Brexit happened because the UK has post-factual politics, and it's looking like the US is the same.
There's a lot of butthurt over Brexit and it hasn't even happened yet!
The internet and social media were supposed to improve democracy, but they seem to have reduced it to the level of memes and feelings counting more than facts and ability.
You're a legged rover. One of the profound lessons of space development has been the incredibly stunted expectations of so many of its participants. Humans are the legged rover who can move a hundred times faster than anything on Mars today; who can overcome most obstacles; and who would do in weeks what it's taken current technology many decades to do. But they have a high upfront cost, requiring considerable infrastructure. That means you have to actually care enough about the deliverables like science, exploration, etc in order to pay that ante.
If you just want the appearance of doing something on Mars for many generations to come, unmanned is clearly cheaper.
Are you willing to change your lifestyle to make a difference? It doesn't cost you anything. It will likely even save you a few bucks (and be better for your overall health).
And the con continues. When Germany and Denmark did that, they doubled the cost of electricity. When the US did that, the cost of food increased worldwide. And the developed world has built a massive number of dead end renewable energy projects.
So to answer your question. No. I'm not buying the shit you're shoveling.
A manned mission won't provide much more details, rover missions would be enough for that purpose as well as orbiting satellites loaded with scientific instruments. That's how we acquire knowledge these days. Sad to say the direct human observation is no longer providing sufficient details and accuracy to be really useful.
Plus, we'll all be alive a few thousand years later when we've learned all there is to learn from Mars. No need to hurry or anything.
And again, what is so costly about rides for Uber?
Let's note that we've moved on from asking what service Uber provides to how much it costs. And to answer that new question, they pay for drivers and infrastructure.
...and? I don't care about that other AC. You said Uber will "lose a lot of money". I'm asking YOU why you think that.
That happens whenever you pay more to run a service than you get (which let us note is Uber's normal state of affairs already, they aren't pulling a profit yet). Note that the AC advocated that Uber pay its drivers a lot more while keeping the price to riders the same. Of course, that's going to result in a massive and fast money drain just like other cases where that has happened.
No, that's an argument that maybe Uber should raise baseline prices. If they're going to "lose a lot of money" every time a demand spike happens, it sounds like they aren't making enough during normal times to prepare for a rainy day.
Nonsense. Your comments indicate you aren't thinking. Surge pricing means that is no longer a rainy day for Uber.
I have to roll my eyes at some of the exaggerations here. She's sloppy enough to get caught in multiple felonies involving national security and repeatedly caught changing her story every time a revelation comes out yet somehow "the canniest, most effective schemer ever"? That's not the phrase I'd use to describe Clinton.
You are one of the typical ones who thinks that we Humans have a huge impact on the planet with CFCs and CO2. My god, you biased hands-over-the-ears people know and repeat the phrase "Energy is neither created nor destroyed..." and AT THE SAME TIME think that the world would be oh, so different without Humans. Uh, yeah. It would be. Built up energy would release itself in different ways and create different gasses and matter, and would consume that matter differently, releasing different gasses and capturing different energy.
We have yet to observe energy being created or destroyed. And the effect of humanity on the world is easy to observe with land usage, disruption of ecosystems, global scale redistribution of resources and organisms, and of course, even the chemistry of the atmosphere easy to observe. So yes, that phrase is correct.
If we stop all gas emissions, the planet sure would be different. It would get hotter during the days and colder at night. But that's completely different than global warming, right? THINK. It's so embarrassing to have people like you listening to whatever is shoved into your ears and eyes without THINKING about it.
Again, you're not considering the effects of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Gases and particulate matter which reduce heating of the Earth are not the only components of human air pollution.
Yup. Confirmed you're a biased yuppie. I'll have to keep this one in my joke book for future conversations. "That idiot on Slashdot that argues that volcanic pockets are a completely different than surges of magma."
And you should too. Words mean things and we now have a better understanding of volcanic activity than we used to. "Pocket" implies among other things something small and locl. Most volcanic activity is not small even on the scale of the planet and tied to deeper activity in the planet as well as large scale movement of the crust.
I work for a concessionaire who specializes in operating recreational facilities built by someone else, usually governments. So yes, it happens all the time.
Seriously, the ONLY way to solve this, is for us to stop allowing ANY garbage to be exported.
No, we can instead choose not to have mandatory recycling programs for stuff that isn't worth recycling. And continue to export our trash to regions of the world that want it.
The key issue here is that there isn't actually a problem that needs solving any more than it already is solved.
Most importantly, it will help bring back manufacturing since we will then have resources that need to be used, and can not be exported.
That's a fantasy. The economic reasons why it's not recycled now will still hold.
Here, there's inadequate protection of the ambassador and his staff before the attacks, a feeble response to the attacks while they were ongoing, and the reprehensible lies after the attack laying blame for the attacks on a YouTube video.
Well, if other politicians have committed crimes then by all means let's throw those people in jail. But if you're using this as an excuse to protect your pet politician, and let's face it, that's the current outcome no matter what point you think you're making, then you're just another thug using accusations of "hypocrisy" to protect crimes which are far worse than hypocrisy.
Damn right. The Obama administration is so dead-set on protecting Clinton that they went back in time to the dawn of the entire common law system to invent some nonsense about criminal wrongdoing being matters of intent and harm.
I get you're valiantly trying to be sarcastic here, but yes, that is part of the problem. Gross negligence in handling of US classified information is a felony which doesn't require intent.
I expect goobers on Twitter and Facebook to throw around the term "gross negligence", but I expect better on Slashdot. Really, arguing for gross negligence in infosec is virtually unwinnable, since it's an absolute. When ACME car company knows their airbags catch on fire but don't do a recall, resulting in deaths, then their complete and knowing lack of action caused harm that they are liable for.
Yet another "You can't prove it" excuse from the Clinton apologists. And "absolute"? Unlike gross negligence, murder is genuinely absolute yet despite that people do it all the time and routinely get caught too.
When a handful of emails are incidentally sent to a secured and private system, despite obvious and consistent intent to avoid them ending up there, you have established neither complete negligence nor the harm that negligence is intended to address.
Not even remotely the scenario here. First, it's the lion's share of Clinton's email. Second, there was no attempt to avoid having classified information on this server, including classified information that Clinton did not have the authority to declassify. Nothing was ever done nor appropriate parties informed about the presence of classified documents on a server not authorized to have them. Third, security on her email server was very amateur. We have in this story posts on Reddit asking what to do about server issues. We have people who thought turning the server off was an appropriate response to an intrusion attempt.
Aside from the Obama administration who has an interest in protecting Clinton. And it's just national security felonies. No big deal.
Meanwhile Bush Jr deleted 22 million emails.
Because that's all the same once you ignore the differences such as Clinton's grossly negligent mishandling of classified information or intentional bypassing of State Department IT. And that Bush didn't do it, but rather the Republican National Committee.
I'm tired of people blowing off Clinton's long train of scandals and crimes with the same old rationalizations: "you can't prove it" and "Bush/some other Republican did it too".
Uber could cut into its 'billions of profit' and take a small hit by increasing pay to drivers while not passing the costs to customers. Instead they pass the full surge costs to customers and rake in even more profit because of it.
What is the problem supposed to be here? If Uber doesn't raise rates for the customers massively overconsuming their product, then they'll lose a lot of money. And really what's supposed to be the big deal about a factor of two increase in rates? It's not that much.
A market failure is when there exists another conceivable outcome where an individual may be made better-off without making someone else worse-off.
This is particularly true when one considers the conceivable outcomes of non-market approaches. Non-market approaches have the same failure modes, but they tend to have them worse.
Depends how they're profiteering on the war. If they're selling arms to both sides, then it's reallocating resources away from thugs.
When there has been an act of terrorism or war that is NOT the time to increase prices to maximize profit.
Typical caveman thinking. It may not be time to maximize profit, but it is time to raise prices so that the service is there when someone needs it. Uber's surge pricing creates more supply. There's a fair number of drivers who will only go for surge pricing.
What happen here was a market failure which is economic self interest resulting in outcomes that are actually negative to society. Uber was maximizing profit and there are times when that is unacceptable behavior.
What market failure? That's how markets are supposed to work. It's only the idiots who are fine with withholding critical services in desperate times so that some business isn't making a profit.
You have to decide what's your priorities are: making sure Uber doesn't make a profit or making sure that people who desperately want a ride can get one. I think the latter is the correct priority.
There are literally thousands of free tutorials to learn programming on the web. Heck, you don't even have to install the compiler, just use the web-hosted editor and compiler. Either way, both tools and tutorials are free.
OTOH, there are certain places where kids are required to be which can teach that stuff as well.
In spite of all that, only a few people are interested in learning programming. So people like you want to force other people to learn programming by making it a requirement of school curriculum. Can we say, hidden agenda?
There are also a few people interested in literacy or numeracy too. I don't mind forcing kids to learn stuff that they need.
Slashdot Mirror
Brexit happened because the UK has post-factual politics, and it's looking like the US is the same.
There's a lot of butthurt over Brexit and it hasn't even happened yet!
The internet and social media were supposed to improve democracy, but they seem to have reduced it to the level of memes and feelings counting more than facts and ability.
But don't let that slow you down.
Or a lazy person who hasn't read the article. Yes, I hear we do get those.
You're a legged rover. One of the profound lessons of space development has been the incredibly stunted expectations of so many of its participants. Humans are the legged rover who can move a hundred times faster than anything on Mars today; who can overcome most obstacles; and who would do in weeks what it's taken current technology many decades to do. But they have a high upfront cost, requiring considerable infrastructure. That means you have to actually care enough about the deliverables like science, exploration, etc in order to pay that ante.
If you just want the appearance of doing something on Mars for many generations to come, unmanned is clearly cheaper.
Are you willing to change your lifestyle to make a difference? It doesn't cost you anything. It will likely even save you a few bucks (and be better for your overall health).
And the con continues. When Germany and Denmark did that, they doubled the cost of electricity. When the US did that, the cost of food increased worldwide. And the developed world has built a massive number of dead end renewable energy projects.
So to answer your question. No. I'm not buying the shit you're shoveling.
A manned mission won't provide much more details, rover missions would be enough for that purpose as well as orbiting satellites loaded with scientific instruments. That's how we acquire knowledge these days. Sad to say the direct human observation is no longer providing sufficient details and accuracy to be really useful.
Plus, we'll all be alive a few thousand years later when we've learned all there is to learn from Mars. No need to hurry or anything.
By reducing the quality of service of paying customers.
Yes, an online game is totally the best forum for interacting with someone and discussing their politics.
It's better than Slashdot.
My poli-sci teacher said in those 5 years, we spent enough money on the war to fund all healthcare and college for all of the USA for 10 years.
Or in the tradition of US entitlement spending, make healthcare and college very expensive for 10 years.
Rides. Let's look at the earlier post:
And again, what is so costly about rides for Uber?
Let's note that we've moved on from asking what service Uber provides to how much it costs. And to answer that new question, they pay for drivers and infrastructure.
...and? I don't care about that other AC. You said Uber will "lose a lot of money". I'm asking YOU why you think that.
That happens whenever you pay more to run a service than you get (which let us note is Uber's normal state of affairs already, they aren't pulling a profit yet). Note that the AC advocated that Uber pay its drivers a lot more while keeping the price to riders the same. Of course, that's going to result in a massive and fast money drain just like other cases where that has happened.
No, that's an argument that maybe Uber should raise baseline prices. If they're going to "lose a lot of money" every time a demand spike happens, it sounds like they aren't making enough during normal times to prepare for a rainy day.
Nonsense. Your comments indicate you aren't thinking. Surge pricing means that is no longer a rainy day for Uber.
I have to roll my eyes at some of the exaggerations here. She's sloppy enough to get caught in multiple felonies involving national security and repeatedly caught changing her story every time a revelation comes out yet somehow "the canniest, most effective schemer ever"? That's not the phrase I'd use to describe Clinton.
You are one of the typical ones who thinks that we Humans have a huge impact on the planet with CFCs and CO2. My god, you biased hands-over-the-ears people know and repeat the phrase "Energy is neither created nor destroyed..." and AT THE SAME TIME think that the world would be oh, so different without Humans. Uh, yeah. It would be. Built up energy would release itself in different ways and create different gasses and matter, and would consume that matter differently, releasing different gasses and capturing different energy.
We have yet to observe energy being created or destroyed. And the effect of humanity on the world is easy to observe with land usage, disruption of ecosystems, global scale redistribution of resources and organisms, and of course, even the chemistry of the atmosphere easy to observe. So yes, that phrase is correct.
If we stop all gas emissions, the planet sure would be different. It would get hotter during the days and colder at night. But that's completely different than global warming, right? THINK. It's so embarrassing to have people like you listening to whatever is shoved into your ears and eyes without THINKING about it.
Again, you're not considering the effects of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Gases and particulate matter which reduce heating of the Earth are not the only components of human air pollution.
Yup. Confirmed you're a biased yuppie. I'll have to keep this one in my joke book for future conversations. "That idiot on Slashdot that argues that volcanic pockets are a completely different than surges of magma."
And you should too. Words mean things and we now have a better understanding of volcanic activity than we used to. "Pocket" implies among other things something small and locl. Most volcanic activity is not small even on the scale of the planet and tied to deeper activity in the planet as well as large scale movement of the crust.
I work for a concessionaire who specializes in operating recreational facilities built by someone else, usually governments. So yes, it happens all the time.
Seriously, the ONLY way to solve this, is for us to stop allowing ANY garbage to be exported.
No, we can instead choose not to have mandatory recycling programs for stuff that isn't worth recycling. And continue to export our trash to regions of the world that want it.
The key issue here is that there isn't actually a problem that needs solving any more than it already is solved.
Most importantly, it will help bring back manufacturing since we will then have resources that need to be used, and can not be exported.
That's a fantasy. The economic reasons why it's not recycled now will still hold.
Here, there's inadequate protection of the ambassador and his staff before the attacks, a feeble response to the attacks while they were ongoing, and the reprehensible lies after the attack laying blame for the attacks on a YouTube video.
Well, if other politicians have committed crimes then by all means let's throw those people in jail. But if you're using this as an excuse to protect your pet politician, and let's face it, that's the current outcome no matter what point you think you're making, then you're just another thug using accusations of "hypocrisy" to protect crimes which are far worse than hypocrisy.
What product is being overconsumed here that's costing Uber a lot of money?
Rides. Let's look at the earlier post:
Uber could cut into its 'billions of profit' and take a small hit by increasing pay to drivers while not passing the costs to customers.
Just because some ignorant AC asserts that a major cost is a "small hit" doesn't make it so.
Even if you're providing something people want, if you can't make a profit, your business model is going to fail.
Exactly the argument for surge pricing.
Damn right. The Obama administration is so dead-set on protecting Clinton that they went back in time to the dawn of the entire common law system to invent some nonsense about criminal wrongdoing being matters of intent and harm.
I get you're valiantly trying to be sarcastic here, but yes, that is part of the problem. Gross negligence in handling of US classified information is a felony which doesn't require intent.
I expect goobers on Twitter and Facebook to throw around the term "gross negligence", but I expect better on Slashdot. Really, arguing for gross negligence in infosec is virtually unwinnable, since it's an absolute. When ACME car company knows their airbags catch on fire but don't do a recall, resulting in deaths, then their complete and knowing lack of action caused harm that they are liable for.
Yet another "You can't prove it" excuse from the Clinton apologists. And "absolute"? Unlike gross negligence, murder is genuinely absolute yet despite that people do it all the time and routinely get caught too.
When a handful of emails are incidentally sent to a secured and private system, despite obvious and consistent intent to avoid them ending up there, you have established neither complete negligence nor the harm that negligence is intended to address.
Not even remotely the scenario here. First, it's the lion's share of Clinton's email. Second, there was no attempt to avoid having classified information on this server, including classified information that Clinton did not have the authority to declassify. Nothing was ever done nor appropriate parties informed about the presence of classified documents on a server not authorized to have them. Third, security on her email server was very amateur. We have in this story posts on Reddit asking what to do about server issues. We have people who thought turning the server off was an appropriate response to an intrusion attempt.
There's plenty more where that came from.
So far nobody's got any real dirt on Clinton.
Aside from the Obama administration who has an interest in protecting Clinton. And it's just national security felonies. No big deal.
Meanwhile Bush Jr deleted 22 million emails.
Because that's all the same once you ignore the differences such as Clinton's grossly negligent mishandling of classified information or intentional bypassing of State Department IT. And that Bush didn't do it, but rather the Republican National Committee.
I'm tired of people blowing off Clinton's long train of scandals and crimes with the same old rationalizations: "you can't prove it" and "Bush/some other Republican did it too".
Funny that my current attitude concerning Clinton comes from the death of another SA goon.
Uber could cut into its 'billions of profit' and take a small hit by increasing pay to drivers while not passing the costs to customers. Instead they pass the full surge costs to customers and rake in even more profit because of it.
What is the problem supposed to be here? If Uber doesn't raise rates for the customers massively overconsuming their product, then they'll lose a lot of money. And really what's supposed to be the big deal about a factor of two increase in rates? It's not that much.
A market failure is when there exists another conceivable outcome where an individual may be made better-off without making someone else worse-off.
This is particularly true when one considers the conceivable outcomes of non-market approaches. Non-market approaches have the same failure modes, but they tend to have them worse.
That's the argument that war profiteers make.
Depends how they're profiteering on the war. If they're selling arms to both sides, then it's reallocating resources away from thugs.
When there has been an act of terrorism or war that is NOT the time to increase prices to maximize profit.
Typical caveman thinking. It may not be time to maximize profit, but it is time to raise prices so that the service is there when someone needs it. Uber's surge pricing creates more supply. There's a fair number of drivers who will only go for surge pricing.
What happen here was a market failure which is economic self interest resulting in outcomes that are actually negative to society. Uber was maximizing profit and there are times when that is unacceptable behavior.
What market failure? That's how markets are supposed to work. It's only the idiots who are fine with withholding critical services in desperate times so that some business isn't making a profit.
You have to decide what's your priorities are: making sure Uber doesn't make a profit or making sure that people who desperately want a ride can get one. I think the latter is the correct priority.
There are literally thousands of free tutorials to learn programming on the web. Heck, you don't even have to install the compiler, just use the web-hosted editor and compiler. Either way, both tools and tutorials are free.
OTOH, there are certain places where kids are required to be which can teach that stuff as well.
In spite of all that, only a few people are interested in learning programming. So people like you want to force other people to learn programming by making it a requirement of school curriculum. Can we say, hidden agenda?
There are also a few people interested in literacy or numeracy too. I don't mind forcing kids to learn stuff that they need.
If you're in the developing world, that could be 10-50 person-years of wages, depending on location.
Does the Timex-Sinclair 1000 that I have sitting in one of my "stuff boxes" count as most secure computer?
As long as you never power it on, you should be safe.