Prof. Rushkoff's ignorance of basic economic concepts such as subjective value, marginal utility, along with the nature of wealth creation itself, has resulted in a very bizarre, anti-individual conclusion. First, voluntary trade is not a one-way street (no pun intended); both parties expect to be in a better position than they were prior to the transaction, or else the transaction would not have taken place. And this "better position" is the expected subjective value both parties, respectively, should derive. Marginal utility means that, based on a person's subjective value at any particular point in time, subjective value being changing infinitely, a person will decide that they are better off, or not, to take any particular course of action or inaction; ordinal ranking obviously figuring into the basic premise. And wealth is ipso facto not "money," just as wealth was not gold, silver, or diamonds in the past. It is instead what one wishes to acquire and may acquire given their available resources, desires, and needs. This means that anytime a person benefits from a voluntary transaction, they are wealthier, either in immediately consumable services (e.g. Uber), or all the way to, yes, diamonds; it is totally dependent on what "wealth" means to the individual.
The US and EU combined contribute less than 3% of oceanic plastic waste. "Leading by example" is not sufficient if more resources are consumed and greater pollution is generated in the process, which will certainly be the case due to greater production, consumption, and transition costs; neither is "leading by example" by rich countries an an action seriously calculated to influence poor countries. A rise in wealth is both correlated with and causes an increase in environmentally concerned actions and policies; once people are no longer worried about food, shelter, etc., they will be more interested in their surrounding environs, and will hae the disposable income to attend to it. That the EU's proposed ban has no other virtue than virtue-signalling itself is made clear.
As of 2017, 60% of ocean plastic pollution was generated by China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka, in that order, with China vastly outdoing the others. No EU country is within the top 20, which would indicate a very minuscule amount of plastic waste leaking into the oceans. If European governments want to waste a massive amount of resources to worry about this, the pollution generated is going to be more overall, not less.
you'll need to do regular firmware upgrades and these will always be BEHIND the hacker curve.
Ehud Tucson AZ
Until they just stop bothering with firmware upgrades, with zero notice. I bought a not the cheapest Netgear router years ago, and it's gotten two firmware updates, then plop.
I think anyone that has ever encountered Wikipedia knows what the kangaroo court known as "ArbCom" is. It's like the online version of the Fliegendes Sonder-Standgericht or Tax Court.
YT randomly changes policies, which are always vaguely written policies. It's impossible for creators to contact YT for help with arbitrarily (and often wrongly) applied policies. Many otherwise successful moneymakers, for YT first and foremost, suddenly and without warning are thrown under the bus. I've never been a creator, but how many people does YT have to screw over before they screw over the wrong person?
As above, the link by AC to the published version's abstract (which I've double-checked and it is from the Ramazzini Institute) shows the OP to be bullshit. capedgirardeau should not be allowed to submit stories on medical or scientific topics in general, and/. should correct itself on this.
This "study" claims that nationalreview.com is a "junk news site." Also, it seems they classify a site as a "junk news site" if they find a single story that is, using their three-factor test, junk news. This list should be a lot, lot, lot longer if they were being honest about their own criteria.
This phrase, and derivatives thereof, always mean one thing and always go one way, irrespective of the facts or context for the given issue for the given time.
Yes, by general-purpose I meant servers, desktops, and laptops. I know what I have running say MIPS or ARM or SPARC (it's the printer!), but for most people that's completely invisible and beyond all thought and concern.
Intel tried to kill x86 four times, to varying degrees: First the iAPX 432, then the i960, then i860, and most recently with the Itanic.
MS Windows NT tried become a popular option on PowerPC, MIPS, and DEC Alpha, because MS didn't want to be so heavily reliant on Intel. It ended up being forced to stick with x86 (Itanic doesn't count).
Intel will soon begin pumping out x86 CPUs that aren't vulnerable to Meltdown or Spectre.
Trying to create what is essentially a new and unique system architecture, for general-purpose users, is a dead end. Who's going to make the chipsets, much less the mobos?
I'm old enough (i.e., not middle-aged yet) to remember when "hate speech" was on the anti-free-speech fringes. Then it started moving in on us. And the closer and closer it got, the greater and greater amount of largely anodyne words and thoughts became verboten. Now some claim that certain words or thoughts are equivalent to physical violence. It was better when people were just seen as obnoxious dicks, and not some form of Neo-Grammar(ish) Nazi guilty of breaking windows of the mind.
Slashdot Mirror
The SPLC finally imploded, so it should be relatively safe to at least admit that not all white people are racist, and that not all racists are white.
It is better propaganda than "special-interest group for corporate welfare for the media."
With Linux basically running on all our TVs now, it seems very reasonable to consider AV on our embedded computers with large displays.
Not using Mac, I might be missing something, but why would someone use Thunderbolt instead of USB 3.x?
No shit. Even senior senior citizens know it's them.
Prof. Rushkoff's ignorance of basic economic concepts such as subjective value, marginal utility, along with the nature of wealth creation itself, has resulted in a very bizarre, anti-individual conclusion. First, voluntary trade is not a one-way street (no pun intended); both parties expect to be in a better position than they were prior to the transaction, or else the transaction would not have taken place. And this "better position" is the expected subjective value both parties, respectively, should derive. Marginal utility means that, based on a person's subjective value at any particular point in time, subjective value being changing infinitely, a person will decide that they are better off, or not, to take any particular course of action or inaction; ordinal ranking obviously figuring into the basic premise. And wealth is ipso facto not "money," just as wealth was not gold, silver, or diamonds in the past. It is instead what one wishes to acquire and may acquire given their available resources, desires, and needs. This means that anytime a person benefits from a voluntary transaction, they are wealthier, either in immediately consumable services (e.g. Uber), or all the way to, yes, diamonds; it is totally dependent on what "wealth" means to the individual.
or Why the Judge Is Wrong and Abusing His Position While Being So.
Windows Vista.
The US and EU combined contribute less than 3% of oceanic plastic waste. "Leading by example" is not sufficient if more resources are consumed and greater pollution is generated in the process, which will certainly be the case due to greater production, consumption, and transition costs; neither is "leading by example" by rich countries an an action seriously calculated to influence poor countries. A rise in wealth is both correlated with and causes an increase in environmentally concerned actions and policies; once people are no longer worried about food, shelter, etc., they will be more interested in their surrounding environs, and will hae the disposable income to attend to it. That the EU's proposed ban has no other virtue than virtue-signalling itself is made clear.
As of 2017, 60% of ocean plastic pollution was generated by China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka, in that order, with China vastly outdoing the others. No EU country is within the top 20, which would indicate a very minuscule amount of plastic waste leaking into the oceans. If European governments want to waste a massive amount of resources to worry about this, the pollution generated is going to be more overall, not less.
'iOS support is "pending further review from Apple."'
"games ran incredibly smoothly at the iPad's full 1080p resolution."
What?
you'll need to do regular firmware upgrades and these will always be
BEHIND the hacker curve.
Ehud
Tucson AZ
Until they just stop bothering with firmware upgrades, with zero notice. I bought a not the cheapest Netgear router years ago, and it's gotten two firmware updates, then plop.
I think anyone that has ever encountered Wikipedia knows what the kangaroo court known as "ArbCom" is. It's like the online version of the Fliegendes Sonder-Standgericht or Tax Court.
YT randomly changes policies, which are always vaguely written policies. It's impossible for creators to contact YT for help with arbitrarily (and often wrongly) applied policies. Many otherwise successful moneymakers, for YT first and foremost, suddenly and without warning are thrown under the bus. I've never been a creator, but how many people does YT have to screw over before they screw over the wrong person?
Oh.
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
As above, the link by AC to the published version's abstract (which I've double-checked and it is from the Ramazzini Institute) shows the OP to be bullshit. capedgirardeau should not be allowed to submit stories on medical or scientific topics in general, and /. should correct itself on this.
This "study" claims that nationalreview.com is a "junk news site." Also, it seems they classify a site as a "junk news site" if they find a single story that is, using their three-factor test, junk news. This list should be a lot, lot, lot longer if they were being honest about their own criteria.
I have mixed feelings about the Commerce Clause, fully support co-sovereignty, while also hating so-called net neutrality on the State level.
Boom.
This phrase, and derivatives thereof, always mean one thing and always go one way, irrespective of the facts or context for the given issue for the given time.
Yes, by general-purpose I meant servers, desktops, and laptops. I know what I have running say MIPS or ARM or SPARC (it's the printer!), but for most people that's completely invisible and beyond all thought and concern.
I don't think there is a small amount of Intel chippery prior to 2015 running around. I'm probably an outlier, but mine is from 2008, (c) 2007.
Intel tried to kill x86 four times, to varying degrees: First the iAPX 432, then the i960, then i860, and most recently with the Itanic.
MS Windows NT tried become a popular option on PowerPC, MIPS, and DEC Alpha, because MS didn't want to be so heavily reliant on Intel. It ended up being forced to stick with x86 (Itanic doesn't count).
Intel will soon begin pumping out x86 CPUs that aren't vulnerable to Meltdown or Spectre.
Trying to create what is essentially a new and unique system architecture, for general-purpose users, is a dead end. Who's going to make the chipsets, much less the mobos?
I'm old enough (i.e., not middle-aged yet) to remember when "hate speech" was on the anti-free-speech fringes. Then it started moving in on us. And the closer and closer it got, the greater and greater amount of largely anodyne words and thoughts became verboten. Now some claim that certain words or thoughts are equivalent to physical violence. It was better when people were just seen as obnoxious dicks, and not some form of Neo-Grammar(ish) Nazi guilty of breaking windows of the mind.
1) The differences between Title I and Title II?
2) Why the FTC and not the FCC should under current law handle internet regulation as such, and why no one is asking the FTC to do anything instead?