As someone else pointed out the last time this came up, between the products of the big tech companies you have a choice: you can choose to have no privacy (Google), no self-determination (Apple), or neither (Amazon). These voice-controlled speakers are a fine example of that choice.
Now, be fair: those statistics are only for Americans. The parent said that he was talking about people he knew, in Finland presumably. Here, I found this. No doubt it completely validates NettiWelho's remarks. I assume.
Exactly. Those apps aren't as bad as Groupon (50% cut from an already deep discount), but taking a significant percentage in a business with already thin margins will kill it.
Er, wait. Sorry, I misread your comment - first you say that the comma is called for, then you say that lawmakers are not permitted to use it. I'm not clear on what the means.
If the guidelines in Maine specifically call for using the Oxford comma, then wouldn't the meaning of the law be the opposite of what you're saying? If they left the comma out, and it wasn't a mistake, and lists of multiple items are required to have an Oxford comma in Maine laws, then the meaning is that only packers are exempted. Not distributors.
Did you look at your link? A linear regression on the annual mean sea level gives an increase of 3.35mm/year. That's huge. Consider that the average elevation in Tuvalu, the whole country, is 2 meters.
You're right about the peaks being worse than the mean, but the mean is bad enough.
I don't think it's been overlooked. Bitcoins are super-traceable, people just think that they're anonymous. As far as law enforcement is concerned, that's an ideal situation.
And yet WAPO still, to this day, has a twitter post up that says "RUSSIANS hacked US power grid." Despite the fact that it's been admitted, even by them, that they were wrong.
This is usually referred to as "issuing a correction," and it doesn't generally involve changing history. I don't know about this instance, though the track record of accusations against the Washington Post is such that I'm skeptical of your claim, but assuming that it's true as you say then erasing the record of their mistake doesn't seem like the right move.
Right here: "A Look at How Indian Women Have Persevered Through Several Obstacles To Contribute to the Open Source Community"
The title should have been: "A Look at How One Group of Indian Women Have Persevered Through Several Obstacles To Contribute to the Open Source Community"
It's a small thing, and wouldn't have reduced the effect of the article, but the title as it is comes off as stereotyping and arrogant, as stereotyping often is.
This is wrong by any measure. Trump's approval ratings are competitive with Ford's, but (since we're talking about hate here) Trump's disapproval ratings are the highest ever measured at this point in his presidency. Though Bush 2 peaked quite a bit higher. Here.
That's only since we've been measuring approval/disapproval ratings though. Speculation is that Lincoln was really the most hated president, which makes sense if you think about it.
The hatred directed at Trump should surprise no one, he's basically a political shock jock. He got all of that publicity during the election by saying one outrageous thing after another - hate is what he runs on.
If they destroy your camera rather than killing you, that's a win. As for protecting sources: sometimes you take pictures with the intention of publishing some of the picture, and redacting the rest. It's very common to blur peoples' faces.
That's opposition rhetoric, or opposition slander. There's no point in researching something that you're just going to make up anyway. You could research, perhaps, what the best thing to make up is, or what people are most likely to believe. But lies are not research, and telling your employer that you found a bunch of lies that they could use is not a falsehood.
That's kinda getting into semantics though. The point is that this guy made some claims, and the FBI felt that his past performance was sufficient that these claims warranted investigation. That's it. What else are you supposed to do with accusations of wrongdoing? Just ignore them?
I care, but that's because I've seen the movie and so I enjoy the followup. I'm not sure I like your suggestion that things which don't have an income stream don't matter... My dog doesn't have an income stream, he matters. I can think of a lot of people who make more money than my dog and who matter a whole lot less.
That's a decision, that's something a judge does based on an interpretation of evidence. Saying that evidence is undisputed means that no parties dispute the evidence, it doesn't mean that they all agree on how to interpret that evidence.
So they say, "The evidence is undisputed, [and therefore] conclusion conclusion conclusion."
The memo was written by Republican staffers, but dismissing the memo as though the bias of its authors makes it false isn't any better than dismissing the dossier. Rather, we should dismiss the memo because nothing that it has to say is important.
Using political opposition research from Foreign spies as justification to spy on an American without telling the courts that the source for the justification is political opposition research from a Foreign spy is in simple words... Very bad.
Could you be a little less simple? What makes political opposition research different from other research? That's a rhetorical question, the answer is: the motivation for that research. The real, non-rhetorical question is: why is using that research in this way very bad?
I could understand, if this is what you're talking about, that during a trial you wouldn't want the police submitting evidence from a private investigator without first verifying it. That would be lending the credibility of the police department to information from a third party. However, getting a warrant is what you do when you are trying to verify information. Taking this evidence that the P.I. collected to a judge and saying, "We've got this story, we think it's worth investigating and we want a warrant to do that." is... I don't see how that's "very bad."
In fact, this memo is very weak. The FISA court is a rubber stamp, they approve virtually every warrant application. Yes that's a problem, but only now are we supposed to be insisting on a high standard of evidence?
The Wii U is the best console I've ever owned. That controller was indeed gimmicky, and that gimmick turned out to be a really good one.
I had opposite experiences with the Wii and Wii U:
Wii: "Man, those controllers look like such a good idea. Every other time I've used motion controls like that they've been annoyingly laggy, but I'm sure that Nintendo wouldn't be doing this if they hadn't solved that problem. I'm so excited for the Wii, this is going to be great."
Wii U: "Oh my god... Come on Nintendo, can't you just do something normal? Why are you fartin' around with another stupid gimmick when the last one turned out so awful?"
It seems that I don't have a good track record here. I've been rooting for the Switch in large part because I see it as a second chance for the Wii U format which turned out to be so great. It's not quite as nice as the Wii U gamepad, it's smaller and less ergonomic, but it gets points for being commercially viable.
That's an interesting perspective. I don't think it's really about appreciation though, rather it's about actions which have had long-term effects. The quote from the article is that the award is for: “individuals who developed a breakthrough technology, game concept, or gameplay design at a crucial juncture in video game history”
So given that, it might be reasonable to look at all of his actions and weigh their impact against one another. The good of his life against the bad. Under those circumstances we could consider the long-term effects of his actions on those women who he employed at the time... None of those effects or those women are mentioned in the articles linked in the summary. The only people leveling criticisms at Bushnell here, at least the only ones mentioned, are people who give no indication of ever having had any personal contact with him at all.
So that's all that I really wanted to say in response to your comment, but a lot of these accusations against him are being derived from a particular book, The Ultimate History of Video Games, which is a book that I happen to have read a while back. None of them really reflect what the book was actually describing - a company which functioned as an anti-business, run and operated by hippies. The point that the book was making was the extremely casual work environment. There's a quote in the Verge article:
2/ Atari held board meetings in a hottub. There, the board would invite the women employees they wanted to have sexual with up to the suite, and pressure them to strip naked with the men.
This is by Mr. Bushnell’s own admission in the book “Ultimate History of Videogames.”
— Brianna Wu
Now I realize that she's a troll, and that by responding I'm just feeding the troll, but I have my moments of weakness now and then. So: This didn't happen, this is not in the book. The article gives the real quote there as well:
Nolan needed some papers and documents so he called his office and said, ‘Have Miss so and so bring them up.’ We were in this tub [when she arrived], so he proceeded to try to get her in the tub during the board meeting. Nolan’s attorney was miffed [because] we got his papers wet. He was not in the hot tub and he was not amused by any of this. That was the sort of fun we had.
— Al Alcon
That's all that the book has to say about it. This wasn't the only hot tub meeting, but there was never any mention of nudity or pressuring women to strip naked. Nor was there any mention of the men being naked. There's no discussion of clothing in that quote, nor is there an implication that nudity would be required or expected for "Miss so and so" to join the others in the tub. My memory is imperfect, but I don't think there's any mention of Nolan pressuring anyone to strip naked at any point in the book, and I really think that's something I would have remembered. The worst that can be said about Nolan's behavior, from that quote, is that maybe he was a little sleazy. But that's still only a maybe, it still requires making assumptions about the particulars of that situation and his motivations based on almost nothing.
I'm finding this bullshit to be really upsetting, it is just as bad as the Aziz Ansari thing. The very least that the GDC should have done before rescinding his award would have been to try and contact the people who were actually involved. I should not be reading an article quoting condemnation from random nobodies. Where is the quote from "Miss so and so"? Hers is the only accusation that matters here. Though, as has been said countless times now, it's only a conviction that actually counts. Or should count.
The parent said that she had a mental capacity of six year old human. Not that she had the same vocabulary as a six year old human.
Setting aside the fact that this is a stupid way of measuring things, one of the characteristics of human brains is our extremely large language processing centers. This is kinda our stand-out feature, mentally. We like to make much ado about "self-awareness" and our large neo-cortexes, and they are big, but dolphins are comparable. It's vocabulary that we do better than any other animal.
So saying, "Haw haw, that gorilla is dumb because she's not as good as us at the one thing we are best at." is a pretty self-serving measurement. It's not surprising - we tend to evaluate other humans based on how good they are with language, we're an extremely language-focused species, but there are other ways to evaluate mental capacity. Chimpanzees seem to have better visual memory than we do, there are lots of species which have better noses than we do (this is another function of the brain), etc.
Okay. Insurers and providers don't have high profits. I posted this the other day in response to someone blaming everything on the ACA, but: Health insurer profits, which were never extraordinarily high, are down since 2007. I don't have a convenient link for hospitals, but they're also in the 5% range.
Pharmaceuticals are the most profitable sector of the healthcare industry (by a pretty good margin), and they are responsible for a good portion of the increase in costs in recent years, but even they can't be blamed for everything. A lot of it is just ridiculous inefficiency: you've probably heard that filing health insurance claims, just doing the paperwork, costs hundreds of billions per year. Some of it is high salaries - that competition in staffing that you're talking about doesn't work very well, since patients can't really comparison shop between doctors. And doctors who work in hospitals can demand compensation based on how many patients they bring in... which is independent of how much they charge those patients, since the patients can't comparison shop.
Anyway, if you need to blame a single industry then you can blame the pharmaceutical industry, not health insurers, but that's not really accurate either. It's a big complicated problem without an easy scapegoat.
What editorializing? The new kernal has been released, it was delayed, the reason, says Linus, was meltdown/spectre. All of that is contained in the headline, all of those things are facts, nothing else is contained in the headline.
Are you commenting in the wrong story? Also, regardless of the story you're reading: headlines are not for facts. Headlines are there to grab people's attention and get them to read the full story. They're basically advertisements.
I think that if that government wanted to do things sanely, they'd handle emergency room visit costs and the like
You are wrong about insurance companies profiting from the ACA. Health insurer profits, which were never extraordinarily high, are down since 2007. The most profitable sector in health care is pharmaceuticals, thanks to their sacrosanct ability to charge anything that they want for drugs, but even they can't be blamed for everything.
The ACA is indeed a mess, but that is because our health care system is extremely extremely messy. (Before you say, "No one could have known that." just... don't. Don't say that.) If you need a single thing to blame for the increase in costs it's drugs, but blaming a single thing is not going to really get you anywhere.
but the breaki.n happened and was done by russians was never disputed
Ha ha. You must only get your information from those fake news places. Real Americans who get their information from totally legitimate journalists know that the hack was an inside job and that Trump and Russia are blameless.
Slashdot Mirror
As someone else pointed out the last time this came up, between the products of the big tech companies you have a choice: you can choose to have no privacy (Google), no self-determination (Apple), or neither (Amazon). These voice-controlled speakers are a fine example of that choice.
Now, be fair: those statistics are only for Americans. The parent said that he was talking about people he knew, in Finland presumably. Here, I found this. No doubt it completely validates NettiWelho's remarks. I assume.
Exactly. Those apps aren't as bad as Groupon (50% cut from an already deep discount), but taking a significant percentage in a business with already thin margins will kill it.
It's Gizmodo, not Ars, but yes: this was dumb, and rejecting the request is appropriate.
Er, wait. Sorry, I misread your comment - first you say that the comma is called for, then you say that lawmakers are not permitted to use it. I'm not clear on what the means.
If the guidelines in Maine specifically call for using the Oxford comma, then wouldn't the meaning of the law be the opposite of what you're saying? If they left the comma out, and it wasn't a mistake, and lists of multiple items are required to have an Oxford comma in Maine laws, then the meaning is that only packers are exempted. Not distributors.
Did you look at your link? A linear regression on the annual mean sea level gives an increase of 3.35mm/year. That's huge. Consider that the average elevation in Tuvalu, the whole country, is 2 meters.
You're right about the peaks being worse than the mean, but the mean is bad enough.
I don't think it's been overlooked. Bitcoins are super-traceable, people just think that they're anonymous. As far as law enforcement is concerned, that's an ideal situation.
And yet WAPO still, to this day, has a twitter post up that says "RUSSIANS hacked US power grid." Despite the fact that it's been admitted, even by them, that they were wrong.
This is usually referred to as "issuing a correction," and it doesn't generally involve changing history. I don't know about this instance, though the track record of accusations against the Washington Post is such that I'm skeptical of your claim, but assuming that it's true as you say then erasing the record of their mistake doesn't seem like the right move.
Right here: "A Look at How Indian Women Have Persevered Through Several Obstacles To Contribute to the Open Source Community"
The title should have been: "A Look at How One Group of Indian Women Have Persevered Through Several Obstacles To Contribute to the Open Source Community"
It's a small thing, and wouldn't have reduced the effect of the article, but the title as it is comes off as stereotyping and arrogant, as stereotyping often is.
This is wrong by any measure. Trump's approval ratings are competitive with Ford's, but (since we're talking about hate here) Trump's disapproval ratings are the highest ever measured at this point in his presidency. Though Bush 2 peaked quite a bit higher. Here.
That's only since we've been measuring approval/disapproval ratings though. Speculation is that Lincoln was really the most hated president, which makes sense if you think about it.
The hatred directed at Trump should surprise no one, he's basically a political shock jock. He got all of that publicity during the election by saying one outrageous thing after another - hate is what he runs on.
If they destroy your camera rather than killing you, that's a win. As for protecting sources: sometimes you take pictures with the intention of publishing some of the picture, and redacting the rest. It's very common to blur peoples' faces.
That's opposition rhetoric, or opposition slander. There's no point in researching something that you're just going to make up anyway. You could research, perhaps, what the best thing to make up is, or what people are most likely to believe. But lies are not research, and telling your employer that you found a bunch of lies that they could use is not a falsehood.
That's kinda getting into semantics though. The point is that this guy made some claims, and the FBI felt that his past performance was sufficient that these claims warranted investigation. That's it. What else are you supposed to do with accusations of wrongdoing? Just ignore them?
I care, but that's because I've seen the movie and so I enjoy the followup. I'm not sure I like your suggestion that things which don't have an income stream don't matter... My dog doesn't have an income stream, he matters. I can think of a lot of people who make more money than my dog and who matter a whole lot less.
That's a decision, that's something a judge does based on an interpretation of evidence. Saying that evidence is undisputed means that no parties dispute the evidence, it doesn't mean that they all agree on how to interpret that evidence.
So they say, "The evidence is undisputed, [and therefore] conclusion conclusion conclusion."
The memo was written by Republican staffers, but dismissing the memo as though the bias of its authors makes it false isn't any better than dismissing the dossier. Rather, we should dismiss the memo because nothing that it has to say is important.
... Yes? That is exactly how it works right now. You have never heard of swatting? You have just described swatting.
Using political opposition research from Foreign spies as justification to spy on an American without telling the courts that the source for the justification is political opposition research from a Foreign spy is in simple words... Very bad.
Could you be a little less simple? What makes political opposition research different from other research? That's a rhetorical question, the answer is: the motivation for that research. The real, non-rhetorical question is: why is using that research in this way very bad?
I could understand, if this is what you're talking about, that during a trial you wouldn't want the police submitting evidence from a private investigator without first verifying it. That would be lending the credibility of the police department to information from a third party. However, getting a warrant is what you do when you are trying to verify information. Taking this evidence that the P.I. collected to a judge and saying, "We've got this story, we think it's worth investigating and we want a warrant to do that." is... I don't see how that's "very bad."
In fact, this memo is very weak. The FISA court is a rubber stamp, they approve virtually every warrant application. Yes that's a problem, but only now are we supposed to be insisting on a high standard of evidence?
The Wii U is the best console I've ever owned. That controller was indeed gimmicky, and that gimmick turned out to be a really good one.
I had opposite experiences with the Wii and Wii U:
Wii: "Man, those controllers look like such a good idea. Every other time I've used motion controls like that they've been annoyingly laggy, but I'm sure that Nintendo wouldn't be doing this if they hadn't solved that problem. I'm so excited for the Wii, this is going to be great."
Wii U: "Oh my god... Come on Nintendo, can't you just do something normal? Why are you fartin' around with another stupid gimmick when the last one turned out so awful?"
It seems that I don't have a good track record here. I've been rooting for the Switch in large part because I see it as a second chance for the Wii U format which turned out to be so great. It's not quite as nice as the Wii U gamepad, it's smaller and less ergonomic, but it gets points for being commercially viable.
So given that, it might be reasonable to look at all of his actions and weigh their impact against one another. The good of his life against the bad. Under those circumstances we could consider the long-term effects of his actions on those women who he employed at the time... None of those effects or those women are mentioned in the articles linked in the summary. The only people leveling criticisms at Bushnell here, at least the only ones mentioned, are people who give no indication of ever having had any personal contact with him at all.
So that's all that I really wanted to say in response to your comment, but a lot of these accusations against him are being derived from a particular book, The Ultimate History of Video Games, which is a book that I happen to have read a while back. None of them really reflect what the book was actually describing - a company which functioned as an anti-business, run and operated by hippies. The point that the book was making was the extremely casual work environment. There's a quote in the Verge article:
2/ Atari held board meetings in a hottub. There, the board would invite the women employees they wanted to have sexual with up to the suite, and pressure them to strip naked with the men.
This is by Mr. Bushnell’s own admission in the book “Ultimate History of Videogames.”
— Brianna Wu
Now I realize that she's a troll, and that by responding I'm just feeding the troll, but I have my moments of weakness now and then. So: This didn't happen, this is not in the book. The article gives the real quote there as well:
Nolan needed some papers and documents so he called his office and said, ‘Have Miss so and so bring them up.’ We were in this tub [when she arrived], so he proceeded to try to get her in the tub during the board meeting. Nolan’s attorney was miffed [because] we got his papers wet. He was not in the hot tub and he was not amused by any of this. That was the sort of fun we had.
— Al Alcon
That's all that the book has to say about it. This wasn't the only hot tub meeting, but there was never any mention of nudity or pressuring women to strip naked. Nor was there any mention of the men being naked. There's no discussion of clothing in that quote, nor is there an implication that nudity would be required or expected for "Miss so and so" to join the others in the tub. My memory is imperfect, but I don't think there's any mention of Nolan pressuring anyone to strip naked at any point in the book, and I really think that's something I would have remembered. The worst that can be said about Nolan's behavior, from that quote, is that maybe he was a little sleazy. But that's still only a maybe, it still requires making assumptions about the particulars of that situation and his motivations based on almost nothing.
I'm finding this bullshit to be really upsetting, it is just as bad as the Aziz Ansari thing. The very least that the GDC should have done before rescinding his award would have been to try and contact the people who were actually involved. I should not be reading an article quoting condemnation from random nobodies. Where is the quote from "Miss so and so"? Hers is the only accusation that matters here. Though, as has been said countless times now, it's only a conviction that actually counts. Or should count.
The parent said that she had a mental capacity of six year old human. Not that she had the same vocabulary as a six year old human.
Setting aside the fact that this is a stupid way of measuring things, one of the characteristics of human brains is our extremely large language processing centers. This is kinda our stand-out feature, mentally. We like to make much ado about "self-awareness" and our large neo-cortexes, and they are big, but dolphins are comparable. It's vocabulary that we do better than any other animal.
So saying, "Haw haw, that gorilla is dumb because she's not as good as us at the one thing we are best at." is a pretty self-serving measurement. It's not surprising - we tend to evaluate other humans based on how good they are with language, we're an extremely language-focused species, but there are other ways to evaluate mental capacity. Chimpanzees seem to have better visual memory than we do, there are lots of species which have better noses than we do (this is another function of the brain), etc.
Care to try and defend that?
Okay. Insurers and providers don't have high profits. I posted this the other day in response to someone blaming everything on the ACA, but: Health insurer profits, which were never extraordinarily high, are down since 2007. I don't have a convenient link for hospitals, but they're also in the 5% range.
Pharmaceuticals are the most profitable sector of the healthcare industry (by a pretty good margin), and they are responsible for a good portion of the increase in costs in recent years, but even they can't be blamed for everything. A lot of it is just ridiculous inefficiency: you've probably heard that filing health insurance claims, just doing the paperwork, costs hundreds of billions per year. Some of it is high salaries - that competition in staffing that you're talking about doesn't work very well, since patients can't really comparison shop between doctors. And doctors who work in hospitals can demand compensation based on how many patients they bring in... which is independent of how much they charge those patients, since the patients can't comparison shop.
Anyway, if you need to blame a single industry then you can blame the pharmaceutical industry, not health insurers, but that's not really accurate either. It's a big complicated problem without an easy scapegoat.
What editorializing? The new kernal has been released, it was delayed, the reason, says Linus, was meltdown/spectre. All of that is contained in the headline, all of those things are facts, nothing else is contained in the headline.
Are you commenting in the wrong story? Also, regardless of the story you're reading: headlines are not for facts. Headlines are there to grab people's attention and get them to read the full story. They're basically advertisements.
I think that if that government wanted to do things sanely, they'd handle emergency room visit costs and the like
You are wrong about insurance companies profiting from the ACA. Health insurer profits, which were never extraordinarily high, are down since 2007. The most profitable sector in health care is pharmaceuticals, thanks to their sacrosanct ability to charge anything that they want for drugs, but even they can't be blamed for everything.
The ACA is indeed a mess, but that is because our health care system is extremely extremely messy. (Before you say, "No one could have known that." just... don't. Don't say that.) If you need a single thing to blame for the increase in costs it's drugs, but blaming a single thing is not going to really get you anywhere.
but the breaki.n happened and was done by russians was never disputed
Ha ha. You must only get your information from those fake news places. Real Americans who get their information from totally legitimate journalists know that the hack was an inside job and that Trump and Russia are blameless.