The Democrats can't do anything about this as both the senate and the house are Republican controlled. It's not until Thursday when a new congress is sworn in that Democrats take control of the house. The last 2 weeks Trump has been blaming Democrats for not funding the wall when it fact it's been the Republicans.
I find it a little suspicious that an account with a 7 digit UID that has never posted a comment before suddenly posts 3 comments in this story. Sorry, but it makes you come across as a shill. If you're a legit new user try spreading your comments around particularly in less politically active discussions.
Except it isn't clear that this isn't the answer. That's why this was a pilot project in the first place. Ontario should just spend the money (which is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall budget) and prove whether this works or not. If it fails then move on and try something else.
... Unless of course you don't care if UBI works or not you just oppose it on philosophical grounds. Then the best thing to do is cancel the pilot.
Operations in multiple states is an easy one, but there are regulatory barriers in many industries that require a firewall between groups which are difficult to achieve without separate corporate structures. It can also make it hard to spin off or acquire another line of business.
One could argue that limiting the size and scope of how big and individual entity can get would be a good thing though.
This sounds more like a problem with this technique in general. There should never be any confusion about whether something needs to be done. Especially when doing it twice will lead to a catastrophic failure. With car tires you can measure the current pressure and there is a label on the tire indicating the maximum pressure. Is there nothing similar for post tensioning?
A wise old business man once told me that companies are like people. They're born with lots of energy then go through growing pains as they mature, but they all eventually grow old, become set in their ways, get hardening of the arteries and pass away.
How the "your" got inserted is a slight mystery but it's possible that either people are typing it that way or google is somehow inserting the your for some reason.
I think Google was truncating longer search terms into a common root suggestion:
how to have sex with your kids in the house
how to have sex with your kids at home
how to have sex with your kids asleep
etc.
I've seen it before for long queries where suggest doesn't seem to come up with a complete query that anyone would use. Although in this particular case they picked the worst possible place to truncate it. Maybe because they're actually were a couple of searches for "how to have sex with your kids" and then all the non-pedophile versions just added to it's popularity.
It's fairly common for rural people where their house can not be seen from the road to not lock their doors. The logic being that if someone drives up to your house with the intention to rob it having a locked door just means you'll get robbed AND have to fix your door. In the suburbs it makes more sense to lock your door as a neighbour might notice someone carrying a crowbar up to your front door.
Personally I live in the suburbs and lock my door even when I'm home. There have been a couple of cases over the years where local teens will wonder the neighbourhood quietly opening doors and then stealing wallets and car keys near the door. My neighbour left his back door unlocked when he went on holidays once and kids stole the beer out of his fridge. Locking your doors will eliminate these crimes by the local kids but a locked door won't deter a professional thief.
I'm not sure if anyone has tried it but perhaps a good compromise between open and closed source would be:
1) Publicly available source code - so that customers have the option to fix bugs or apply patches made by the community
2) Proprietary license - customers pay an annual fee and in exchange get all bug fixes and new releases
3) Short Copyright - after 6-24 months the software reverts to a BSD style license. The term is meant to be just long enough that customers want to pay you for a more up to date version. However, it's short enough that you aren't locking customers in.
4) Free for personal/non-profit use - This is optional but it might make sense to only charge businesses since they have deeper pockets and are less likely to pirate the software
The idea is to try and strike a balance between making people pay you to write code, collecting code submissions for the community, putting together builds, etc. yet still have the code return to the public domain so that people are free to fork it and start an open source project or competitive business.
CBC recently had a story on the 5 Canadian diplomats and families affected. They also speculated that since Canada has better relations with Cuba it's unlikely the Cuban government is behind this. The story also mentions that since Russia has a large diplomatic presence in Cuba, has been known to harass foreign diplomats and also has the know how to possibly develop this kind of high tech weapon that they are a possible suspect.
What I find the most ironic is the videophone. Everyone in the 20th century just assumed that we'd have AND use videophones. Little did they know that people in the 21st century would have videophones but would use them to send old style telegrams. The camera on your videophone would just be used to take pictures and home movies.
The issue I've run into (Canadian as well) is the new rating system. Netflix has always had a large catalogue of stuff I've never heard of but the old rating system let me quickly weed though it and find the good stuff. The new rating system seems to match almost all Netflix original content in the high nineties even the stuff no one including myself likes. The other stuff seems to have a bit of a random number assigned to it which doesn't correlate well to how I'll end up rating it. I find that I now have to google each of the shows to get the IMDB/Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic rating before watching it. But with this extra hassle and uncertainty I often just do something else instead.
What I am most curious about is who is part of that consortium.
According to this it's Bank of America Merrill Lynch and BMO Capital Markets. It's telling how little the commpany is being sold for. The company is basically being sold for the value of it's current assets ($2.6 billion in cash reserves, patent portfolio, software, etc.). Seems like the buyer has no intention to turn the company around and get profits out in the future.
Another factor to take into consideration is the scope of a potential disaster. If Indian Point was to melt down and create an exclusion zone a little smaller than Chernobyl it would mean the evacuation of 8 million people in New York and closure of one of the World's biggest financial centers. Now the odds are incredibly small that this could happen but it's worth weighing this vs going with coal which causes a larger constant amount of damage every year. Assuming of course you must pick between nuclear and coal.
There was no mention of future employment on the Bounty for departing crew, the third mate testified, nor did the captain offer to pay expenses home.
So the crew would probably have lost a job they love.
They trusted the skipper almost without question.
Further more they had no reason to doubt that the captain was doing anything too reckless when they made the decision to stay. However, halfway into the voyage
Around 9:30 a.m. on Saturday, October 27, about 300 miles east of Virginia Beach, Virginia, the captain made his move: Instead of continuing with his original plan to stay east of the storm, he ordered the crew to change course. He wanted to pilot the ship northwest of Sandy to harness its winds. Turning more westerly, the boat crossed the path of the oncoming hurricane.
I think a lot of labour laws get passed because of incidents like this. People on the job don't speak up because they fear loosing their job and what their being asked to do doesn't seem (at the time) all that risky and they also trust their boss who has way more experience. However, if you pass a law saying that workers must wear a safety harness, must follow air traffic controllers orders or can not sail into the path of a hurricane then it seems to jar people to their senses. Bosses are reluctant to order employees to do something illegal and employees are reluctant to follow an illegal order.
In a perfect world we'd just have a set of guidelines to follow. However, in reality it seems that people ignore guidelines and a law is the only way to get them to realize that something is a really stupid idea.
Just because a bunch of people who took a risk died doesn't mean we need to make laws to stop it in the future.
Except in this case it was the captain who took the risk doing minimal maintenance on the ship and trying to "use" the hurricane winds rather then going east around the storm. It's not like the captain held a meeting, explained the situation and took a vote before changing course.
This reminds me of the B-25 that crashed into the Empire State Building killing the pilot and 13 other people. The pilot was advised by the airport of zero visibility but chose to try and land anyway. If I remember right a law was passed after this accident saying that a pilot could no longer choose to ignore an air traffic controller.
I would add that a futher compounding factor is that nuclear power is too expensive. Originally the promise when it was first being developed was power too cheap to be metered. You would just pay a flat monthly fee. If nuclear had turned out to be significantly cheaper than all other power sources than it would be much easier to regulate additional expensive safety features, inspections, etc.
Nuclear is scarier in the same way that people are more afraid of airplane crashes then car crashes. It's the big spectacular events that scare us the most, even if they are extremely rare. Nuclear also has a real public relations problem. You can't tour a plant. You might even get detained by police for taking a picture of one.
The whole issue of what to do with the waste hasn't been worked out (sure it's mostly politics but the fact is it hasn't been taken care of). The average person doesn't have a Geiger counter so it's impossible to know if they are leaking radiation or not. It also doesn't help that in most countries environmental regulation is handled by one department and nuclear power is handled by a separate often very secretive branch. If nuke plants held once a month community tours with free BBQ hamburgers and let people buy a subsidized Geiger counter on their way out through the gift shop things might be different.
Since fission nuclear power, if done for safely and accounted for properly, is insanely expensive to begin with
The funny thing is that when nuclear power was first being developed in the 1950s there was talk of unmetered billing. The electricity from nuclear would be so cheap that you would just be charged a flat rate each month.
Slightly off topic. We've all heard how as soon as fusion is developed it will solve all our energy problems but is it going to be any better? I've heard the design of a fusion reactor will be very similar to a fission reactor. There will be a nuclear core that generates heat and drives steam turbines. A cement containment building to contain any leaks or explosions. The core will be radioactive so you need specially trained workers and procedures. From a cost/operating standpoint it sounds a lot like a fission plant.
I should mention there are a few big pluses to fusion though.
The containment vessel becomes much more radioactive then fission waste. However it will only take about 200 years to decay to safe levels making finding a safe disposal site easier
An radiation that escapes from the plant should decay to background levels by the time it reaches the fence around the perimeter of the plant
Uranium fuel currently accounts for about 30% of the cost of running a fission plant. So there is that savings. Although until a fusion plant is actually built we won't know if there are any additional costs that fission didn't have
At the moment it seems interstellar travel will require humans to live onboard a space ship for a very very long time. A good baby step might be to develop manufacturing technology that can create almost any part needed as well as recycle old parts. This technology could also be very useful on space stations as well as remote locations on earth.
A wise old businessman once told me how companies are like people. They are born with lots of energy and enthusiasm, go through growing pains and assuming they live long enough hit the prime of their life. Then, like people companies eventually grow old and get hardening of the arteries before finally dying.
Abolishing imaginary property is exactly what we should be doing.
They're not advocating abolishing IP. They propose getting rid of Patents and Copyright and replacing it with private contracts between a buyer and seller. With added laws to enforce fair use saying things like a seller can't stop a buyer from loaning or renting.
One interesting quote in the book
If we did not have a patent system, it would be
irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge of its
economic consequences, to recommend instituting one. But
since we have had a patent system for a long time, it would
be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge, to
recommend abolishing it.
So whatever we do we should do it slowly and monitor the impact it is having.
Slashdot Mirror
The Democrats can't do anything about this as both the senate and the house are Republican controlled. It's not until Thursday when a new congress is sworn in that Democrats take control of the house. The last 2 weeks Trump has been blaming Democrats for not funding the wall when it fact it's been the Republicans.
Looks like 5 Francs is actually $0.0089 USD. This works out to $9.11 per gigabyte. Ouch! Better stay away from any video streaming.
I find it a little suspicious that an account with a 7 digit UID that has never posted a comment before suddenly posts 3 comments in this story. Sorry, but it makes you come across as a shill. If you're a legit new user try spreading your comments around particularly in less politically active discussions.
"clearly not the answer for Ontario families."
Except it isn't clear that this isn't the answer. That's why this was a pilot project in the first place. Ontario should just spend the money (which is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall budget) and prove whether this works or not. If it fails then move on and try something else.
... Unless of course you don't care if UBI works or not you just oppose it on philosophical grounds. Then the best thing to do is cancel the pilot.
Operations in multiple states is an easy one, but there are regulatory barriers in many industries that require a firewall between groups which are difficult to achieve without separate corporate structures. It can also make it hard to spin off or acquire another line of business.
One could argue that limiting the size and scope of how big and individual entity can get would be a good thing though.
This sounds more like a problem with this technique in general. There should never be any confusion about whether something needs to be done. Especially when doing it twice will lead to a catastrophic failure. With car tires you can measure the current pressure and there is a label on the tire indicating the maximum pressure. Is there nothing similar for post tensioning?
Pretty good, up until the end, but companies simply never die even when they obviously should.
Granted there are far to many companies living in nursing homes that nobody bothers to visit anymore.
A wise old business man once told me that companies are like people. They're born with lots of energy then go through growing pains as they mature, but they all eventually grow old, become set in their ways, get hardening of the arteries and pass away.
How the "your" got inserted is a slight mystery but it's possible that either people are typing it that way or google is somehow inserting the your for some reason.
I think Google was truncating longer search terms into a common root suggestion:
I've seen it before for long queries where suggest doesn't seem to come up with a complete query that anyone would use. Although in this particular case they picked the worst possible place to truncate it. Maybe because they're actually were a couple of searches for "how to have sex with your kids" and then all the non-pedophile versions just added to it's popularity.
It's fairly common for rural people where their house can not be seen from the road to not lock their doors. The logic being that if someone drives up to your house with the intention to rob it having a locked door just means you'll get robbed AND have to fix your door. In the suburbs it makes more sense to lock your door as a neighbour might notice someone carrying a crowbar up to your front door.
Personally I live in the suburbs and lock my door even when I'm home. There have been a couple of cases over the years where local teens will wonder the neighbourhood quietly opening doors and then stealing wallets and car keys near the door. My neighbour left his back door unlocked when he went on holidays once and kids stole the beer out of his fridge. Locking your doors will eliminate these crimes by the local kids but a locked door won't deter a professional thief.
I'm not sure if anyone has tried it but perhaps a good compromise between open and closed source would be:
1) Publicly available source code - so that customers have the option to fix bugs or apply patches made by the community
2) Proprietary license - customers pay an annual fee and in exchange get all bug fixes and new releases
3) Short Copyright - after 6-24 months the software reverts to a BSD style license. The term is meant to be just long enough that customers want to pay you for a more up to date version. However, it's short enough that you aren't locking customers in.
4) Free for personal/non-profit use - This is optional but it might make sense to only charge businesses since they have deeper pockets and are less likely to pirate the software
The idea is to try and strike a balance between making people pay you to write code, collecting code submissions for the community, putting together builds, etc. yet still have the code return to the public domain so that people are free to fork it and start an open source project or competitive business.
CBC recently had a story on the 5 Canadian diplomats and families affected. They also speculated that since Canada has better relations with Cuba it's unlikely the Cuban government is behind this. The story also mentions that since Russia has a large diplomatic presence in Cuba, has been known to harass foreign diplomats and also has the know how to possibly develop this kind of high tech weapon that they are a possible suspect.
What I find the most ironic is the videophone. Everyone in the 20th century just assumed that we'd have AND use videophones. Little did they know that people in the 21st century would have videophones but would use them to send old style telegrams. The camera on your videophone would just be used to take pictures and home movies.
The issue I've run into (Canadian as well) is the new rating system. Netflix has always had a large catalogue of stuff I've never heard of but the old rating system let me quickly weed though it and find the good stuff. The new rating system seems to match almost all Netflix original content in the high nineties even the stuff no one including myself likes. The other stuff seems to have a bit of a random number assigned to it which doesn't correlate well to how I'll end up rating it. I find that I now have to google each of the shows to get the IMDB/Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic rating before watching it. But with this extra hassle and uncertainty I often just do something else instead.
One of the most frustrating first-world problems... they keep inventing new incompatible connectors for no good reason (at least for the consumer).
What I am most curious about is who is part of that consortium.
According to this it's Bank of America Merrill Lynch and BMO Capital Markets. It's telling how little the commpany is being sold for. The company is basically being sold for the value of it's current assets ($2.6 billion in cash reserves, patent portfolio, software, etc.). Seems like the buyer has no intention to turn the company around and get profits out in the future.
Another factor to take into consideration is the scope of a potential disaster. If Indian Point was to melt down and create an exclusion zone a little smaller than Chernobyl it would mean the evacuation of 8 million people in New York and closure of one of the World's biggest financial centers. Now the odds are incredibly small that this could happen but it's worth weighing this vs going with coal which causes a larger constant amount of damage every year. Assuming of course you must pick between nuclear and coal.
I'm not sure how much of a choice the crew had
There was no mention of future employment on the Bounty for departing crew, the third mate testified, nor did the captain offer to pay expenses home.
So the crew would probably have lost a job they love.
They trusted the skipper almost without question.
Further more they had no reason to doubt that the captain was doing anything too reckless when they made the decision to stay. However, halfway into the voyage
Around 9:30 a.m. on Saturday, October 27, about 300 miles east of Virginia Beach, Virginia, the captain made his move: Instead of continuing with his original plan to stay east of the storm, he ordered the crew to change course. He wanted to pilot the ship northwest of Sandy to harness its winds. Turning more westerly, the boat crossed the path of the oncoming hurricane.
I think a lot of labour laws get passed because of incidents like this. People on the job don't speak up because they fear loosing their job and what their being asked to do doesn't seem (at the time) all that risky and they also trust their boss who has way more experience. However, if you pass a law saying that workers must wear a safety harness, must follow air traffic controllers orders or can not sail into the path of a hurricane then it seems to jar people to their senses. Bosses are reluctant to order employees to do something illegal and employees are reluctant to follow an illegal order.
In a perfect world we'd just have a set of guidelines to follow. However, in reality it seems that people ignore guidelines and a law is the only way to get them to realize that something is a really stupid idea.
Just because a bunch of people who took a risk died doesn't mean we need to make laws to stop it in the future.
Except in this case it was the captain who took the risk doing minimal maintenance on the ship and trying to "use" the hurricane winds rather then going east around the storm. It's not like the captain held a meeting, explained the situation and took a vote before changing course.
This reminds me of the B-25 that crashed into the Empire State Building killing the pilot and 13 other people. The pilot was advised by the airport of zero visibility but chose to try and land anyway. If I remember right a law was passed after this accident saying that a pilot could no longer choose to ignore an air traffic controller.
I would add that a futher compounding factor is that nuclear power is too expensive. Originally the promise when it was first being developed was power too cheap to be metered. You would just pay a flat monthly fee. If nuclear had turned out to be significantly cheaper than all other power sources than it would be much easier to regulate additional expensive safety features, inspections, etc.
Nuclear is scarier in the same way that people are more afraid of airplane crashes then car crashes. It's the big spectacular events that scare us the most, even if they are extremely rare. Nuclear also has a real public relations problem. You can't tour a plant. You might even get detained by police for taking a picture of one. The whole issue of what to do with the waste hasn't been worked out (sure it's mostly politics but the fact is it hasn't been taken care of). The average person doesn't have a Geiger counter so it's impossible to know if they are leaking radiation or not. It also doesn't help that in most countries environmental regulation is handled by one department and nuclear power is handled by a separate often very secretive branch. If nuke plants held once a month community tours with free BBQ hamburgers and let people buy a subsidized Geiger counter on their way out through the gift shop things might be different.
Since fission nuclear power, if done for safely and accounted for properly, is insanely expensive to begin with
The funny thing is that when nuclear power was first being developed in the 1950s there was talk of unmetered billing. The electricity from nuclear would be so cheap that you would just be charged a flat rate each month.
Slightly off topic. We've all heard how as soon as fusion is developed it will solve all our energy problems but is it going to be any better? I've heard the design of a fusion reactor will be very similar to a fission reactor. There will be a nuclear core that generates heat and drives steam turbines. A cement containment building to contain any leaks or explosions. The core will be radioactive so you need specially trained workers and procedures. From a cost/operating standpoint it sounds a lot like a fission plant.
I should mention there are a few big pluses to fusion though.
At the moment it seems interstellar travel will require humans to live onboard a space ship for a very very long time. A good baby step might be to develop manufacturing technology that can create almost any part needed as well as recycle old parts. This technology could also be very useful on space stations as well as remote locations on earth.
A wise old businessman once told me how companies are like people. They are born with lots of energy and enthusiasm, go through growing pains and assuming they live long enough hit the prime of their life. Then, like people companies eventually grow old and get hardening of the arteries before finally dying.
Abolishing imaginary property is exactly what we should be doing.
They're not advocating abolishing IP. They propose getting rid of Patents and Copyright and replacing it with private contracts between a buyer and seller. With added laws to enforce fair use saying things like a seller can't stop a buyer from loaning or renting.
One interesting quote in the book
If we did not have a patent system, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge of its economic consequences, to recommend instituting one. But since we have had a patent system for a long time, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge, to recommend abolishing it.
So whatever we do we should do it slowly and monitor the impact it is having.