding it."
And developers have a burning desire to capture those markets. Mobile development, in general, is so hot right now -- almost too hot.
I say we boycott it. Who's with me???
But it wasn't even she who was using it ... it was her precious, precious child! Think what could have happened!
I am shocked, absolutely shocked that both Microsoft and Apple would cheat customers by not releasing computers powered by CPUs that are not yet available. I demand an explanation!
Really. So I guess Coca-Cola is doomed, then. Hey, marketers and advertisers: Over here, I think we've found a real chump!
So you're saying Quantum sounds like shit. (walks off whistling)
The problem with revolting is that, what ever comes after, there is no guarantee that it will be better. More often than not it is worse.
Yeah, the future can be funny that way.
On the Surface Pro 3 it doesn't seem too bad. But there also have been a whole series of firmware patches specific to WiFi.