In any case, discrimination in Hollywood is not a "problem"... it's by design. We, as a society, have for whatever reasons decided that Hollywood can feel free to consider race, gender, age, etc in a way that most businesses are not allowed. California is being a little bit schizophrenic here in that they still allow Hollywood to discriminate based on age but they want to mitigate the effects of this by forbidding the sharing of age information.
You're the same entitled person that uses free web services and then b*tches when they start charging or go under aren't you?
I'm not a business person. If someone tells me that they have some "free" business plan that they claim will work, I can be skeptical, but it's not really on me when they are exposed as wrong. If you advertise a service as one thing and then pull a switcharoo, you should be called out. You call that "entitlement", I call it broken promises - though I'll also go along with "naive", since by now we should probably just ignore the promises of "free". Though here I am using gmail for going on a decade and a half...
That would help the math, but it still doesn't work out very well. Spitballing here. You can probably, in bulk, cover around 750 users for $10,000 in capital costs in a densely populated area - assuming an existing upstream connection. This money would cover 9 million users. That's a lot - enough to do a single metro area. And this is directed at rural areas, so the impact should be more significant. Unfortunately, the $10,000 will probably skyrocket in those areas because the access points will be more spread out and the upstream bandwidth less available.
Wouldn't it be the people, through debt? Many Europeans like the social services without all of the nasty tax paying business, just like their American counterparts. The difference is in the US we just print a bunch of money and pay through inflation instead of via taxes. Can't do that in the EU.
Exactly - this is how wealth is created. Did you notice that the 8% of jobs that will be created are higher paying than "driver"? I don't want to be dismissive of the pain that drivers will feel, but in the end there are more opportunities to get a high paying job, and these new highly paid workers will create demand for new low-paying jobs.
I think I could argue that the kinds of commercial censorship that the US engages in are less damaging to freedom of speech and political freedom than the censoring of political speech that is usually referred to when we talk about censorship.
And I say that as an unrepentant, unashamed pirate who thinks that copyright is a bunch of hooey.
For the most part, it's not the "state" - it's your locality. Cable agreements in the US are almost universally done town-by-town. It's the exact opposite of "state" involvement. The companies were big enough that they could push for exclusive agreements.
Though we could get very in the weeds and argue that corporations themselves are built upon state charters, and that without this corporate invention and limited liability, companies would not get big enough to leverage a locality. Maybe.
Maybe. I also look at the history of Europe and see even "independent" countries at war continuously for centuries. People are generally just dicks. Some blame it on colonialism or religion or a number of other things, but I think tribalism is inherent and something that we need to actively fight.
I don't worry one wink about the US and China going to war directly - as you say, a nuclear deterrent is a hell of a thing.
But I do see possible scenarios where China asserts itself over large sections of the Asian Pacific region with only token opposition from the US - simply because the US would no longer have the same relative capacity to respond effectively. Why actively defend Taiwan if it means losing much of your Pacific fleet and air force, leaving Japan vulnerable. Why inject yourself into local drama surrounding the South China sea for the same reasons?
Then again, you do mention BRICS, and the Russia and India part of that are not necessarily going to sit idle as their neighbor rises militarily. Russia is already at more or less their peak militarily, but India could yet grow legs.
They certainly won't be unopposed. But is the US going to go all-in against an equal to defend Taiwan? How about the South China sea? China will take what it wants from that region if the current regime remains in power.
That's a big "if". If China's economy grows to rival or exceed the US, that implies a richer, more educated populace that might not be happy with their lack of freedoms. An economic decline of any size could send the government into crisis.
Today, that is true. At around 8-10% per year increases, it won't take long to catch up or eclipse the US - which has flat spending. We're talking 20 years at the outside.
Of course, past results are no guarantee of future blah blah blah.
Eventually China will surpass the US in both economic activity, and probably, military spending. You will one day look back upon US hegemony with nostalgia. As counterproductive and clumsy as US foreign policy is, it rarely includes expansion or annexation.
There's some merit to that as an architecture, even without the legacy problem. Having the mainframe dump transactions and schedules to a web front-end is probably the next-best thing to an air-gap.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazon begs to differ.
I lurked and posted anonymously for a long time :)
It's a subsidiary of Amazon, though, so I'm not sure how that is viewed under the law.
In any case, discrimination in Hollywood is not a "problem"... it's by design. We, as a society, have for whatever reasons decided that Hollywood can feel free to consider race, gender, age, etc in a way that most businesses are not allowed. California is being a little bit schizophrenic here in that they still allow Hollywood to discriminate based on age but they want to mitigate the effects of this by forbidding the sharing of age information.
It was a plot point in the 80s sitcom "Silver Spoons".
When I came to Slashdot, they promised a pedant-free experience.
You're the same entitled person that uses free web services and then b*tches when they start charging or go under aren't you?
I'm not a business person. If someone tells me that they have some "free" business plan that they claim will work, I can be skeptical, but it's not really on me when they are exposed as wrong. If you advertise a service as one thing and then pull a switcharoo, you should be called out. You call that "entitlement", I call it broken promises - though I'll also go along with "naive", since by now we should probably just ignore the promises of "free". Though here I am using gmail for going on a decade and a half...
That would help the math, but it still doesn't work out very well. Spitballing here. You can probably, in bulk, cover around 750 users for $10,000 in capital costs in a densely populated area - assuming an existing upstream connection. This money would cover 9 million users. That's a lot - enough to do a single metro area. And this is directed at rural areas, so the impact should be more significant. Unfortunately, the $10,000 will probably skyrocket in those areas because the access points will be more spread out and the upstream bandwidth less available.
And in this particular case, 120 million is a laughable amount toward the goal. Maybe you could wire up a large township outside of a city for this.
Wouldn't it be the people, through debt? Many Europeans like the social services without all of the nasty tax paying business, just like their American counterparts. The difference is in the US we just print a bunch of money and pay through inflation instead of via taxes. Can't do that in the EU.
Exactly - this is how wealth is created. Did you notice that the 8% of jobs that will be created are higher paying than "driver"? I don't want to be dismissive of the pain that drivers will feel, but in the end there are more opportunities to get a high paying job, and these new highly paid workers will create demand for new low-paying jobs.
I think I could argue that the kinds of commercial censorship that the US engages in are less damaging to freedom of speech and political freedom than the censoring of political speech that is usually referred to when we talk about censorship.
And I say that as an unrepentant, unashamed pirate who thinks that copyright is a bunch of hooey.
For the most part, it's not the "state" - it's your locality. Cable agreements in the US are almost universally done town-by-town. It's the exact opposite of "state" involvement. The companies were big enough that they could push for exclusive agreements.
Though we could get very in the weeds and argue that corporations themselves are built upon state charters, and that without this corporate invention and limited liability, companies would not get big enough to leverage a locality. Maybe.
Maybe. I also look at the history of Europe and see even "independent" countries at war continuously for centuries. People are generally just dicks. Some blame it on colonialism or religion or a number of other things, but I think tribalism is inherent and something that we need to actively fight.
Or the Philippines. Cuba. Indians, "Manifest Destiny", Monroe Doctrine, etc. We could go on.
But we collectively like to think that the world has left the 19th century ideas of western colonialism behind.
An inch is defined as exactly 25.4mm, based on the yard being defined as exactly 0.9144 meters.
In America,
There's your problem... this occurred in Texas.
I don't worry one wink about the US and China going to war directly - as you say, a nuclear deterrent is a hell of a thing.
But I do see possible scenarios where China asserts itself over large sections of the Asian Pacific region with only token opposition from the US - simply because the US would no longer have the same relative capacity to respond effectively. Why actively defend Taiwan if it means losing much of your Pacific fleet and air force, leaving Japan vulnerable. Why inject yourself into local drama surrounding the South China sea for the same reasons?
Then again, you do mention BRICS, and the Russia and India part of that are not necessarily going to sit idle as their neighbor rises militarily. Russia is already at more or less their peak militarily, but India could yet grow legs.
Unless you are arguing that China will not do this, I don't understand your point.
They certainly won't be unopposed. But is the US going to go all-in against an equal to defend Taiwan? How about the South China sea? China will take what it wants from that region if the current regime remains in power.
That's a big "if". If China's economy grows to rival or exceed the US, that implies a richer, more educated populace that might not be happy with their lack of freedoms. An economic decline of any size could send the government into crisis.
Today, that is true. At around 8-10% per year increases, it won't take long to catch up or eclipse the US - which has flat spending. We're talking 20 years at the outside.
Of course, past results are no guarantee of future blah blah blah.
Eventually China will surpass the US in both economic activity, and probably, military spending. You will one day look back upon US hegemony with nostalgia. As counterproductive and clumsy as US foreign policy is, it rarely includes expansion or annexation.
Are you arguing that there is no commercial market for space? Because that is insane - there are roughly 30 launches per year.
And like most things, as cost comes down demand is likely to go up.
87 comments and not a single mention of University of Pisa in Italy and their large collection of <ahem> photos? For shame...
There's some merit to that as an architecture, even without the legacy problem. Having the mainframe dump transactions and schedules to a web front-end is probably the next-best thing to an air-gap.