Each one has been lovingly hand-filled by my well paid assistants with glowing comments about the Great again United States, and how handsome and insightful its great blonde (duly elected) God-king is.
Very cheap. Contact "Butch Hillhurst" on Silk Road 4.0 for details.
Seriously though, is anyone else getting tired of these smaller and smaller fragile connectors that have about a one or two year lifespan before they become loose and wobbly and malfunction?
First requirement of a connector is it should reliably stay connected even with little pulls on the cable, Second requirement is a decent lifespan, and non-self-destructive tendencies through normal use.
It would be ok to have your network engineers or machine-learning system or whatever figure out that there was a particular "style" of connection happening over your network, and then optimize toward that.
What would be illegal would be to only provide that optimization for the benefit of the Netflix corporation to the detriment of substantially similar packet streams coming from "MyFunnyHomeVideos.com" or whatever. See the difference? One is a protentially commercial benefit potentially sold to one source of content at a premium so they can squash their would-be competition and become a monopoly easier. The other just optimizes for a particular class of traffic and doesn't know or care if it comes from Aliens from Alpha Centauri.
Perhaps the best compromise is to allow differential treatment of TYPES of packets / packet streams, but not allow differential treatment of packets/streams FROM particular source IPs / identities / organizations nor allow differential treatment of packets / streams TO particular IPs / identities / organizations.
Of course the Internet pipes are essential utilities, or public infrastructure like highways, take your pick. Title-II classification was logical. But I guess logic is inherently left-wing, now that you mention it:-/
If utilities are somehow over-regulated that's a separate issue.
Just like we don't want tollgates on the highways only allowing you to go through after paying a bribe or making a side-deal with the highway operator, we don't want favored pay-to-play content suppliers clogging up the Interwebs at everyone else's expense.-
What Gates meant was "when people "take that complexity and create (action-paralyzing, overly broad) uncertainty about it,"
The strategy of status-quo fossil-fuel "drill baby drill" advocates is to promote thinking like "if there's any uncertainty at all, then we shouldn't do anything". This is the deer frozen in the headlights approach, and it doesn't help the deer.
This strategy deliberately ignores and denies how the scientific process works on complex topics, which involves compartmentalization, quantification, and systematic reduction of uncertainties in different aspects of the model/theory/measurement of a complex phenomenon.
This strategy is "either you know everything with certainty down to the last detail, or you know nothing, and must not act". This is clearly a foolish approach, in general. When you hear a nearby guttural roar in the woods, you should assume it's a bear or a tiger, and start backing off. That's all we're asking on climate change/global warming.
It is always wrong (ok, 99.9% of the time wrong) to have more than one context/page/plug-in instance in the browser play audio at a time, whether the context is backgrounded or not.
From a user perspective, the result of multiple concurrent audio streams is garbled, unintelligible, dissonant sound.
So if you can save power by preventing that, do so.
Related case in point: When a browser re-starts after a crash, it often seems to start auto-playing a bunch of separate youtube videos (which had been paused or at-end-of-video) on backgrounded pages. Again, this is ALWAYS the wrong thing for the browser to do.
I'm pretty sure it's just bad journalistic article writing, or that weird kind of "we have superior technology" boosterism. From the description, the thing sounds pretty much the same as hyperloop.
"For example, for methane (CH4), which has a short lifetime, the 100-year Global Warming Potential of 28–36 (x CO2 effect) is much less than the 20-year GWP of 84–87 (x CO2 effect)." https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissio...
Note: Better cache that page before dipshit and deputy disphit EPA guy have it removed.
If the methane clathrates in permafrost regions and arctic seabed etc are released due to GW, it will be the "polar" opposite of irrelevant. If that happens, almost nothing else will be relevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
They may have voted, but if 65% wanted priority given to alternative energy sources over fossil fuel development, yet half of all the voters, roughly, voted for the candidate who is "Captain Coal", then clearly, a lot of people voted AGAINST THEIR OWN INTEREST.
"the moon is made out of green cheese" is a statement or proposition, whose truth-value is "false". It is therefore not a fact. Get your facts straight.
but you apparently prefer "alternative facts", which, as Merriam-Webster corp. tweeted today, are not, you know, actually, facts.
Just as one easy counter-example, you can build a solar-panel-building factory in the sahara desert, converting local sand into silicon solar panels, using nothing but the energy from the sun to power the factory and the construction vehicles, after a short initial pre-sustainable bootstrapping period.
Also, the environmental cost of just shipping fossil fuels from producing country to consuming country currently dwarfs all of those environmental costs you mention, and that doesn't even count the environmental costs of burning said fossil fuels.
So one has to question the motivation behind your remarks. Are you a driver of an embarrassingly oversized "tru-u-oo-u-uck" used only for grocery hauling, or a paid fossil-fuel industry shill?
Just as a matter of principle, shouldn't the newer Hawaiian immigrants be paying property taxes to the indigenous (or longer-term Polynesian-descendant) Hawaiians for the appropriation of their land? (Including rather a lot of back taxes in arrears.)...and not the other way round?
The Justice System (e.g. land title lawsuit judgements etc) has a funny way of working out well for those in de-facto power, doesn't it?
Since the fast-movers with ties to government have already captured the formerly-state-run wealth and have turned China into an oligarchy of Mercedes and Tesla drivers, the last thing they want is the peasants chatting together on unregulated apps and starting something like a bottom-up communist revolution.
Are you just jealous that the "uber-commie-corporation" of China is more effective at business, and more agile at taking advantage of new worldwide trends, than your corporations?
As Trump would say, they're just better negotiators.
Don't worry, you'll soon be protected by Trump so you can buy American solar panels. Just don't complain if they're twice as heavy and half as efficient (automotive sector I'm looking at you.) At least you can but genuine NAPA replacement parts.
To know whether they discriminate or not, you have to know the demographics of their candidate pool.
If say 20% women are applying (for a position type), and the women's qualification levels are equivalent statistically to men's, and roughly 20% women are getting hired that's not discrimination. Same goes with race.
If there are barriers to getting to the candidate pool with equivalent qualifications and experience, that's a problem earlier in the chain and in the nature of educational opportunity equality and barriers, economic barriers, social barriers etc. All of that is not Google's fault, if it's the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Each one has been lovingly hand-filled by my well paid assistants with glowing comments about the Great again United States, and how handsome and insightful its great blonde (duly elected) God-king is.
Very cheap. Contact "Butch Hillhurst" on Silk Road 4.0 for details.
Obligatory https://xkcd.com/927/
Seriously though, is anyone else getting tired of these smaller and smaller fragile connectors that have about a one or two year lifespan before they become loose and wobbly and malfunction?
First requirement of a connector is it should reliably stay connected even with little pulls on the cable,
Second requirement is a decent lifespan, and non-self-destructive tendencies through normal use.
Nope. You're pretty much missing my point.
It would be ok to have your network engineers or machine-learning system or whatever figure out that there was a particular "style" of connection happening over your network, and then optimize toward that.
What would be illegal would be to only provide that optimization for the benefit of the Netflix corporation to the detriment of substantially similar packet streams coming from "MyFunnyHomeVideos.com" or whatever. See the difference? One is a protentially commercial benefit potentially sold to one source of content at a premium so they can squash their would-be competition and become a monopoly easier. The other just optimizes for a particular class of traffic and doesn't know or care if it comes from Aliens from Alpha Centauri.
Perhaps the best compromise is to allow differential treatment of TYPES of packets / packet streams, but not allow differential treatment of packets /streams FROM particular source IPs / identities / organizations nor allow differential treatment of packets / streams TO particular IPs / identities / organizations.
Trumpco. is only getting started.
Your whole f**king country is one giant reality TV show now. It's going to be so-o-o-o-o entertaining! It's going to be FABULOUS!
Of course the Internet pipes are essential utilities, or public infrastructure like highways, take your pick. Title-II classification was logical. But I guess logic is inherently left-wing, now that you mention it :-/
If utilities are somehow over-regulated that's a separate issue.
Just like we don't want tollgates on the highways only allowing you to go through after paying a bribe or making a side-deal with the highway operator, we don't want favored pay-to-play content suppliers clogging up the Interwebs at everyone else's expense.-
What Gates meant was "when people "take that complexity and create (action-paralyzing, overly broad) uncertainty about it,"
The strategy of status-quo fossil-fuel "drill baby drill" advocates is to promote thinking like "if there's any uncertainty at all, then we shouldn't do anything". This is the deer frozen in the headlights approach, and it doesn't help the deer.
This strategy deliberately ignores and denies how the scientific process works on complex topics, which involves compartmentalization, quantification, and systematic reduction of uncertainties in different aspects of the model/theory/measurement of a complex phenomenon.
This strategy is "either you know everything with certainty down to the last detail, or you know nothing, and must not act". This is clearly a foolish approach, in general. When you hear a nearby guttural roar in the woods, you should assume it's a bear or a tiger, and start backing off. That's all we're asking on climate change/global warming.
Also, I should say: Fine, as long as you don't work in an open plan office, or always use a headset.
Otherwise, your office mates will think you are a "ding"bat.
ok, good points. Perhaps short little audios like that are ok.
Bult multiple videos with audio playing in background tabs? That should be something you have to explicitly enable as a user. Not the default.
Or at the VERY least, you should have the option to set your browser up as doing pause-on-background as its behaviour default.
It is always wrong (ok, 99.9% of the time wrong) to have more than one context/page/plug-in instance in the browser play audio at a time, whether the context is backgrounded or not.
From a user perspective, the result of multiple concurrent audio streams is garbled, unintelligible, dissonant sound.
So if you can save power by preventing that, do so.
Related case in point: When a browser re-starts after a crash, it often seems to start auto-playing a bunch of separate youtube videos (which had been paused or at-end-of-video) on backgrounded pages. Again, this is ALWAYS the wrong thing for the browser to do.
I'm pretty sure it's just bad journalistic article writing, or that weird kind of "we have superior technology" boosterism. From the description, the thing sounds pretty much the same as hyperloop.
"For example, for methane (CH4), which has a short lifetime, the 100-year Global Warming Potential of 28–36 (x CO2 effect) is much less than the 20-year GWP of 84–87 (x CO2 effect)." https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissio...
Note: Better cache that page before dipshit and deputy disphit EPA guy have it removed.
If the methane clathrates in permafrost regions and arctic seabed etc are released due to GW, it will be the "polar" opposite of irrelevant.
If that happens, almost nothing else will be relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yeah, but you've got a lot of solar energy production now, and no coal. That's a policy success.
And if the high price makes you conserve energy like a European, so much the better.
Plus there are fun ways of staying warm in the Great White North.
They may have voted, but if 65% wanted priority given to alternative energy sources over fossil fuel development, yet half of all the voters, roughly, voted for the candidate who is "Captain Coal", then clearly, a lot of people voted AGAINST THEIR OWN INTEREST.
- a thing that is indisputably the case.
- something that actually exists; reality; truth
"the moon is made out of green cheese" is a statement or proposition, whose truth-value is "false". It is therefore not a fact. Get your facts straight.
where evolution runs in reverse.
but you apparently prefer "alternative facts", which, as Merriam-Webster corp. tweeted today, are not, you know, actually, facts.
Just as one easy counter-example, you can build a solar-panel-building factory in the sahara desert, converting local sand into silicon solar panels, using nothing but the energy from the sun to power the factory and the construction vehicles, after a short initial pre-sustainable bootstrapping period.
Also, the environmental cost of just shipping fossil fuels from producing country to consuming country currently dwarfs all of those environmental costs you mention, and that doesn't even count the environmental costs of burning said fossil fuels.
So one has to question the motivation behind your remarks. Are you a driver of an embarrassingly oversized "tru-u-oo-u-uck" used only for grocery hauling, or a paid fossil-fuel industry shill?
"65% of Americans give priority to developing alternative energy sources"
Too bad those 65% don't vote for what they want, apparently.
Just as a matter of principle, shouldn't the newer Hawaiian immigrants be paying property taxes to the indigenous (or longer-term Polynesian-descendant) Hawaiians for the appropriation of their land? (Including rather a lot of back taxes in arrears.) ...and not the other way round?
The Justice System (e.g. land title lawsuit judgements etc) has a funny way of working out well for those in de-facto power, doesn't it?
Since the fast-movers with ties to government have already captured the formerly-state-run wealth and have turned China into an oligarchy of Mercedes and Tesla drivers, the last thing they want is the peasants chatting together on unregulated apps and starting something like a bottom-up communist revolution.
If only there were a technology where every transaction was recorded in an irrefutable way in a public ledger.
You know the spot you can't reach to scratch or apply sunscreen.
This way, a humanoid robot couldn't easily prevent you from turning it off.
Might lead to a reduction in robot suicides too.
Of course it would be more sci-fi poetic to put in on the side of the neck.
After your first manned mission to the Earth-like planet Venus:
http://www.space.com/44-venus-...
Are you just jealous that the "uber-commie-corporation" of China is more effective at business, and more agile at taking advantage of new worldwide trends, than your corporations?
As Trump would say, they're just better negotiators.
Don't worry, you'll soon be protected by Trump so you can buy American solar panels. Just don't complain if they're twice as heavy and half as efficient (automotive sector I'm looking at you.) At least you can but genuine NAPA replacement parts.
To know whether they discriminate or not, you have to know the demographics of their candidate pool.
If say 20% women are applying (for a position type), and the women's qualification levels are equivalent statistically to men's, and roughly 20% women are getting hired that's not discrimination. Same goes with race.
If there are barriers to getting to the candidate pool with equivalent qualifications and experience, that's a problem earlier in the chain and in the nature of educational opportunity equality and barriers, economic barriers, social barriers etc. All of that is not Google's fault, if it's the case.