>When you require careful and concerted choreography to explain simple concepts to your president
If you want Trump to believe something, it's best to get Fox News to do a short and aggressive segment on it in which they flatter Trump a lot. Maybe include a short phrase that looks good with a hash tag.
If you show the average person evidence that someone is doing something bad, they might ask questions about the reliability of the evidence.
If his own spy agency shows Trump evidence that Russia is doing something bad, he denounces them and has an off-the-record chat with Putin.
I wouldn't trust a spy agency as a general rule - their whole existence is about getting what they want by deception - but I'd hardly trust the Russians when it comes to a domestic agency's claims against them.
This immediately leads to questions about why a president might trust a foreign power over his own agencies. And more questions when there are records of his team attempting to work with that same power to scuttle an opponent's election bid, that have been consistently lied about in an obvious cover-up.
But this is Trump, so this will amount to another round of Twitter outrage and blow over.
>welcome to the world of paying for multiple streaming providers
Which will generate a market for services to offer a consolidated viewing experience.
Enter the regional MSP (Media Service Provider) to fill the role previously filled by the cable companies. They will take others' content and redistribute it to you through a single interface and a single monthly bill. They'll handle billing and local caching and probably employ all of two or three people for any given urban area, but they'll exist.
The streaming services will slowly lose interest in carrying other's content as this happens (though most of them have more or less started that way anyway), and they will become the new television studios (again, most of them are starting this way).
The market simply will not tolerate massive vertically integrated media empires where the population is divided by what content they have access to. When people can't gather around the water cooler and talk about the latest trending show because half of them have never even heard of it... the walls will crumble.
>After all, how will you force others to use your currency as the world's financial ballast (and thus export your inflation for others to deal with) if you spend on space capsules instead of stealth bombers?
Space tech is really good for targeted terrestrial energy delivery. Put a man on the Moon, you can drop a nuke anywhere on the Earth.
The problem is our space tech is already good enough for that. We need to convince our leaders they should be developing the ability to divert asteroids for first strikes that appear to be acts of God and come with completely plausible deniability. And simultaneously develop asteroid deflection capability in the event our enemies are thinking the same thing.
I don't know about Buffet, but like most 'self-made' rich people, Bill Gates got a massive head start from his parents, both in money and critical insider connections.
And while Billy was building his fortune, he wasn't exactly know for his fair business practices or being a trustworthy partner.
>everyone's always been free to summarize and restate if they attribute
I imagine it wouldn't take Google long to hack together something that would not only gather news, but summarize it, tag it with an attribution, and then put 'GoogleNewsAI' in the byline.
Hell, they could probably manage to link it to a GIS to pull up a relevant licence-free image, too.
Right now, I'd be happier if they'd up their ability to downrate sites that are misleading them with summaries that aren't visible to general web traffic.
You get compensated for risk, responsibility, and skill. I'm generally OK with that, except that mostly we see that word 'responsibility' being seen as a perfect synonym for 'authority', which it is not.
And the risk? Well, your risk is that your obscene (to most people) income will be temporarily interrupted until your peers install you in the next available slot... and you get a big payout to cover your expenses until that happens. And even if it all somehow goes completely to shit, you still have so much money just from your payout that you will never, ever, fall into the middle class. And neither will your children. So no risk.
And finally, I have a lot of trouble believing anyone has so much in the way of skills that couldn't be learned by large numbers of other people that they are worth 1000x per hour what the average salaried employee makes (never mind comparing it to minimum wage).
It's not how much they draw compared to each person, it's how much they draw in total. It is, in fact, obscene.
In theory there's nothing wrong with taking advice from such people; after all, they are more likely to have relevant knowledge of how their industry works.
The mistake is in letting them give orders. Actually, the mistake is in taking everything touched by the government and turning it into R vs. D.
The FCC should be a non-political body receiving general direction from the legislative branch, and then setting specific policies in line with that direction (when practical - sometimes they need to be able to push back when 'the boss' is wrong) based on their non-political expert opinions.
In the case of Net Neutrality, the marching orders should be (based on the current politics in the White House) "reduce restrictions on Internet service providers preventing them from controlling what data moves across their networks and how it is handled".
Instead of being transparent about it, those same instructions have been masked with propaganda and lies by a Republican stooge and biased industry shill.
I remember a time when search engines respected logical operators, quotes and parentheses. A time before it was decided that the algorithms knew better than I did how form a keyword search and all queries should be parsed as natural language.
I've done some image searches where Bing produces results and Google comes up with none.
I'm pretty sure Bing has better video search (which the conspiracy theorist in me thinks might be due to Google wanting to favour YouTube results).
Why you still need Google to search for Microsoft KB articles is a mystery for the ages. You'd think that'd be a major embarrassment that Microsoft would have had as #1 on their priority list to fix.
Think of the 'big 4' as cars, and your ISP as the roads you drive them on. It's a lot easier to choose a different car than to have a second set of roads built in your area.
Google may seem unassailable in the West (and they do have a huge market advantage), but there is always the possibility of a niche search engine growing into a rival. It's far less likely a niche ISP will arise with the resources to install the required infrastructure except in isolated communities - and since a physical presence is require to compete, they're never going to crack the major markets where NN is protecting consumers against vertically integrated media-and-delivery empires.
No. Why would a private corporation want a blockchain currency whose security would depend on maintaining more processing power on the network than the rest of the world combined?
They could (if they haven't already via a partnership with Visa or other major entity) issue a DisneyCard and require it for transactions with their empire.
>I had never seen such single mindedness "my mind is made up don't confuse me with the facts" behaviour from US politicians.
This isn't ignorance, but deliberate lying. They know what will happen, it just happens to be in alignment with their desires.
This is what happens when you put a fox in charge of the hen house. When a bunch of rich people obviously want to reduce the impediments to getting richer and have a history of making moves in that direction, it's probably a bad idea to take them at their word when they say they're going to help you out at their expense.
>As things stand, you can't get Disney films on Netflix (I believe there's one star wars film on there right now, possibly as a test or something).
I suspect that would be, "A New Hope", because Disney doesn't own that until this deal goes through. Once it does, they'll pull it from Netflix to support their own streaming offerings instead.
In this case, doesn't it at least mean that some media IP is no longer split between rivals, so we can see all our favourite characters from the same universe in the same movies?
We want movies that pander to us (though we have different ideas as to how that pandering should be done). This will allow more committee-based movies to check more boxes for focus groups and give us what we want.
It won't destroy quality thought-provoking movies... there's always another generation of talented people trying to break into the industry. It means that the mindless big budget blockbusters are slightly more likely to appeal to us... and if they do, be immediately followed up by 200 cheap direct-to-video cartoon sequels with plots that are too simple for the average five year old.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget the uranium. And the Russians.
Just forget the part about those things already being looked into and dismissed.
>When you require careful and concerted choreography to explain simple concepts to your president
If you want Trump to believe something, it's best to get Fox News to do a short and aggressive segment on it in which they flatter Trump a lot. Maybe include a short phrase that looks good with a hash tag.
If you show the average person evidence that someone is doing something bad, they might ask questions about the reliability of the evidence.
If his own spy agency shows Trump evidence that Russia is doing something bad, he denounces them and has an off-the-record chat with Putin.
I wouldn't trust a spy agency as a general rule - their whole existence is about getting what they want by deception - but I'd hardly trust the Russians when it comes to a domestic agency's claims against them.
This immediately leads to questions about why a president might trust a foreign power over his own agencies. And more questions when there are records of his team attempting to work with that same power to scuttle an opponent's election bid, that have been consistently lied about in an obvious cover-up.
But this is Trump, so this will amount to another round of Twitter outrage and blow over.
>welcome to the world of paying for multiple streaming providers
Which will generate a market for services to offer a consolidated viewing experience.
Enter the regional MSP (Media Service Provider) to fill the role previously filled by the cable companies. They will take others' content and redistribute it to you through a single interface and a single monthly bill. They'll handle billing and local caching and probably employ all of two or three people for any given urban area, but they'll exist.
The streaming services will slowly lose interest in carrying other's content as this happens (though most of them have more or less started that way anyway), and they will become the new television studios (again, most of them are starting this way).
The market simply will not tolerate massive vertically integrated media empires where the population is divided by what content they have access to. When people can't gather around the water cooler and talk about the latest trending show because half of them have never even heard of it... the walls will crumble.
>I think you are incorrect to argue that the ability to indefinitely increase the supply of a currency is a good thing.
And history shows, contrary to your view, that controlling the money supply is critical to managing the economy.
Mugabe's problem was he didn't understand (or possibly care) that there is a limit to how much you can print before you do more harm than good.
However, eliminating the tool altogether gives you a deflationary currency, which is a very good thing if you want to kill any growth.
The point being that on this site, it'd be nice if the discussion-inspiring article had something new in it.
>After all, how will you force others to use your currency as the world's financial ballast (and thus export your inflation for others to deal with) if you spend on space capsules instead of stealth bombers?
Space tech is really good for targeted terrestrial energy delivery. Put a man on the Moon, you can drop a nuke anywhere on the Earth.
The problem is our space tech is already good enough for that. We need to convince our leaders they should be developing the ability to divert asteroids for first strikes that appear to be acts of God and come with completely plausible deniability. And simultaneously develop asteroid deflection capability in the event our enemies are thinking the same thing.
We all have opinions on space exploration, we hardly need an article that's nothing but opinions.
I don't know about Buffet, but like most 'self-made' rich people, Bill Gates got a massive head start from his parents, both in money and critical insider connections.
And while Billy was building his fortune, he wasn't exactly know for his fair business practices or being a trustworthy partner.
>everyone's always been free to summarize and restate if they attribute
I imagine it wouldn't take Google long to hack together something that would not only gather news, but summarize it, tag it with an attribution, and then put 'GoogleNewsAI' in the byline.
Hell, they could probably manage to link it to a GIS to pull up a relevant licence-free image, too.
>Looking at examples of properly served wines on-line I see such bowls never more than half full, and often as little as a quarter full.
As a (mostly) non-drinker who occasionally pours for others... I just learned I've been over-serving.
Never had a complaint, though.
Right now, I'd be happier if they'd up their ability to downrate sites that are misleading them with summaries that aren't visible to general web traffic.
>300 billion Americans
Holy shit. You guys have been having a lot of unprotected sex in the last few years. Congratulations? :)
Other than that math error (I am very bad with decimal places myself), I would reluctantly tend to agree with your assessment.
>off topic.
My reply was perfectly on-topic to the content of the post I was replying to.
>Now, can you please post your off-topic socialist grandstanding spam someplace else?
Instead of that... how about you take your attitude and shove it right up your ass?
You get compensated for risk, responsibility, and skill. I'm generally OK with that, except that mostly we see that word 'responsibility' being seen as a perfect synonym for 'authority', which it is not.
And the risk? Well, your risk is that your obscene (to most people) income will be temporarily interrupted until your peers install you in the next available slot... and you get a big payout to cover your expenses until that happens. And even if it all somehow goes completely to shit, you still have so much money just from your payout that you will never, ever, fall into the middle class. And neither will your children. So no risk.
And finally, I have a lot of trouble believing anyone has so much in the way of skills that couldn't be learned by large numbers of other people that they are worth 1000x per hour what the average salaried employee makes (never mind comparing it to minimum wage).
It's not how much they draw compared to each person, it's how much they draw in total. It is, in fact, obscene.
In theory there's nothing wrong with taking advice from such people; after all, they are more likely to have relevant knowledge of how their industry works.
The mistake is in letting them give orders. Actually, the mistake is in taking everything touched by the government and turning it into R vs. D.
The FCC should be a non-political body receiving general direction from the legislative branch, and then setting specific policies in line with that direction (when practical - sometimes they need to be able to push back when 'the boss' is wrong) based on their non-political expert opinions.
In the case of Net Neutrality, the marching orders should be (based on the current politics in the White House) "reduce restrictions on Internet service providers preventing them from controlling what data moves across their networks and how it is handled".
Instead of being transparent about it, those same instructions have been masked with propaganda and lies by a Republican stooge and biased industry shill.
Is your post disingenuity or ignorance on your part?
The panel is required to have no more than three members from the same party, thus sometimes you're going to see a cross-party nomination.
Pai was made chairman by the current Republican administration, not the previous Democratic one.
I remember a time when search engines respected logical operators, quotes and parentheses. A time before it was decided that the algorithms knew better than I did how form a keyword search and all queries should be parsed as natural language.
I've done some image searches where Bing produces results and Google comes up with none.
I'm pretty sure Bing has better video search (which the conspiracy theorist in me thinks might be due to Google wanting to favour YouTube results).
Why you still need Google to search for Microsoft KB articles is a mystery for the ages. You'd think that'd be a major embarrassment that Microsoft would have had as #1 on their priority list to fix.
Think of the 'big 4' as cars, and your ISP as the roads you drive them on. It's a lot easier to choose a different car than to have a second set of roads built in your area.
Google may seem unassailable in the West (and they do have a huge market advantage), but there is always the possibility of a niche search engine growing into a rival. It's far less likely a niche ISP will arise with the resources to install the required infrastructure except in isolated communities - and since a physical presence is require to compete, they're never going to crack the major markets where NN is protecting consumers against vertically integrated media-and-delivery empires.
No. Why would a private corporation want a blockchain currency whose security would depend on maintaining more processing power on the network than the rest of the world combined?
They could (if they haven't already via a partnership with Visa or other major entity) issue a DisneyCard and require it for transactions with their empire.
>I had never seen such single mindedness "my mind is made up don't confuse me with the facts" behaviour from US politicians.
This isn't ignorance, but deliberate lying. They know what will happen, it just happens to be in alignment with their desires.
This is what happens when you put a fox in charge of the hen house. When a bunch of rich people obviously want to reduce the impediments to getting richer and have a history of making moves in that direction, it's probably a bad idea to take them at their word when they say they're going to help you out at their expense.
>As things stand, you can't get Disney films on Netflix (I believe there's one star wars film on there right now, possibly as a test or something).
I suspect that would be, "A New Hope", because Disney doesn't own that until this deal goes through. Once it does, they'll pull it from Netflix to support their own streaming offerings instead.
In this case, doesn't it at least mean that some media IP is no longer split between rivals, so we can see all our favourite characters from the same universe in the same movies?
We want movies that pander to us (though we have different ideas as to how that pandering should be done). This will allow more committee-based movies to check more boxes for focus groups and give us what we want.
It won't destroy quality thought-provoking movies... there's always another generation of talented people trying to break into the industry. It means that the mindless big budget blockbusters are slightly more likely to appeal to us... and if they do, be immediately followed up by 200 cheap direct-to-video cartoon sequels with plots that are too simple for the average five year old.
We wouldn't want that bastion of fair and balanced quality journalism to be tainted by Disney.