I am not sure it works in this case. In the story the king operates under the assumption neither party wishes to see the child destroyed (children were valuable laborers after all), but perhaps one party cares deeply enough for the child their desire for its well being trumps their selfish desire to possess it or wish to spite other party by denying possession.
In these cases we very likely have one party who wishes to see the embryo destroyed. It does not make sense to turn something over to someone who has a stated intent to destroy it, only to prevent a court from doing so.
If a majority decision can't be reached than the status-quo basically gets maintained, the things sits frozen.
Just like if you die intestate and have two children and no spouse. Lets say you owned your house strait out for the sake of simplicity. Essentially both kids will have to reach an agreement on how to to dispose the property.
If they can't it will be pretty easy for either heir to ask the court require the thing simply be maintained, taxes paid etc out of the estates other funds, while a judge decides how to parcel out the estate fairly and what should be done. Same thing would probably happen here.
More interesting questions exist though. Lets say you and wife have some embryo's frozen as part of some assisted fertility process. It does not work, but their are left overs. You later get divorced, presently childless. She decides to try again and the implantation is successful. Can she come back for child support? Are you a dead beat dad if you want nothing to do with it?
But he clearly failed his economics and academic course.
When it becomes known that you can pass your course by simply paying, your degrees become worthless.
There are a fair few countries where we consider an education gained there to be completely worthless because of the corruption in academia. Sounds like the administrator hasn't considered the damage this could do to his school.
There is middle road between overly heavy handed punishments that are handed out somewhat arbitrarily and rolling over completely and failing to protect the integrity of your degree. Like I stated if the professor had been smart he would have documented the worst cheating and retained the evidence, and pursued whatever due process the schools honor system specifies. I am sure if he had he would have found support. The cheaters would have rightly gotten the F's for course or possibly an even more severe action against them like expulsion. The other students would get the message the rules are not a big joke and are violated at their peril.
They can shoot around corners, just like they can have a fully automatic belt feed large caliber gun. Good luck getting one of those for yourself unless its an antique.
If you think this technology is going to be something you or I get head over to the gun show and buy, you can put down your keys, it'll never happen.
So we can be shot around corners but we won't be shooting around them now or ever.
Yes well the Vice President of the university certainly did not fail his management course!
He recognizes that most University students today are someones precious little snowflake. That someone might stop sending checks, students may transfer and worse the best prospective students might choose other institutions where there is not a perception their on-time graduation plans might be derailed by capricious professor.
I am sorry unless you have hard evidence of a major and specific conspiracy that everyone of your students participated in you CANT fail an entire class. The reality is there was probably a few students who are innocent or whose infractions don't justify an automatic failing grade, so its punishing the innocent. The optics of that just are not appropriate for an academic institution.
If the professor was at all smart, he would have identified the worst offenders built a solid case for them and crucified them before an expulsion board to send a message to the rest of the students, and any one taking his class in the coming semesters, that he isn't to be 'fucked with'. He probably would have gotten support for the university and the public for doing so rather than tossed under the bus. Like it or not politics and perceptions matter, you'd think a business professor would know that.
According to Nilsson, women seem to be drawn to engineering projects that attempt to achieve societal good.
I read statements like this a lot. I find it interesting for a few reasons. First there is an implicit assumption that men don't care if our work benefits society or not. How do we know for example that it isn't a case of "people are drawn to... projects that attempt to achieve societal good" and that when you focus engineering on that, you are not really just drawing higher achieving people away from other fields and when you are really get the best and brightest strata of the workforce there simply isn't better gender balance their than in the workforce as a whole?
Secondly the statement seems to assume this desire to be a "social do gooder" is some natural characteristic of women and not that they are socialized to be this way. Maybe the imbalance isn't so much to do with middle school on but much earlier. Perhaps if we stopped giving young girls little dolls to care for and a toy cookware and instead handed them a toy hammer and gun we would see different results.
Thirdly there is an assumption in this statement that one should work to "achieve societal good" rather than for ones own ends as if that is some how noble or good. Why is society seen as a ends, rather than a means by which we can enjoy higher productivity, safety and personal wealth. Sure we all have an obligation not to harm society, and to attempt put back as much as we have taken out so that its their for the next person but when is it "good enough"? When do we tell people hey you only live once meet your obligations and spend the rest of your precious little time enjoying what is yours as much as possible?
The claim that without the game itself there would be nothing to mod seems like a rather large leg.
Yes and no, on the hand the statement is true. On the other hand Bethesda already got paid. If they had said at the outset we are going to use the Gillette model charge a minimal fee to recover our costs developing the game, and let the community produce a sell additional content for which we will take a cut, things might be different.
That isn't what they did though, the charged as much for the game as any other AAA title, and now seek to profit handsomely for efforts they have little to know hand in. There are probably some variable costs associated with 'supporting' the mods. More tech support calls for the core product etc.
Still 45% is a pretty big take and is hard to justify; especially when someone else is operating the market place doing all the risky work of handling the money etc and already taking %30 to do it. If they were asking 15% or something that would feel more like a kind of royalty (which isn't unfair), and I think people would find that much less objectionable.
You are the kind of person that keeps expending effort on the unproductive an ineffective apparently.
Would you say an unemployed person buying scratch offs should be applauded. After all at least they are doing something to try and solve their financial problems.
Yes if they are drinking diet soda as part of some overall plan to regulate their calorie intake, without soda having to be one more thing they give up fine, good for them.
The thing is they most likely are not doing that when you see them drinking diet soda while sitting in front of a single meal that still represent ~75% of their daily recommended calorie intake. They probably just like diet soda (me, don't like the syrupy throat coating feeling of the regular stuff). or have been sold on the idea that they can someone get healthy by just making that one change, which is misguided enough to be harmful.
One of the problems is that realistically, the amount of processed sugar be sucrose or HFCS is 0. So the daily % would be NaN.
While refined sugar isn't necessarily bad for you it servers no real dietary purpose other than bulk calories which you either don't need because you are not working in the fields all day, building stone walls by hand, walking everywhere you go etc... or could obtain just easily from some other source along with other nutrients your body does require.
You really DO need 11 (I think proteins) from dietary sources, the other nine your body can synthesize or perhaps its the other way around. You really do need fats as they are the only way to retain certain other fat soluble nutrients. Obviously we have to have sodium and potassium, lack of them can become catastrophic fairly quickly etc. Lots of these things we find in unhealthy excess in processed foods, but we do need some quantity of them; we have no need for sugar. All the sugar we need can be derived from more complex carbohydrates which physiologically are usually better for us. If health is your only criteria, ie cost and pleasure are not considerations etc, I am not sure you can recommend anyone eat sugar; at most you can say it probably won't hurt you.
I am not one to go chowing down on the cheap fast food but I do like diet soda even with a meal that is otherwise an overly caloric and generally nutritionally questionable mess. I find the consistency regular soda to be unpleasantly syrupy.
So there are some people who really just like diet cola better.
Don't forget though fuel stores. In the event of a natural disaster or something "the grid" can be down for days. A little generator (runs on fuel) to run the pumps can bring fuel up from storage tanks to vehicles means people have motor fuel.
EVs will very likely leave people with whatever they have in the battery so to speak. Now assuming people have home charge stations that might be full rather than half empty for most folks so the situation still might be better in aggregate with batteries, tough to say as it really depends on the size and scope of the calamity.
ICEs are also cheap to build now compared with high capacity batteries AND electric motors to run with them. If the input energy is cheap enough than the costs of the inferior efficiency of producing a chemical fuel to than burn may not matter as much as the capital cost of the vehicle in the first place.
If we started pulling carbon out of the atmosphere to make fuel as fast as we put back burning the motor fleet could become carbon neutral. The energy loss is at least partly recovered too, we add energy to the atmosphere with waste heat, and then remove it with the turbines.
Thanks for the link very interesting, and helpful. I am not sure I fully buy the security argument, mainly because most of the time I don't see the LSMs themselves adding much value; but the points about DOS resistance and keeping the work load in the senders own timeslice being generally desirable makes sense.
moving it to the kernel will help with performance, and potentially security.
Performance likely, because data can actually be shoveled between processes with probably greater concurrency than with a third user land context in the mix.
Security I don't see how, moving it in the kernel is an improvement. You add all the risks associated with being able to step all over systemically important data structures to a "process" that by definition has to communicate with a largish number of less trusted processes. If you limit who/what is allowed to talk to dbus with a firewall like solution you make dbus less useful as an IPC channel.
The kernel team tends to be made up of really well qualified people and have more discipline than other OSS projects so in that sense the code quality might go up, but there are probably better ways to accomplish that than merging a project into the kernel!
The performance considerations might be a justification but I have never really seen DBUS as a high performance IPC channel anyway. Maybe I am just badly misinformed on its planned usecases. I thought it was for deriving simple short messages like "A new input device is a available" not shoveling megabytes of data between processes. We have fifo pipes and UNIX sockets for that, and if latency is an issue there is always shared memory.
If there were video of Hillary physically being handed a stack of cash (right hand), cigar hung loosely from lips while strangling a kitten(left hand) from a Russian CEO over a document that said approval to process uranium; people would still apologize for her and do their best to 'splain it way. If that effort failed they'd invent some other way for her to evade accountability like 'No controlling legal authority' and the press would complicity discontinue talking about it and return focus to what sort of burrito she ordered.
Business is business, I take your point but I think the issue isn't so much insensitivity as being needlessly insulting. I am adult I understand our employee/employer relationship is supposed to be mutual beneficial. Treat me like an adult.
Tell me, "..We have to let you go, its nothing to do with your job performance, its just that your job function is no-longer aligned with our objectives" No I won't be thrilled about it but I'd much rather have an honest statement of the facts than some be euphemism about being re-mixed, right sized what have you.
I also feel that companies should be honest about up coming layoffs when possible, but recognize it isn't always possible. Sometimes they can't risk letting people know until the last moment, and there are good security justifications for getting people out the building in a mass layoff situation. Still I'd say cut the bullshit, screw the Monday "Breakfast invite", just walk out to the bullpen Friday afternoon and let people know what's what.
The problem isn't that there's a way for me to hurt you. The problem is that you're walking down dark alleys alone at night.
Stop doing that.
Why are you going to untrusted web-sites in the first place?
Beware what you have said is dangerously near to the sort of statement that bring the Social Justice Warrior types down on you. Just encase you missed the memo, we are no long allowed to chastise people for engaging in overly risky, and ignorant behavior, its not longer their failing in the form of lack of personal responsibility, but yours and mine in that we are are "victim blaming".
The sensible way would be to do what every Linux distro has been doing for 20 years now. The "APP" includes a manifest of its dependencies. When you install it from the App store (remember Apple does not make side loads easy, unless you are developer in which case you can solve deps issue by having the required packages available) it simply goes an fetches the required libraries at the same time if you don't already have them.
This is a solved problem!
Taking in one tiny step further IOS just needs to scan through all the manifests (or keep a little sqlite db or something) and remove non-core library packages anytime a user deletes the last application which depends on it. Its not 100% easy stuff, but there are plenty of working examples, out there to lift concepts and perhaps even code from.
if by advances you mean 10+ gigabyte WINSxS directories that make the OS suck balls to run visualize / backup unless you have an expensive block level de-dupe system on SAN than yes there have been advances.
But has anyone actually used a feature phone in the last 5 years?
Yes, for at least two reasons and probably others.
First unless you go out of your way searching and get something like a jitter bug or something you can't get a dump phone. Even the most basic flip cheapest/free flip phone AT&T, VZW, TMOBILE etc offer is a J2ME feature phone with some data capability. I can get e-mail via IMAP, and NOAA weather info etc with J2ME apps that are easily installed. There may not be any useful apps pre-installed but that is another matter. Its unlikely outside some very specific corner use cases calling for specialized equipment a non-smart phone user isn't using a feature phone.
Anyone who spends anytime in the wilderness hiking etc, still likes feature phones. They either have days of standby battery time, removable batters so you can prevent parasitic drain so as to be sure that lithium ion cell will be ready if you NEED it. They still tend to weigh less than even the smallest smart phones too; although the gap is shrinking. Finally these phones are cheap should they come to an unfortunate end like you slip fording a stream and everything in your pack gets soaked or you fall and crush the thing, etc no big loss and you don't have to have some insurance plan. Even if nothing bad happens to them they tend to be fairly rugged without the need for more weight in the form of protective cases etc.
I know there are smart devices target at outdoor sports folks, but for me I have yet to find a product that is a clear winner over feature phones.
Hello I am trying to raise $30B to build a pipe line, would you like to contribute? Be advised however if you choose not to contribute and I don't reach my goal I am going to spend the money lobbing instead to get government to force you to contribute via taxation under threat of prison.
By your logic we should only produce anything were all the raw input materials happen to be locally available. If we bought into that theory there are lots of things we simply could not produce.
1) Uber has stated repeatedly that they are not a livery service and shouldn't be subject to the same regulations as real taxies.
Yes they say that so they can avoid stupid protectionist regulation that would otherwise lock them out of the market. The original reasons limiting the number 'real cab service vehicles' was to create tax revenue for big cities; and maybe to reduce the number of motor vehicles on the road. Both horses have left the barn it does not matter.
2) If you cut out the peak earnings from full time cabbies, you decrease their income, which means you end yup with fewer real cabs. Downtown metro areas will be fine, but you are SOL if you live out of the major routes.
I don't see any advantage to 'real cabs'. The they know the roads argument is utter bullshit. Every cab I have been in lately the first thing the guy does it punch the address into a smart phone and let GPS take him there; hint the same thing every uber driver does.
As to out of the major routes bit, I also don't believe this is a problem, for admittedly anecdotal reasons. I have done lots of hiking on the east coast trails, AT, Long Trail, etc. That hobby has found me wanting rides along the side of lots of little rural roads outside lots of small towns. There is ALWAYS a "cab service". Why? Because the need for cabs is relatively low. Typically the folks running the local gas station, convince store, or hardware store fill this role by moon lighting. When someone calls up for a ride (rare) they just close up for a few moments and take care of it. The also know the fair is almost certain to be a good number of miles and is therefor worth their time. Uber is actually PERFECT for this business model.
"price gouging" laws almost always have an emergency component, that is the only thing that makes them remotely Constitutional. They also generally apply only to items considered necessary for survival; ie food, water, gasoline in a quantity you might be using to travel out of a disaster area, etc.
Uber probably could be prevented from using surge pricing or prosecuted for it where they to do it in the middle of hurricane or something. "The local sports team just finished playing" isn't an emergency. So its not illegal at all. I don't know what it is about Slashdot that seems to make people asume anything they don't like must be someone getting away with a crime.
Surge pricing is a good thing!
Drivers are a resource like any other. People have lives etc, and most can't just hit the road because the cost of rides has gone up. Overtime though I am sure that people who want to do Uber as more than just a hobby can and do observe when prices are highest and re-arrange their activities so they can be driving at those times. That is a process that probably happens over months though not, moments. Its just simple supply and demand and its how the market should operate. If you want a ride so bad at the same moment everyone else does you should be willing to pay! If you time is so valuable you can't hang out for a couple hours for the rush to die down, than you ought to pay someone who is trying to earn a living driving for the privilege of immediate transportation. If you are unwilling to pay that driver deserves the change to sell their services to someone who is!
People who complain about it pretty much are crying that they can no longer take advantage of livery drivers not having good information about the market and being able to revalue their services accordingly. They are just use to drivers having no choice but to set a price the market will usually support and missing the opportunity to earn more at peak times. So I say shut the fuck up if you have enough money to pay someone to drive your ass around you have enough money to pay them what it worth at that time. Otherwise wait, walk, take public transit, drive your own vehicle, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not sure it works in this case. In the story the king operates under the assumption neither party wishes to see the child destroyed (children were valuable laborers after all), but perhaps one party cares deeply enough for the child their desire for its well being trumps their selfish desire to possess it or wish to spite other party by denying possession.
In these cases we very likely have one party who wishes to see the embryo destroyed. It does not make sense to turn something over to someone who has a stated intent to destroy it, only to prevent a court from doing so.
If a majority decision can't be reached than the status-quo basically gets maintained, the things sits frozen.
Just like if you die intestate and have two children and no spouse. Lets say you owned your house strait out for the sake of simplicity. Essentially both kids will have to reach an agreement on how to to dispose the property.
If they can't it will be pretty easy for either heir to ask the court require the thing simply be maintained, taxes paid etc out of the estates other funds, while a judge decides how to parcel out the estate fairly and what should be done. Same thing would probably happen here.
More interesting questions exist though. Lets say you and wife have some embryo's frozen as part of some assisted fertility process. It does not work, but their are left overs. You later get divorced, presently childless. She decides to try again and the implantation is successful. Can she come back for child support? Are you a dead beat dad if you want nothing to do with it?
But he clearly failed his economics and academic course.
When it becomes known that you can pass your course by simply paying, your degrees become worthless.
There are a fair few countries where we consider an education gained there to be completely worthless because of the corruption in academia. Sounds like the administrator hasn't considered the damage this could do to his school.
There is middle road between overly heavy handed punishments that are handed out somewhat arbitrarily and rolling over completely and failing to protect the integrity of your degree. Like I stated if the professor had been smart he would have documented the worst cheating and retained the evidence, and pursued whatever due process the schools honor system specifies. I am sure if he had he would have found support. The cheaters would have rightly gotten the F's for course or possibly an even more severe action against them like expulsion. The other students would get the message the rules are not a big joke and are violated at their peril.
They can shoot around corners, just like they can have a fully automatic belt feed large caliber gun. Good luck getting one of those for yourself unless its an antique.
If you think this technology is going to be something you or I get head over to the gun show and buy, you can put down your keys, it'll never happen.
So we can be shot around corners but we won't be shooting around them now or ever.
Yes well the Vice President of the university certainly did not fail his management course!
He recognizes that most University students today are someones precious little snowflake. That someone might stop sending checks, students may transfer and worse the best prospective students might choose other institutions where there is not a perception their on-time graduation plans might be derailed by capricious professor.
I am sorry unless you have hard evidence of a major and specific conspiracy that everyone of your students participated in you CANT fail an entire class. The reality is there was probably a few students who are innocent or whose infractions don't justify an automatic failing grade, so its punishing the innocent. The optics of that just are not appropriate for an academic institution.
If the professor was at all smart, he would have identified the worst offenders built a solid case for them and crucified them before an expulsion board to send a message to the rest of the students, and any one taking his class in the coming semesters, that he isn't to be 'fucked with'. He probably would have gotten support for the university and the public for doing so rather than tossed under the bus. Like it or not politics and perceptions matter, you'd think a business professor would know that.
http://buism.com/neurons.htm
There googled that for you. IANANS but I remember enough keywords for a college 101 class to find this pretty easily.
According to Nilsson, women seem to be drawn to engineering projects that attempt to achieve societal good.
I read statements like this a lot. I find it interesting for a few reasons. First there is an implicit assumption that men don't care if our work benefits society or not. How do we know for example that it isn't a case of "people are drawn to ... projects that attempt to achieve societal good" and that when you focus engineering on that, you are not really just drawing higher achieving people away from other fields and when you are really get the best and brightest strata of the workforce there simply isn't better gender balance their than in the workforce as a whole?
Secondly the statement seems to assume this desire to be a "social do gooder" is some natural characteristic of women and not that they are socialized to be this way. Maybe the imbalance isn't so much to do with middle school on but much earlier. Perhaps if we stopped giving young girls little dolls to care for and a toy cookware and instead handed them a toy hammer and gun we would see different results.
Thirdly there is an assumption in this statement that one should work to "achieve societal good" rather than for ones own ends as if that is some how noble or good. Why is society seen as a ends, rather than a means by which we can enjoy higher productivity, safety and personal wealth. Sure we all have an obligation not to harm society, and to attempt put back as much as we have taken out so that its their for the next person but when is it "good enough"? When do we tell people hey you only live once meet your obligations and spend the rest of your precious little time enjoying what is yours as much as possible?
The claim that without the game itself there would be nothing to mod seems like a rather large leg.
Yes and no, on the hand the statement is true. On the other hand Bethesda already got paid. If they had said at the outset we are going to use the Gillette model charge a minimal fee to recover our costs developing the game, and let the community produce a sell additional content for which we will take a cut, things might be different.
That isn't what they did though, the charged as much for the game as any other AAA title, and now seek to profit handsomely for efforts they have little to know hand in. There are probably some variable costs associated with 'supporting' the mods. More tech support calls for the core product etc.
Still 45% is a pretty big take and is hard to justify; especially when someone else is operating the market place doing all the risky work of handling the money etc and already taking %30 to do it. If they were asking 15% or something that would feel more like a kind of royalty (which isn't unfair), and I think people would find that much less objectionable.
You are the kind of person that keeps expending effort on the unproductive an ineffective apparently.
Would you say an unemployed person buying scratch offs should be applauded. After all at least they are doing something to try and solve their financial problems.
Yes if they are drinking diet soda as part of some overall plan to regulate their calorie intake, without soda having to be one more thing they give up fine, good for them.
The thing is they most likely are not doing that when you see them drinking diet soda while sitting in front of a single meal that still represent ~75% of their daily recommended calorie intake. They probably just like diet soda (me, don't like the syrupy throat coating feeling of the regular stuff). or have been sold on the idea that they can someone get healthy by just making that one change, which is misguided enough to be harmful.
One of the problems is that realistically, the amount of processed sugar be sucrose or HFCS is 0. So the daily % would be NaN.
While refined sugar isn't necessarily bad for you it servers no real dietary purpose other than bulk calories which you either don't need because you are not working in the fields all day, building stone walls by hand, walking everywhere you go etc... or could obtain just easily from some other source along with other nutrients your body does require.
You really DO need 11 (I think proteins) from dietary sources, the other nine your body can synthesize or perhaps its the other way around. You really do need fats as they are the only way to retain certain other fat soluble nutrients. Obviously we have to have sodium and potassium, lack of them can become catastrophic fairly quickly etc. Lots of these things we find in unhealthy excess in processed foods, but we do need some quantity of them; we have no need for sugar. All the sugar we need can be derived from more complex carbohydrates which physiologically are usually better for us. If health is your only criteria, ie cost and pleasure are not considerations etc, I am not sure you can recommend anyone eat sugar; at most you can say it probably won't hurt you.
I am not one to go chowing down on the cheap fast food but I do like diet soda even with a meal that is otherwise an overly caloric and generally nutritionally questionable mess. I find the consistency regular soda to be unpleasantly syrupy.
So there are some people who really just like diet cola better.
Don't forget though fuel stores. In the event of a natural disaster or something "the grid" can be down for days. A little generator (runs on fuel) to run the pumps can bring fuel up from storage tanks to vehicles means people have motor fuel.
EVs will very likely leave people with whatever they have in the battery so to speak. Now assuming people have home charge stations that might be full rather than half empty for most folks so the situation still might be better in aggregate with batteries, tough to say as it really depends on the size and scope of the calamity.
ICEs are also cheap to build now compared with high capacity batteries AND electric motors to run with them. If the input energy is cheap enough than the costs of the inferior efficiency of producing a chemical fuel to than burn may not matter as much as the capital cost of the vehicle in the first place.
If we started pulling carbon out of the atmosphere to make fuel as fast as we put back burning the motor fleet could become carbon neutral. The energy loss is at least partly recovered too, we add energy to the atmosphere with waste heat, and then remove it with the turbines.
Thanks for the link very interesting, and helpful. I am not sure I fully buy the security argument, mainly because most of the time I don't see the LSMs themselves adding much value; but the points about DOS resistance and keeping the work load in the senders own timeslice being generally desirable makes sense.
moving it to the kernel will help with performance, and potentially security.
Performance likely, because data can actually be shoveled between processes with probably greater concurrency than with a third user land context in the mix.
Security I don't see how, moving it in the kernel is an improvement. You add all the risks associated with being able to step all over systemically important data structures to a "process" that by definition has to communicate with a largish number of less trusted processes. If you limit who/what is allowed to talk to dbus with a firewall like solution you make dbus less useful as an IPC channel.
The kernel team tends to be made up of really well qualified people and have more discipline than other OSS projects so in that sense the code quality might go up, but there are probably better ways to accomplish that than merging a project into the kernel!
The performance considerations might be a justification but I have never really seen DBUS as a high performance IPC channel anyway. Maybe I am just badly misinformed on its planned usecases. I thought it was for deriving simple short messages like "A new input device is a available" not shoveling megabytes of data between processes. We have fifo pipes and UNIX sockets for that, and if latency is an issue there is always shared memory.
I have to agree I have lived in both places where I have had Cox and other places with Comcast, Cox has been the best experience.
If there were video of Hillary physically being handed a stack of cash (right hand), cigar hung loosely from lips while strangling a kitten(left hand) from a Russian CEO over a document that said approval to process uranium; people would still apologize for her and do their best to 'splain it way. If that effort failed they'd invent some other way for her to evade accountability like 'No controlling legal authority' and the press would complicity discontinue talking about it and return focus to what sort of burrito she ordered.
Business is business, I take your point but I think the issue isn't so much insensitivity as being needlessly insulting. I am adult I understand our employee/employer relationship is supposed to be mutual beneficial. Treat me like an adult.
Tell me, "..We have to let you go, its nothing to do with your job performance, its just that your job function is no-longer aligned with our objectives" No I won't be thrilled about it but I'd much rather have an honest statement of the facts than some be euphemism about being re-mixed, right sized what have you.
I also feel that companies should be honest about up coming layoffs when possible, but recognize it isn't always possible. Sometimes they can't risk letting people know until the last moment, and there are good security justifications for getting people out the building in a mass layoff situation. Still I'd say cut the bullshit, screw the Monday "Breakfast invite", just walk out to the bullpen Friday afternoon and let people know what's what.
The problem isn't that there's a way for me to hurt you. The problem is that you're walking down dark alleys alone at night.
Stop doing that.
Why are you going to untrusted web-sites in the first place?
Beware what you have said is dangerously near to the sort of statement that bring the Social Justice Warrior types down on you. Just encase you missed the memo, we are no long allowed to chastise people for engaging in overly risky, and ignorant behavior, its not longer their failing in the form of lack of personal responsibility, but yours and mine in that we are are "victim blaming".
The sensible way would be to do what every Linux distro has been doing for 20 years now. The "APP" includes a manifest of its dependencies. When you install it from the App store (remember Apple does not make side loads easy, unless you are developer in which case you can solve deps issue by having the required packages available) it simply goes an fetches the required libraries at the same time if you don't already have them.
This is a solved problem!
Taking in one tiny step further IOS just needs to scan through all the manifests (or keep a little sqlite db or something) and remove non-core library packages anytime a user deletes the last application which depends on it. Its not 100% easy stuff, but there are plenty of working examples, out there to lift concepts and perhaps even code from.
if by advances you mean 10+ gigabyte WINSxS directories that make the OS suck balls to run visualize / backup unless you have an expensive block level de-dupe system on SAN than yes there have been advances.
But has anyone actually used a feature phone in the last 5 years?
Yes, for at least two reasons and probably others.
First unless you go out of your way searching and get something like a jitter bug or something you can't get a dump phone. Even the most basic flip cheapest/free flip phone AT&T, VZW, TMOBILE etc offer is a J2ME feature phone with some data capability. I can get e-mail via IMAP, and NOAA weather info etc with J2ME apps that are easily installed. There may not be any useful apps pre-installed but that is another matter. Its unlikely outside some very specific corner use cases calling for specialized equipment a non-smart phone user isn't using a feature phone.
Anyone who spends anytime in the wilderness hiking etc, still likes feature phones. They either have days of standby battery time, removable batters so you can prevent parasitic drain so as to be sure that lithium ion cell will be ready if you NEED it. They still tend to weigh less than even the smallest smart phones too; although the gap is shrinking. Finally these phones are cheap should they come to an unfortunate end like you slip fording a stream and everything in your pack gets soaked or you fall and crush the thing, etc no big loss and you don't have to have some insurance plan. Even if nothing bad happens to them they tend to be fairly rugged without the need for more weight in the form of protective cases etc.
I know there are smart devices target at outdoor sports folks, but for me I have yet to find a product that is a clear winner over feature phones.
Okay let me paraphrase.
Hello I am trying to raise $30B to build a pipe line, would you like to contribute? Be advised however if you choose not to contribute and I don't reach my goal I am going to spend the money lobbing instead to get government to force you to contribute via taxation under threat of prison.
By your logic we should only produce anything were all the raw input materials happen to be locally available. If we bought into that theory there are lots of things we simply could not produce.
1) Uber has stated repeatedly that they are not a livery service and shouldn't be subject to the same regulations as real taxies.
Yes they say that so they can avoid stupid protectionist regulation that would otherwise lock them out of the market. The original reasons limiting the number 'real cab service vehicles' was to create tax revenue for big cities; and maybe to reduce the number of motor vehicles on the road. Both horses have left the barn it does not matter.
2) If you cut out the peak earnings from full time cabbies, you decrease their income, which means you end yup with fewer real cabs. Downtown metro areas will be fine, but you are SOL if you live out of the major routes.
I don't see any advantage to 'real cabs'. The they know the roads argument is utter bullshit. Every cab I have been in lately the first thing the guy does it punch the address into a smart phone and let GPS take him there; hint the same thing every uber driver does.
As to out of the major routes bit, I also don't believe this is a problem, for admittedly anecdotal reasons. I have done lots of hiking on the east coast trails, AT, Long Trail, etc. That hobby has found me wanting rides along the side of lots of little rural roads outside lots of small towns. There is ALWAYS a "cab service". Why? Because the need for cabs is relatively low. Typically the folks running the local gas station, convince store, or hardware store fill this role by moon lighting. When someone calls up for a ride (rare) they just close up for a few moments and take care of it. The also know the fair is almost certain to be a good number of miles and is therefor worth their time. Uber is actually PERFECT for this business model.
"price gouging" laws almost always have an emergency component, that is the only thing that makes them remotely Constitutional. They also generally apply only to items considered necessary for survival; ie food, water, gasoline in a quantity you might be using to travel out of a disaster area, etc.
Uber probably could be prevented from using surge pricing or prosecuted for it where they to do it in the middle of hurricane or something. "The local sports team just finished playing" isn't an emergency. So its not illegal at all. I don't know what it is about Slashdot that seems to make people asume anything they don't like must be someone getting away with a crime.
Surge pricing is a good thing!
Drivers are a resource like any other. People have lives etc, and most can't just hit the road because the cost of rides has gone up. Overtime though I am sure that people who want to do Uber as more than just a hobby can and do observe when prices are highest and re-arrange their activities so they can be driving at those times. That is a process that probably happens over months though not, moments. Its just simple supply and demand and its how the market should operate. If you want a ride so bad at the same moment everyone else does you should be willing to pay! If you time is so valuable you can't hang out for a couple hours for the rush to die down, than you ought to pay someone who is trying to earn a living driving for the privilege of immediate transportation. If you are unwilling to pay that driver deserves the change to sell their services to someone who is!
People who complain about it pretty much are crying that they can no longer take advantage of livery drivers not having good information about the market and being able to revalue their services accordingly. They are just use to drivers having no choice but to set a price the market will usually support and missing the opportunity to earn more at peak times. So I say shut the fuck up if you have enough money to pay someone to drive your ass around you have enough money to pay them what it worth at that time. Otherwise wait, walk, take public transit, drive your own vehicle, etc.