and will shoot dead teenagers who throw rocks at armored vehicles.
If dead teenagers are throwing rocks at armored vehicles then I strongly support not only shooting them but decapitating them and burning the zombie corpses. The last thing that area needs is a zombie apocalypse.
Healthcare is not a normal market. When people are really sick they will pay anything up to getting bankrupt so that they are treated. Normal people cannot shop around too much or wait a month or two for a better offer. So a little of collusion between healthcare providers will go a long way towards gouging "customers".
Everywhere else in the entire Western world, government have established single user pay systems. Even in America this is true for the elderly with Medicare. For the general population, the actual cost of care in the US is 2x or 3x more than everywhere else in the world. Why is that?
Healthcare is not like a new smartphone and market principles do not apply to every situations.
This meme is stupid. Collusion in any market will affect the operation of the market, but healthcare is not special. Sure, if you're unconscious you don't make choices about what treatment to receive, but if I'm conscious and need to be rushed to the hospital I certainly do know which hospital I will go to. If you don't have multiple hospitals to choose from it's because you've previously CHOSEN to live in an area with only one hospital.
But the vast majority of medical decisions aren't a "seconds count" life or death decision. Most Americans who are dealing with health issues do so for years, sometimes decades, of daily medication and weekly or monthly doctor visits. They have plenty of time for research and choices for the vast majority of their medical decisions.
In fact, I'll bet that smokers with lung cancer probably spend more time researching doctors and treatments than they ever spent researching which brand of cigarettes to buy.
Market principles certainly do apply. If you've just GOT TO HAVE an iPhone then you'll pay whatever Apple is charging, but if you are willing to look at options, they exist. If you've just GOT TO HAVE the one drug that you're sure (either based on your deep scientific expertise or just your gut feeling) is the best for your condition then you'll pay whatever the price is, but there are certainly other treatment options even if they are objectively inferior. But depending on what your phone buying criteria are, it's quite possible that the non-iPhone is objectively inferior on the specific evaluation criteria that you weight the highest.
Also, the per capita death rate is and always has been constant. It's one death per person, eventually.
There is some variation in years lived per person and in level of comfort during both the healthy years and the last days/weeks/months of dying, but there is no credible evidence yet of any cure for death. So hysterics over "people are going to die" or "republicans don't care if people die" is utter nonsense. Neither Obama, nor Clinton, nor the DNC has a cure for death. The question is how to ensure the best availability of treatment options and the best incentives for researchers to develop new treatments and find ways to provide existing treatments more efficiently.
As for the "publicly traded" bullshit: Very few people can afford to own enough stock to matter. Your 401k is being eaten alive by fees. It is not a pension. It is not guaranteed or even likely to support you as you age.
If your 401k is being eaten alive by fees then you need to change your elections. If there are no low fee options offered you need to either get together with other employees to complain to your employer or else move your retirement to an IRA.
You have to actually read some of the information about each investment option available within your 401k plan, but the information is there. The fees and the historical return on investment is all available for you to review. If you're paying excessive fees, it's ultimately your own fault and within your power to change.
It took me longer that I'd like to admit to actually look at the fees on each of the options offered by my company's 401k plan and move all my money out of the high fee funds and into the low fee funds. But I did it, the low fee funds are offered by my employer's plan and I no longer have any portion of my 401k in high fee funds.
Why do you want to limit peoples' choices and options? For many people it would mean that instead of earning a little extra cash on their schedule to make ends meet, they wouldn't have that option and wind up seeking government assistance and/or become homeless.
Except that these 'job's would still need to be done and the companies be forced to pay an appropriate wage.
Are you speaking from specific knowledge of specific jobs that you are paying people to do? Jobs that you'd willingly pay more for but choose not to? Or is this just an article of faith?
There are lots of things I want, that I could afford, but which I do not buy because I think the price is too high. There are also things I could do to make extra money which I don't do because I don't think there's enough money in it to be worth the loss of my time to do other things.
If you're speaking on your own behalf about jobs that you're paying people to do that you would be willing to pay more for, that's one thing. If you're claiming certain knowledge of other people's price tolerance, I think you need to do more to prove you have reliable knowledge.
Absolutely everyone who's selling anything would love to know with certainty the maximum price that buyers would be willing to pay before walking away.
Everyone who is considering buying anything has a "walk away price" whether they've consciously pondered it or not. If they do know their "walk away price" they are generally very careful not to let the seller know what it is.
The article didn't mention billing address, but I don't think I've ever entered my credit card number into any website that didn't include billing address as a set of required fields. Shipping address is always an additional set of optional fields.
Now, I suppose if the backend doesn't validate billing address then you could use a fake addresses for the brute force part of the job, but when you go to use the card isn't a fake billing address going to be a dead giveaway that the transaction was a fraud and therefore guarantee a successful charge back with zero questions?
But if Visa has any sense they ought to require billing address verification as part of the preauthorization step for all card not present transactions.
Can you be a little more specific? I'm currently using an Asus T100 with windows as my ssh and Web terminal. A little slow for anything else but gets a bit over 10 hours on battery. Every Linux laptop review I read seems to think that six battery life in the 5-6 hour range is great. I wouldn't buy anything that couldn't get at least a solid 8 hours of ssh and Web browsing.
When you write "battery lasts forever" I figure you mean 10-12 hours, but I'm not sure I believe you.
There are some awesome EVs you might replace it with. I live in rural Minnesota. EVs won't cut it for me, especially since I take long trips away from Interstates.
And do you drive quite often from rural Minnesota to Paris, Madrid, Athens or Mexico City?
Or to LA, SF Bay area, NYC, DC etc for that matter, if large US cities decided to introduce similar restrictions?
Or are you just posting to declare how the article has absolutely no relevance to you? Because if everyone posts to every article just to point out that it has nothing to do with them and they have no opinion that's relevant to the topic then the SNR around here would be even lower than it is.
Ok, I'm sorry for being insensitive, and maybe Amazon is a horrible place to work, but maybe this guy wasn't entirely a stellar performer who was unfairly underrated.
If you attempt suicide by jumping from the fourth floor of a twelve story building and you don't even double check that you've got a full four floors to fall, what conclusions might we draw about your ability to plan and complete your assigned tasks?
Ending your own life is a pretty important decision and not something you should just handle in a half-assed manner. If you half-ass your own suicide I wouldn't be surprised if you half-ass a lot of other stuff, including your paid day-job responsibilities.
I'll see your anecdote and raise you one. I know someone who was put on an improvement plan (likely due to personality conflict with their manager, quite possibly the manager's fault) and continued on with the company until eventual retirement age and left at well over 70 years of age with full pension and retirement benefits.
Do we have enough anecdotes to call it data yet? I'm guessing no.
employee improvement plan, a step that can lead to termination if performance isn't improved
Whoever invented "employee improvement plan" needs to die.
Sure, wouldn't want to actually let the employee know why they're getting bad performance reviews, just fire them.
That was sarcasm, by the way. I know nothing about Amazon's employee improvement plan, but the general idea of giving extra assistance to employees who aren't performing as well as their peers is absolutely a good idea.
It's utterly naive to think that everyone can be in the top X% or that all employees will perform so equally that better or worse can't be distinguished. As long as some employees perform worse you only have three choices:
1) Do nothing. Just keep paying them for doing worse than their peers 2) Fire them. Hire somebody else that you hope will perform better. 3) Help them to identify why they perform worse than their peers and try to help them improve
I can't see any reason why option 3 is worse than option 1 or 2.
Unless you dispute my assumption that there exist some employees who perform worse than others, it absolutely makes sense for companies to have a goal and plan for improving their lowest performing employees rather than firing them or ignoring them.
Obviously if someone is utterly hopeless then you have to just get rid of them to prevent them from contributing negative value (i.e. creating problems for their peers to fix to the net loss of the company's productivity) but if they're just "ok but not great" then actively working to improve them benefits everyone. Maybe Amazon's plan is broken, I wouldn't know, but the general concept is a good one.
He may not fully understand why it seems bad, but it is part of a trend to value human life as well as almost everything else in terms of money alone.
Are you aware that the sole purpose of money, the only reason it exists, is to enable people to assign values to things? If we didn't care about comparing values of arbitrary combinations of things we could just use a barter system. The wealthy could get just as wealthy owning land and machinery and livestock and fuel, we'd just have a much harder time comparing how wealthy they are if nobody assigned numbers in fungible units to those things.
Complaining about people measuring value in money is like complaining about measuring sound volume in decibels. The sound's not going to get any louder or quieter just because you''re squeamish about assigning a numeric value to it's current volume.
Maybe you don't want to know the value of a human life. Maybe it makes you uncomfortable to even think about the question of whether every human life has precisely equal value in quantifiable units. Maybe you hope to never allow yourself to think about how much money you'd be willing to spend to extend a stranger's life by sixty seconds.
But that doesn't mean that "money" isn't the appropriate class of units in which to measure "value" and if life has any value at all then money is the correct thing to use to estimate that value in units that can be compared against other things of value. Decibels for sound volume, kilograms (or other mass units) for mass, meters (or other length units) for distance, and dollars (or other monetary units) for value.
Just because you'd prefer not to know what the number is, doesn't mean that it can't be measured. Nor does your preference not to know affect which units are appropriate for quantifying the measurement.
That's nonsense. A pound of meat can't contain more than a pint of water even if it contained nothing but water. A cow may drink a lot of water, but most of it is returned to the environment when the cow urinates. The water is most certainly not destroyed.
Perhaps California needs more water treatment plants, but that's hardly the cow's fault. Maybe some of those people displaced by automation can go work in sewage treatment instead of going on the dole. Or, if the doomsayers are correct that absolutely everything will be automated leaving everyone unemployed then I assume the water treatment systems will be fully automated as well. Either way, there's no reason to worry about water temporarily spending some time inside a cow. It's not a long term problem.
I'm pretty sure that this "smart firewall" is more commonly known as a "firewall". Any firewall that can't block traffic can't legitimately be called a firewall at all.
I just opened power shell and typed the number one most common thing I type at the cmd prompt: "putty @session" and it opened the putty configuration window rather than launching an ssh connection to the designated server. That's a non-starter for me.
I just find it odd that his supporters built a case to elect him based on his statements and then when he is elected acted as if they knew all along that he was lying.
He said he was anti-establishment: they said to elect on that basis. Turns out he is as establishment as they come.
What reasons remain to have him as president?
Well, "he's not Hillary Clinton" is a pretty solid one.
I didn't vote for Trump and don't expect great things from him, but I certainly would not have voted for Clinton. If there hadn't been a third candidate that I could vote my conscience on then I would have had to think long and hard before choosing between "voting for 'not Clinton'" or "not voting". I really dislike not voting, so it would have been a tough dilemma.
But I certainly wouldn't have voted for the candidate whose best characteristic is that the democratic party bosses believe she is marginally less horrible than the republican candidate. I can't support the democratic bosses attempt to force us to accept a bad choice by aiming for "just slightly less bad than the republican option"
If the democratic party aims higher next time they'll have a shot at receiving my vote. But they'll have to aim much higher.
Clinton had a chance to win (and wasn't far from it, actually).
If you have a means of visiting alternate universes and/or timelines then you correct. However, in this universe and this timeline you are incorrect. Clinton had zero chance to win as demonstrated by the fact that she didn't.
Speculating on what would have happened if 100,000 people did something other than what they did is pointless. And you're making a big assumption in thinking that 100,000 people who didn't vote for Clinton would be happy if she won.
I didn't want to Trump to win and didn't vote for him, but I'm glad Clinton lost. I certainly wouldn't have felt good if I learned I was the person who put her over the top. If Clinton had won it wouldn't have been the end of the world, and the world isn't going to end because Trump won either, but neither one of them deserves to claim that I voted for them. My vote counted and is reflected in the election results as part of the small but statistically significant percentage of the US population who took the time to go out to their polling place and register their belief that neither Trump nor Clinton are a worthy choice as president of the US.
Unfortunately the polls don't distinguish between the opinions of "I think Hillary Clinton will be the best president ever" and "I think Hillary Clinton will be the worst president ever but I'm going to vote for her anyway" so I would say people with the second opinion threw away their vote by making it indistinguishable from people with the first opinion.
Now, for someone who thinks that Hillary is fantastic but voted for someone they thought was just a tiny, tiny bit better, then maybe that wasn't a good choice. But for someone who thinks that Trump and Clinton are both horribly bad choices, voting for the one who is marginally less horrendous is not a rational course of action.
What makes you think you can even claim that 100,000 people in Wisconsin were on the edge of choosing whether they loved Clinton more than the third party candidate they voted for?
Maybe those 100,000 feel like the choice between Trump and Clinton is the choice between drinking out of a septic tank or out of the pre-treatment tank of a residential sewage treatment plant. Maybe they voted for drinking out of a clean mountain spring even though they new they'd end up drinking sewage one way or another. And maybe they're glad they didn't vote to drink sewage even if that's what they ended up with.
IMHO this is the result of decades of people saying "don't throw your vote away by voting third party."
And they are all correct, in our First Past the Post election system, you ARE throwing away your vote by doing that...
If you want to change it, you have to change the election system.
In what sense? Do you mean that by voting for a third party you threw away your vote because your candidate couldn't win? I would say the same applies to voting for Hillary Clinton. The election results are clear evidence that she couldn't win. Maybe you mistakenly believed that she could, but if so, reality proves you were wrong. By voting for Clinton you voted for just as much of a losing candidate as Johnson or Stein or any of the others.
There's no second place in a US Presidential election. If you didn't vote for Trump (and I didn't) you voted for somebody who lost. It really makes no difference if the loser you voted for was different than the loser I voted for.
All the votes were counted, but only one person won. If any vote was "thrown away" then every vote that wasn't for Trump was "thrown away". It's foolish to think that a vote for Clinton is somehow more valid than a vote for any other candidate who also lost the election. The fact that she maybe could've/would've/should've won an election in an alternate timeline or alternate universe is irrelevant.
My first modem was 2400 baud. The hand-me-down computers I had before that didn't have modems and I couldn't afford to buy one sooner.
I dialed into a bunch of BBSs with that 2400 baud modem but honestly didn't get the appeal.
When I discovered Usenet via college Sun servers it was a totally different story, but BBSs just never clicked for me. Maybe the ones in my area weren't any good. I couldn't afford long distance and although I wasn't aware of phreaking I wouldn't have considered BBSs access a good enough reason if I had known how.
Some friends had better computers than I did but I don't recall them having much interest in BBSs either.
Aren't there plenty of IM options already? And doesn't Lync already do this? I haven't really looked because my company has had an excellent IM solution practically forever and IRC works great for discussions with people outside the company. I've heard about Slack because apparently a lot of people are using it to discuss OpenContrail, but after installing it on my phone I just didn't see the point.
Aren't there plenty of interoperable XMPP clients that don't tie you to a single provider?
Is there any way to read "fell out of his pocket" that isn't a euphemism? Unless the cops picked him up by the ankles and shook him I find it very difficult to believe that anything just "fell out" at the random moment that they just happened to be arresting him. Of course if it was ever really in his pocket to begin with then they would have found it when they booked him. But it seems more likely that it "fell" out of the arresting officer's pocket instead.
I'm not a gamer, but the thing that interests me that no one is talking about is the fact that they apparently know how long you have played the game. Why is anyone OK with that?
Every Windows 10 story on Slashdot is filled with vitriol over Microsoft's tracking, but here's a story about a company that apparently knows exactly how long (and presumably that implies they know exactly when) you've played the game and nobody seems to even mention what a grotesque invasion of privacy that is.
Why does Microsoft get chastised but apparently tracking by Sony doesn't even warrant a mention? Bizarre.
I don't use bit torrent, but if I did I certainly wouldn't run it on a computer that I used for anything else. When you say
health of your computer
I assume you're using the singular because you only run bit torrent on one computer, not because you only have one computer. If you don't have an old machine to wipe and dedicate to bit torrent then at least run it in a dedicated VM or a Raspberry Pi. Please tell me people aren't running bit torrent on computers that they use for anything of importance.
Step 1: Invent some shitty cell phone nobody cares about. Step 2: Sell shitty cellphone design to Apple Ireland for $1. Step 3: Lease back shitty cellphone design for 99.9% of the revenue. Step 4: Design not so shitty, sells a billion phones, pays 99.9% of the revenue to Apple Ireland. Step 5: No profit after licenses and other expenses.
You lost me between step 3 and 4, how did the design go from shitty to not so shitty, sells a billion? You appear to be saying that the mere act of leasing it from Ireland transforms shit to gold.
I think you need to check your assumptions, but if you're right then you really should figure out if your steps for going from shitty to sells a billion can be applied to anything other than phones.
Slashdot Mirror
and will shoot dead teenagers who throw rocks at armored vehicles.
If dead teenagers are throwing rocks at armored vehicles then I strongly support not only shooting them but decapitating them and burning the zombie corpses. The last thing that area needs is a zombie apocalypse.
I think three single quotes above and below is easier than that.
Healthcare is not a normal market. When people are really sick they will pay anything up to getting bankrupt so that they are treated. Normal people cannot shop around too much or wait a month or two for a better offer. So a little of collusion between healthcare providers will go a long way towards gouging "customers".
Everywhere else in the entire Western world, government have established single user pay systems. Even in America this is true for the elderly with Medicare. For the general population, the actual cost of care in the US is 2x or 3x more than everywhere else in the world. Why is that?
Healthcare is not like a new smartphone and market principles do not apply to every situations.
This meme is stupid. Collusion in any market will affect the operation of the market, but healthcare is not special. Sure, if you're unconscious you don't make choices about what treatment to receive, but if I'm conscious and need to be rushed to the hospital I certainly do know which hospital I will go to. If you don't have multiple hospitals to choose from it's because you've previously CHOSEN to live in an area with only one hospital.
But the vast majority of medical decisions aren't a "seconds count" life or death decision. Most Americans who are dealing with health issues do so for years, sometimes decades, of daily medication and weekly or monthly doctor visits. They have plenty of time for research and choices for the vast majority of their medical decisions.
In fact, I'll bet that smokers with lung cancer probably spend more time researching doctors and treatments than they ever spent researching which brand of cigarettes to buy.
Market principles certainly do apply. If you've just GOT TO HAVE an iPhone then you'll pay whatever Apple is charging, but if you are willing to look at options, they exist. If you've just GOT TO HAVE the one drug that you're sure (either based on your deep scientific expertise or just your gut feeling) is the best for your condition then you'll pay whatever the price is, but there are certainly other treatment options even if they are objectively inferior. But depending on what your phone buying criteria are, it's quite possible that the non-iPhone is objectively inferior on the specific evaluation criteria that you weight the highest.
Also, the per capita death rate is and always has been constant. It's one death per person, eventually.
There is some variation in years lived per person and in level of comfort during both the healthy years and the last days/weeks/months of dying, but there is no credible evidence yet of any cure for death. So hysterics over "people are going to die" or "republicans don't care if people die" is utter nonsense. Neither Obama, nor Clinton, nor the DNC has a cure for death. The question is how to ensure the best availability of treatment options and the best incentives for researchers to develop new treatments and find ways to provide existing treatments more efficiently.
As for the "publicly traded" bullshit: Very few people can afford to own enough stock to matter. Your 401k is being eaten alive by fees. It is not a pension. It is not guaranteed or even likely to support you as you age.
If your 401k is being eaten alive by fees then you need to change your elections. If there are no low fee options offered you need to either get together with other employees to complain to your employer or else move your retirement to an IRA.
You have to actually read some of the information about each investment option available within your 401k plan, but the information is there. The fees and the historical return on investment is all available for you to review. If you're paying excessive fees, it's ultimately your own fault and within your power to change.
It took me longer that I'd like to admit to actually look at the fees on each of the options offered by my company's 401k plan and move all my money out of the high fee funds and into the low fee funds. But I did it, the low fee funds are offered by my employer's plan and I no longer have any portion of my 401k in high fee funds.
Why do you want to limit peoples' choices and options? For many people it would mean that instead of earning a little extra cash on their schedule to make ends meet, they wouldn't have that option and wind up seeking government assistance and/or become homeless.
Except that these 'job's would still need to be done and the companies be forced to pay an appropriate wage.
Are you speaking from specific knowledge of specific jobs that you are paying people to do? Jobs that you'd willingly pay more for but choose not to? Or is this just an article of faith?
There are lots of things I want, that I could afford, but which I do not buy because I think the price is too high. There are also things I could do to make extra money which I don't do because I don't think there's enough money in it to be worth the loss of my time to do other things.
If you're speaking on your own behalf about jobs that you're paying people to do that you would be willing to pay more for, that's one thing. If you're claiming certain knowledge of other people's price tolerance, I think you need to do more to prove you have reliable knowledge.
Absolutely everyone who's selling anything would love to know with certainty the maximum price that buyers would be willing to pay before walking away.
Everyone who is considering buying anything has a "walk away price" whether they've consciously pondered it or not. If they do know their "walk away price" they are generally very careful not to let the seller know what it is.
The article didn't mention billing address, but I don't think I've ever entered my credit card number into any website that didn't include billing address as a set of required fields. Shipping address is always an additional set of optional fields.
Now, I suppose if the backend doesn't validate billing address then you could use a fake addresses for the brute force part of the job, but when you go to use the card isn't a fake billing address going to be a dead giveaway that the transaction was a fraud and therefore guarantee a successful charge back with zero questions?
But if Visa has any sense they ought to require billing address verification as part of the preauthorization step for all card not present transactions.
Can you be a little more specific? I'm currently using an Asus T100 with windows as my ssh and Web terminal. A little slow for anything else but gets a bit over 10 hours on battery. Every Linux laptop review I read seems to think that six battery life in the 5-6 hour range is great. I wouldn't buy anything that couldn't get at least a solid 8 hours of ssh and Web browsing.
When you write "battery lasts forever" I figure you mean 10-12 hours, but I'm not sure I believe you.
There are some awesome EVs you might replace it with. I live in rural Minnesota. EVs won't cut it for me, especially since I take long trips away from Interstates.
And do you drive quite often from rural Minnesota to Paris, Madrid, Athens or Mexico City?
Or to LA, SF Bay area, NYC, DC etc for that matter, if large US cities decided to introduce similar restrictions?
Or are you just posting to declare how the article has absolutely no relevance to you? Because if everyone posts to every article just to point out that it has nothing to do with them and they have no opinion that's relevant to the topic then the SNR around here would be even lower than it is.
Ok, I'm sorry for being insensitive, and maybe Amazon is a horrible place to work, but maybe this guy wasn't entirely a stellar performer who was unfairly underrated.
If you attempt suicide by jumping from the fourth floor of a twelve story building and you don't even double check that you've got a full four floors to fall, what conclusions might we draw about your ability to plan and complete your assigned tasks?
Ending your own life is a pretty important decision and not something you should just handle in a half-assed manner. If you half-ass your own suicide I wouldn't be surprised if you half-ass a lot of other stuff, including your paid day-job responsibilities.
I'll see your anecdote and raise you one. I know someone who was put on an improvement plan (likely due to personality conflict with their manager, quite possibly the manager's fault) and continued on with the company until eventual retirement age and left at well over 70 years of age with full pension and retirement benefits.
Do we have enough anecdotes to call it data yet? I'm guessing no.
employee improvement plan, a step that can lead to termination if performance isn't improved
Whoever invented "employee improvement plan" needs to die.
Sure, wouldn't want to actually let the employee know why they're getting bad performance reviews, just fire them.
That was sarcasm, by the way. I know nothing about Amazon's employee improvement plan, but the general idea of giving extra assistance to employees who aren't performing as well as their peers is absolutely a good idea.
It's utterly naive to think that everyone can be in the top X% or that all employees will perform so equally that better or worse can't be distinguished. As long as some employees perform worse you only have three choices:
1) Do nothing. Just keep paying them for doing worse than their peers
2) Fire them. Hire somebody else that you hope will perform better.
3) Help them to identify why they perform worse than their peers and try to help them improve
I can't see any reason why option 3 is worse than option 1 or 2.
Unless you dispute my assumption that there exist some employees who perform worse than others, it absolutely makes sense for companies to have a goal and plan for improving their lowest performing employees rather than firing them or ignoring them.
Obviously if someone is utterly hopeless then you have to just get rid of them to prevent them from contributing negative value (i.e. creating problems for their peers to fix to the net loss of the company's productivity) but if they're just "ok but not great" then actively working to improve them benefits everyone. Maybe Amazon's plan is broken, I wouldn't know, but the general concept is a good one.
He may not fully understand why it seems bad, but it is part of a trend to value human life as well as almost everything else in terms of money alone.
Are you aware that the sole purpose of money, the only reason it exists, is to enable people to assign values to things? If we didn't care about comparing values of arbitrary combinations of things we could just use a barter system. The wealthy could get just as wealthy owning land and machinery and livestock and fuel, we'd just have a much harder time comparing how wealthy they are if nobody assigned numbers in fungible units to those things.
Complaining about people measuring value in money is like complaining about measuring sound volume in decibels. The sound's not going to get any louder or quieter just because you''re squeamish about assigning a numeric value to it's current volume.
Maybe you don't want to know the value of a human life. Maybe it makes you uncomfortable to even think about the question of whether every human life has precisely equal value in quantifiable units. Maybe you hope to never allow yourself to think about how much money you'd be willing to spend to extend a stranger's life by sixty seconds.
But that doesn't mean that "money" isn't the appropriate class of units in which to measure "value" and if life has any value at all then money is the correct thing to use to estimate that value in units that can be compared against other things of value. Decibels for sound volume, kilograms (or other mass units) for mass, meters (or other length units) for distance, and dollars (or other monetary units) for value.
Just because you'd prefer not to know what the number is, doesn't mean that it can't be measured. Nor does your preference not to know affect which units are appropriate for quantifying the measurement.
That's nonsense. A pound of meat can't contain more than a pint of water even if it contained nothing but water. A cow may drink a lot of water, but most of it is returned to the environment when the cow urinates. The water is most certainly not destroyed.
Perhaps California needs more water treatment plants, but that's hardly the cow's fault. Maybe some of those people displaced by automation can go work in sewage treatment instead of going on the dole. Or, if the doomsayers are correct that absolutely everything will be automated leaving everyone unemployed then I assume the water treatment systems will be fully automated as well. Either way, there's no reason to worry about water temporarily spending some time inside a cow. It's not a long term problem.
I'm pretty sure that this "smart firewall" is more commonly known as a "firewall". Any firewall that can't block traffic can't legitimately be called a firewall at all.
I just opened power shell and typed the number one most common thing I type at the cmd prompt: "putty @session" and it opened the putty configuration window rather than launching an ssh connection to the designated server. That's a non-starter for me.
Agreed.
I just find it odd that his supporters built a case to elect him based on his statements and then when he is elected acted as if they knew all along that he was lying.
He said he was anti-establishment: they said to elect on that basis. Turns out he is as establishment as they come.
What reasons remain to have him as president?
Well, "he's not Hillary Clinton" is a pretty solid one.
I didn't vote for Trump and don't expect great things from him, but I certainly would not have voted for Clinton. If there hadn't been a third candidate that I could vote my conscience on then I would have had to think long and hard before choosing between "voting for 'not Clinton'" or "not voting". I really dislike not voting, so it would have been a tough dilemma.
But I certainly wouldn't have voted for the candidate whose best characteristic is that the democratic party bosses believe she is marginally less horrible than the republican candidate. I can't support the democratic bosses attempt to force us to accept a bad choice by aiming for "just slightly less bad than the republican option"
If the democratic party aims higher next time they'll have a shot at receiving my vote. But they'll have to aim much higher.
Clinton had a chance to win (and wasn't far from it, actually).
If you have a means of visiting alternate universes and/or timelines then you correct. However, in this universe and this timeline you are incorrect. Clinton had zero chance to win as demonstrated by the fact that she didn't.
Speculating on what would have happened if 100,000 people did something other than what they did is pointless. And you're making a big assumption in thinking that 100,000 people who didn't vote for Clinton would be happy if she won.
I didn't want to Trump to win and didn't vote for him, but I'm glad Clinton lost. I certainly wouldn't have felt good if I learned I was the person who put her over the top. If Clinton had won it wouldn't have been the end of the world, and the world isn't going to end because Trump won either, but neither one of them deserves to claim that I voted for them. My vote counted and is reflected in the election results as part of the small but statistically significant percentage of the US population who took the time to go out to their polling place and register their belief that neither Trump nor Clinton are a worthy choice as president of the US.
Unfortunately the polls don't distinguish between the opinions of "I think Hillary Clinton will be the best president ever" and "I think Hillary Clinton will be the worst president ever but I'm going to vote for her anyway" so I would say people with the second opinion threw away their vote by making it indistinguishable from people with the first opinion.
Now, for someone who thinks that Hillary is fantastic but voted for someone they thought was just a tiny, tiny bit better, then maybe that wasn't a good choice. But for someone who thinks that Trump and Clinton are both horribly bad choices, voting for the one who is marginally less horrendous is not a rational course of action.
What makes you think you can even claim that 100,000 people in Wisconsin were on the edge of choosing whether they loved Clinton more than the third party candidate they voted for?
Maybe those 100,000 feel like the choice between Trump and Clinton is the choice between drinking out of a septic tank or out of the pre-treatment tank of a residential sewage treatment plant. Maybe they voted for drinking out of a clean mountain spring even though they new they'd end up drinking sewage one way or another. And maybe they're glad they didn't vote to drink sewage even if that's what they ended up with.
IMHO this is the result of decades of people saying "don't throw your vote away by voting third party."
And they are all correct, in our First Past the Post election system, you ARE throwing away your vote by doing that...
If you want to change it, you have to change the election system.
In what sense? Do you mean that by voting for a third party you threw away your vote because your candidate couldn't win? I would say the same applies to voting for Hillary Clinton. The election results are clear evidence that she couldn't win. Maybe you mistakenly believed that she could, but if so, reality proves you were wrong. By voting for Clinton you voted for just as much of a losing candidate as Johnson or Stein or any of the others.
There's no second place in a US Presidential election. If you didn't vote for Trump (and I didn't) you voted for somebody who lost. It really makes no difference if the loser you voted for was different than the loser I voted for.
All the votes were counted, but only one person won. If any vote was "thrown away" then every vote that wasn't for Trump was "thrown away". It's foolish to think that a vote for Clinton is somehow more valid than a vote for any other candidate who also lost the election. The fact that she maybe could've/would've/should've won an election in an alternate timeline or alternate universe is irrelevant.
My first modem was 2400 baud. The hand-me-down computers I had before that didn't have modems and I couldn't afford to buy one sooner.
I dialed into a bunch of BBSs with that 2400 baud modem but honestly didn't get the appeal.
When I discovered Usenet via college Sun servers it was a totally different story, but BBSs just never clicked for me. Maybe the ones in my area weren't any good. I couldn't afford long distance and although I wasn't aware of phreaking I wouldn't have considered BBSs access a good enough reason if I had known how.
Some friends had better computers than I did but I don't recall them having much interest in BBSs either.
Aren't there plenty of IM options already? And doesn't Lync already do this? I haven't really looked because my company has had an excellent IM solution practically forever and IRC works great for discussions with people outside the company. I've heard about Slack because apparently a lot of people are using it to discuss OpenContrail, but after installing it on my phone I just didn't see the point.
Aren't there plenty of interoperable XMPP clients that don't tie you to a single provider?
Is there any way to read "fell out of his pocket" that isn't a euphemism? Unless the cops picked him up by the ankles and shook him I find it very difficult to believe that anything just "fell out" at the random moment that they just happened to be arresting him. Of course if it was ever really in his pocket to begin with then they would have found it when they booked him. But it seems more likely that it "fell" out of the arresting officer's pocket instead.
I'm not a gamer, but the thing that interests me that no one is talking about is the fact that they apparently know how long you have played the game. Why is anyone OK with that?
Every Windows 10 story on Slashdot is filled with vitriol over Microsoft's tracking, but here's a story about a company that apparently knows exactly how long (and presumably that implies they know exactly when) you've played the game and nobody seems to even mention what a grotesque invasion of privacy that is.
Why does Microsoft get chastised but apparently tracking by Sony doesn't even warrant a mention? Bizarre.
For those of us not up on such things, what is "pop in" and why is it a bad thing?
I don't use bit torrent, but if I did I certainly wouldn't run it on a computer that I used for anything else. When you say
health of your computer
I assume you're using the singular because you only run bit torrent on one computer, not because you only have one computer. If you don't have an old machine to wipe and dedicate to bit torrent then at least run it in a dedicated VM or a Raspberry Pi. Please tell me people aren't running bit torrent on computers that they use for anything of importance.
Step 1: Invent some shitty cell phone nobody cares about.
Step 2: Sell shitty cellphone design to Apple Ireland for $1.
Step 3: Lease back shitty cellphone design for 99.9% of the revenue.
Step 4: Design not so shitty, sells a billion phones, pays 99.9% of the revenue to Apple Ireland.
Step 5: No profit after licenses and other expenses.
You lost me between step 3 and 4, how did the design go from shitty to not so shitty, sells a billion? You appear to be saying that the mere act of leasing it from Ireland transforms shit to gold.
I think you need to check your assumptions, but if you're right then you really should figure out if your steps for going from shitty to sells a billion can be applied to anything other than phones.