Well, I can think of many instances in which a person's car is like an "extension" of their self... in fact, it isn't uncommon to directly relate a man's choice in vehicle to making up for other appendages...
But overall, it was meant in jest.:)
My guess is crap like a language support pack is done poorly using grossly inefficient data hierarchy format(s) and that these language support packs just keep growing in size and number and that the whole language support monstrosity is shipped to everybody.regardless of what language they speak.
That's getting closer to the issue. It isn't what the app needs, it is what *I* need from the app. If I don't need 30 languages, don't ship em to me. Further, when I'm downloading an application update, don't ship the whole app again, only ship whatever changed. It isn't just storage space that needs to be optimized, but bandwidth utilization too. Frequency and size of updates is out of control.
Wow, that reflects a terrible understanding of Game Theory... Player A and Player B (or in this case Players 1-50) know that if they both act the outcome is better for both of them, but if either of them acts first, they lose and the other wins.
Combine this problem with the dilemma to business of 50 different state standards across countless different product characteristics and the damage that does to economies of scale...
There are good reasons for product standards. The commercial sector tends to address the ones that collectively are good for profits (often via operational efficiencies of standardization, mass production and compatibility). They don't tend to address the ones that are collectively good for purely social reasons, like the environment, product safety, public health, etc. - especially when any subset acting alone lose the market... That's where government plays a good role!
God have mercy on all morons who are still running unpatched machines...
I wonder if you could draw a parallel to the anti-vax movement. There is a sort of herd immunity if all machines are patched as malware has a harder time replicating and spreading with less compromised machines to do so. But there are people who persistently refuse to patch because of some perception that the patch itself or the patching process is more troublesome than the likelihood they will be part of an infection.
Well I'm glad that someone without a vested interest in banking secrecy has some idea about what's going on. If the NSA sees terrorists laundering money or companies violating sanctions they can tip off the relevant authorities.
Wait... what about this recent news has you believing the NSA wants to tip of anyone about anything they discover?
I don't think all the negative press is good for M$ or their Windows brand. People do have alternatives and this does make those alternatives look a bit better than before.
BTW, where is the NSA's trove of Linux and MacOS exploits? How about an NSA trove of Android and iOS exploits? They must have them.
They were pushing hard in Las Vegas last year. Hired a bunch of street promoters to hand out coupons for free rides.
I swear the first time I read that is said "...handing out condoms for free rides"... It must have been the Vegas reference... still, not a bad marketing ploy there.
I think there is more to consider about this. Supply/Demand is nothing NEW. What is interesting here is a key component of "efficient markets" - that of "perfect information". Companies spend a lot of money on market research - which is essentially an inefficient cost in the market that perfect information would eliminate the need for. Now, you can never truly have perfect information, but you can get efficiency gains.
In this example, the crowd used online petitions to communicate a problem seeking a better market solution. That's the reverse of market research. It isn't "crowd sourcing", which I would argue is still initiated by the company. This is more like "crowd based" or "crowd initiated" (someone will coin a better term I'm sure). So, what I would ask is, generally speaking, will the use of online petitions (directed at specific companies or the market in general) become a new trend that leads to faster development of products and services for which a true demand exists?
It is kinda like having a kickstarter without the fundraising or the idea, just getting people behind the "problem" and establishing a viable market for whatever solution emerges.
"Operating lifetime was estimated at five to seven years per satellite."
Doesn't that seem like a really sort span of time to have to send something into space? That means in like any given year you could be replacing 20% of your satellites? I guess perhaps with the idea that technology would be advancing so a 30 year old satellite might not really support current technology... Anyway still seems a bit crazy...
And, if he says it will cost $20B that also implies $4B / year in replacement costs... I'm sure he is betting on the tech improving (cheaper and longer lifespan) as they move to scale. On that, he's probably right.
The question about jobs misses the more important point: all of this is nonsense. For instance, in the summary they say:
Job selection on the basis of certain desirable genetic characteristics is already common in the military and sports.
No, it's not. Job selection based on presented traits is common in the military and sports (e.g. small jockeys, tall basketball players, etc.), not based on genetic characteristics. Sure, there are genetics behind those traits, but no one is using them directly to make decisions.
Here is an idea... find a kid that tests genetically well for the traits you are seeking, let's say height and other physical traits for basketball as our example... Maybe in China.:) Now, don't use those to *hire* the person. Instead, have their parents sign an exclusivity contract or a real option - i.e. they WON'T go to work for any other team/entity or the contracting entity has an option to exercise. Some monetary payment is made for the option or an ongoing payment of some level. The contract and related future obligations becomes void if some tragedy occurs that ruins the future physical desirability (hit by a car and injured, for example).
Now, you haven't used genetic information in a hiring decision, merely as the basis for a real future option and/or exclusivity.
The bigger problem with this article though is that it really doesn't belong here. This is not a technology issue, or even a science issue. This is an economics issue, and a monetary issue. The jobs aren't going away because people here are being replaced by better technology, the jobs are going away here because people are being replaced by workers in other countries who can work for less.
UBI is supposed to be for everyone, not just those who are not working. Thus people who work still make more (far more) than people who subsist on UBI alone. The incentive to work is definitely still there.
“It's very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.”
That was a cute joke, but Clintons have certainly beaten Trump to it. Unless you think, Bill and Hillary Clinton receiving hundreds of thousand of dollars per speech can be explained by anything other than his past presidency and, more importantly, the "inevitability" of her future one.
That original quote is totally misunderstood... Trump said the first candidate to "run" and make money on it. I.e. - make money on RUNNING, not having anything to do with winning. Remember that once donors and the party started picking up the tabs he jacked up the rates on the offices and rooms in his own properties they were using? And now he plans to launch a TV network, etc? He doesn't need to win. He is saying he will be the first one to run, lose, cost the Republican party their shot at succeeding after Obama AND make off like a bandit anyway.
There are always many "gold digging" women around stars. They let him do it because they don't mind it, because that's how they dig their gold. They know it and he knows it.
You said that if he had said "boss" you would have agreed with me but because he said "star" you saw it differently, per the above quote?
I don't care what role he has, had, will have or what role any other guy has, had or will have. Presuming women will accept sexual contact without prior approval and also acting on that presumption is simply wrong. At best, the guy is "correct in his assumption", which still doesn't excuse the action or the "climate" such actions promote.
Confusing, at best. She has both claimed it did happen and specifically claimed it did not happen. If it did happen as the accusation suggests, that is terrible. However, with the amount of $$ being thrown around to falsify stuff about the Clintons for 30 years, we really need evidence.
You know, a tape of Clinton bragging about how he can assault women unsolicited and get away with it would be great. Oh wait, we only have that from Trump.
Regardless, it is also worth re-iterating that Bill isn't the opposing candidate here. The biggest claims against Hillary (again, mostly unproven) are that she was antagonistic toward the accusers of her husband and that she stood by him throughout all these incidents. Should she have divorced Bill? Probably, in my opinion. But for many people divorce isn't even an option, especially in religious circles.
Again, what we are talking about here and now is a candidate who wants to be President who has been on tape saying he could sexually assault women and get away with it AND then defending that on TV saying "its just locker room talk" and "you hear it all the time". That just compounds a misunderstanding or mistake about sexual assault with a complete endorsement that its a normal part of society and everyone should just be ok with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, not in the summary, but 10.1 is probably "people are running around sticking USB drives into things". :) Air-gapped only goes so far.
Well, I can think of many instances in which a person's car is like an "extension" of their self... in fact, it isn't uncommon to directly relate a man's choice in vehicle to making up for other appendages... But overall, it was meant in jest. :)
No no no... Waymo is a corporation and therefore a person... these autonomous vehicles are more like... limbs.
My guess is crap like a language support pack is done poorly using grossly inefficient data hierarchy format(s) and that these language support packs just keep growing in size and number and that the whole language support monstrosity is shipped to everybody.regardless of what language they speak.
That's getting closer to the issue. It isn't what the app needs, it is what *I* need from the app. If I don't need 30 languages, don't ship em to me. Further, when I'm downloading an application update, don't ship the whole app again, only ship whatever changed. It isn't just storage space that needs to be optimized, but bandwidth utilization too. Frequency and size of updates is out of control.
True. Your app is going to run on ARM devices, other ARM devices, and possibly even a third kind of ARM device.
Now now, third arms just make you look weird.
Didn't we already deal with computer nerds and click pens in the 90s?
Goldeneye click-pen explosion
So are you saying the President was an idiot to make these promises to begin with or that he is an idiot now for not seeing them carried out?
Wow, that reflects a terrible understanding of Game Theory... Player A and Player B (or in this case Players 1-50) know that if they both act the outcome is better for both of them, but if either of them acts first, they lose and the other wins.
Combine this problem with the dilemma to business of 50 different state standards across countless different product characteristics and the damage that does to economies of scale...
There are good reasons for product standards. The commercial sector tends to address the ones that collectively are good for profits (often via operational efficiencies of standardization, mass production and compatibility). They don't tend to address the ones that are collectively good for purely social reasons, like the environment, product safety, public health, etc. - especially when any subset acting alone lose the market... That's where government plays a good role!
I wonder if you could draw a parallel to the anti-vax movement. There is a sort of herd immunity if all machines are patched as malware has a harder time replicating and spreading with less compromised machines to do so. But there are people who persistently refuse to patch because of some perception that the patch itself or the patching process is more troublesome than the likelihood they will be part of an infection.
What if you carve the wall *out* of the moon and then crash it onto the US-Mexican border????
That will stop illegal immigration (one way or another...)
Well I'm glad that someone without a vested interest in banking secrecy has some idea about what's going on. If the NSA sees terrorists laundering money or companies violating sanctions they can tip off the relevant authorities.
Wait... what about this recent news has you believing the NSA wants to tip of anyone about anything they discover?
I don't think all the negative press is good for M$ or their Windows brand. People do have alternatives and this does make those alternatives look a bit better than before.
BTW, where is the NSA's trove of Linux and MacOS exploits? How about an NSA trove of Android and iOS exploits? They must have them.
They were pushing hard in Las Vegas last year. Hired a bunch of street promoters to hand out coupons for free rides.
I swear the first time I read that is said "...handing out condoms for free rides"... It must have been the Vegas reference... still, not a bad marketing ploy there.
That whole supply/demand thing isn't a myth?
Unpossible.
I think there is more to consider about this. Supply/Demand is nothing NEW. What is interesting here is a key component of "efficient markets" - that of "perfect information". Companies spend a lot of money on market research - which is essentially an inefficient cost in the market that perfect information would eliminate the need for. Now, you can never truly have perfect information, but you can get efficiency gains.
In this example, the crowd used online petitions to communicate a problem seeking a better market solution. That's the reverse of market research. It isn't "crowd sourcing", which I would argue is still initiated by the company. This is more like "crowd based" or "crowd initiated" (someone will coin a better term I'm sure). So, what I would ask is, generally speaking, will the use of online petitions (directed at specific companies or the market in general) become a new trend that leads to faster development of products and services for which a true demand exists?
It is kinda like having a kickstarter without the fundraising or the idea, just getting people behind the "problem" and establishing a viable market for whatever solution emerges.
The link to the Press Release is current (December 2016) but in the press release is a link to the actual settlement which is dated 2014....
"Operating lifetime was estimated at five to seven years per satellite."
Doesn't that seem like a really sort span of time to have to send something into space? That means in like any given year you could be replacing 20% of your satellites? I guess perhaps with the idea that technology would be advancing so a 30 year old satellite might not really support current technology... Anyway still seems a bit crazy...
And, if he says it will cost $20B that also implies $4B / year in replacement costs... I'm sure he is betting on the tech improving (cheaper and longer lifespan) as they move to scale. On that, he's probably right.
They'll lose 2 a day. A Falcon Heavy lifter can take 100 at a time, so one replacement flight ever 50 days or so.
100 at a time? Each is the size of a MINI Cooper car... Do they fold up smaller for launch?
The question about jobs misses the more important point: all of this is nonsense. For instance, in the summary they say:
Job selection on the basis of certain desirable genetic characteristics is already common in the military and sports.
No, it's not. Job selection based on presented traits is common in the military and sports (e.g. small jockeys, tall basketball players, etc.), not based on genetic characteristics. Sure, there are genetics behind those traits, but no one is using them directly to make decisions.
Here is an idea... find a kid that tests genetically well for the traits you are seeking, let's say height and other physical traits for basketball as our example... Maybe in China. :) Now, don't use those to *hire* the person. Instead, have their parents sign an exclusivity contract or a real option - i.e. they WON'T go to work for any other team/entity or the contracting entity has an option to exercise. Some monetary payment is made for the option or an ongoing payment of some level. The contract and related future obligations becomes void if some tragedy occurs that ruins the future physical desirability (hit by a car and injured, for example).
Now, you haven't used genetic information in a hiring decision, merely as the basis for a real future option and/or exclusivity.
There, no laws broken. :)
The bigger problem with this article though is that it really doesn't belong here. This is not a technology issue, or even a science issue. This is an economics issue, and a monetary issue. The jobs aren't going away because people here are being replaced by better technology, the jobs are going away here because people are being replaced by workers in other countries who can work for less.
Except that MIT and President Obama would both disagree with you... https://www.wired.com/2016/10/...
UBI is supposed to be for everyone, not just those who are not working. Thus people who work still make more (far more) than people who subsist on UBI alone. The incentive to work is definitely still there.
Are we far enough along with Brexit that this action doesn't reflect on the EU?
That was a cute joke, but Clintons have certainly beaten Trump to it. Unless you think, Bill and Hillary Clinton receiving hundreds of thousand of dollars per speech can be explained by anything other than his past presidency and, more importantly, the "inevitability" of her future one.
Having left the White house "dead broke" by their own admission, the couple are now worth tens of millions of dollars. What exactly have they sold in 15 years, that is that valuable?
That original quote is totally misunderstood... Trump said the first candidate to "run" and make money on it. I.e. - make money on RUNNING, not having anything to do with winning. Remember that once donors and the party started picking up the tabs he jacked up the rates on the offices and rooms in his own properties they were using? And now he plans to launch a TV network, etc? He doesn't need to win. He is saying he will be the first one to run, lose, cost the Republican party their shot at succeeding after Obama AND make off like a bandit anyway.
I'm amazed more people don't see through it all.
You said that if he had said "boss" you would have agreed with me but because he said "star" you saw it differently, per the above quote?
I don't care what role he has, had, will have or what role any other guy has, had or will have. Presuming women will accept sexual contact without prior approval and also acting on that presumption is simply wrong. At best, the guy is "correct in his assumption", which still doesn't excuse the action or the "climate" such actions promote.
OK, so you agree that, as a star, its ok for him to grab women by the pussy without asking?
I grabbed one from your list, because 1969 sounded odd... Here's the first thing I found: http://www.snopes.com/bill-cli...
So I grabbed the first one and found this NPR background: http://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/...
Confusing, at best. She has both claimed it did happen and specifically claimed it did not happen. If it did happen as the accusation suggests, that is terrible. However, with the amount of $$ being thrown around to falsify stuff about the Clintons for 30 years, we really need evidence.
You know, a tape of Clinton bragging about how he can assault women unsolicited and get away with it would be great. Oh wait, we only have that from Trump.
Regardless, it is also worth re-iterating that Bill isn't the opposing candidate here. The biggest claims against Hillary (again, mostly unproven) are that she was antagonistic toward the accusers of her husband and that she stood by him throughout all these incidents. Should she have divorced Bill? Probably, in my opinion. But for many people divorce isn't even an option, especially in religious circles.
Again, what we are talking about here and now is a candidate who wants to be President who has been on tape saying he could sexually assault women and get away with it AND then defending that on TV saying "its just locker room talk" and "you hear it all the time". That just compounds a misunderstanding or mistake about sexual assault with a complete endorsement that its a normal part of society and everyone should just be ok with it.