Oh, the irony of those espousing the virtues of spending obscene amounts of money on infrastructure projects and now The Village has become so gentrified that mere mortals can't afford to live there.
Given that only 36 percent of Indian coders can write compilable code, what makes anyone think they can hack e-mail? For that matter, they haven't been able to become convincing telephone scammers either. I call B.S.
There's a significant difference between national elections in the U.S. and every other country. Here, they aren't centralized. Every state has its own election infrastructure. While you might be able to hack one state, you couldn't hack enough of them to make a difference in the electoral college which is already heavily blue shifted due to California and the northeastern states. You could probably pretty easily hack one voting district but it would be noticed as was likely the case in Philadelphia in 2012.
Silicon Valley doesn't understand life outside of Silicon Valley. There are a whole lot of places in the country that don't have wireless internet service yet they build products that expect it.
All self-driving cars would need to add those LCD windows that can be made opaque on command. The software would block the windows when going through the intersection so the passengers wouldn't freak out.
Cardinal rule: If something is given away for free, it either has no value or YOU are the product. Once you are beholden to a government for something, they own your ass. You will do what they want. But you probably won't realize it until it's way too late.
So it's more like a radar detector. Given that those are radio receivers and therefore governed by the FCC (yes, there is case law on the subject pertaining to citizens right to know that they're being spied on), this is really no different. But try telling that to cops in Virginia.
California wants to tax drivers based on the number of miles traveled on the grounds that the state owns the roads and has to maintain them. So by that pretzel logic, the State of California (who loves to think that they know better than everyone else what causes cancer) is essentially saying that they own space and is responsible for maintaining it. Nnnnnkay.
Look, the internet had functioned quite well for 30 years. The U.S. economy as we know it and for that matter, that of much of the developed, world exists because of it. Ergo, it wasn't broken. Government, on the other hand, has been broken (and broke) for a lot longer than that. What better way to "engineer" a bailout of government than to suck wealth out of the most prosperous segment of the economy. You wouldn't realize that you've been screwed until long after that "engineering" has been entrenched. Remember: the issue is never what they say it is. What that say it's about is a misdirection while they steal your watch.
These startups need to realize that the internet infrastructure a) doesn't belong to them and b) doesn't belong to the government. Neither of them paid for its development, ongoing maintenance, and upgrading. Besides, many of these companies existed before the reclassification. They also need a little history lesson in the fact that deregulation of telecommunications in the 80s lead to the internet as we know it today. Prior to 1985, use of the internet for commercial purposes was "frowned upon in this establishment!"
If net neutrality is such a good idea, then why is AT&T building FirstNet?
There are others, to be sure, but the fact that AT&T is building FirstNet as a dedicated network for law enforcement and "first responders" illustrates a fundamental flaw in net neutrality. Not all content is equally important.
The SSA employs over 60,000 people. They aren't cheap. https://www.glassdoor.com/Sala... That means that it's costing somewhere around $3 billion a year (probably more) to run the program not including pensions for retired employees. And they don't produce anything. They merely add an expense to moving money around. These days, the entire system could be automated.
Medicare doesn't employ nearly as many people directly but the number of people needed by doctors and hospitals to deal with the paperwork is where a lot of money goes.
This is a really dangerous oversimplification. What they should be looking at is the overhead costs associated with government spending. Supposedly, Social Security is a "third rail" of politics. Usually, if a politician talks about reforming it or fixing it, they're toast because the voters have been lead to believe that every dollar that goes into Social Security comes back out. It simply can't work that way. There are too many people employed by the Social Security Administration. Every single one of them gets a salary and a pension. They all need a physical place to work. Ergo, that all costs money. A LOT of money. Same thing for Medicare. Both of these entitlement programs represent the bulk of government spending. Also, whenever some pundit screams bloody murder about "cuts" to either of these programs, the are flat out lying to you. Nothing ever gets cut. That's how baseline budgeting works. What they're really talking about is reductions to proposed INCREASES in spending over and above previous baselines.
Where did they test this thing and what was the relative humidity during the test? 3 liters isn't enough for one person to survive on in the desert (1 gallon per person per day) so you'd really need a lot of them for normal daily use and a lot more to be able to grow crops.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, the irony of those espousing the virtues of spending obscene amounts of money on infrastructure projects and now The Village has become so gentrified that mere mortals can't afford to live there.
Given that only 36 percent of Indian coders can write compilable code, what makes anyone think they can hack e-mail? For that matter, they haven't been able to become convincing telephone scammers either. I call B.S.
There's a significant difference between national elections in the U.S. and every other country. Here, they aren't centralized. Every state has its own election infrastructure. While you might be able to hack one state, you couldn't hack enough of them to make a difference in the electoral college which is already heavily blue shifted due to California and the northeastern states. You could probably pretty easily hack one voting district but it would be noticed as was likely the case in Philadelphia in 2012.
Thanks to the E.U., the rest of Europe slips further into the stone age.
I sold my soul to the company store...
Silicon Valley doesn't understand life outside of Silicon Valley. There are a whole lot of places in the country that don't have wireless internet service yet they build products that expect it.
All self-driving cars would need to add those LCD windows that can be made opaque on command. The software would block the windows when going through the intersection so the passengers wouldn't freak out.
Cardinal rule: If something is given away for free, it either has no value or YOU are the product.
Once you are beholden to a government for something, they own your ass. You will do what they want. But you probably won't realize it until it's way too late.
How else do you allow updates to the system without root access?
So it's more like a radar detector. Given that those are radio receivers and therefore governed by the FCC (yes, there is case law on the subject pertaining to citizens right to know that they're being spied on), this is really no different. But try telling that to cops in Virginia.
California wants to tax drivers based on the number of miles traveled on the grounds that the state owns the roads and has to maintain them. So by that pretzel logic, the State of California (who loves to think that they know better than everyone else what causes cancer) is essentially saying that they own space and is responsible for maintaining it. Nnnnnkay.
So it's software designed to implement the right not to self-incriminate. Sort of.
Why couldn't this have reached phase 3 trials before I was in my teens and couldn't get a date to save my life?
Those who enjoy food and those who merely see food as fuel. Never ever take nutrition advice from the latter.
Look, the internet had functioned quite well for 30 years. The U.S. economy as we know it and for that matter, that of much of the developed, world exists because of it. Ergo, it wasn't broken. Government, on the other hand, has been broken (and broke) for a lot longer than that. What better way to "engineer" a bailout of government than to suck wealth out of the most prosperous segment of the economy. You wouldn't realize that you've been screwed until long after that "engineering" has been entrenched. Remember: the issue is never what they say it is. What that say it's about is a misdirection while they steal your watch.
How well is that working out?
http://www.marketwatch.com/sto...
These startups need to realize that the internet infrastructure a) doesn't belong to them and b) doesn't belong to the government. Neither of them paid for its development, ongoing maintenance, and upgrading. Besides, many of these companies existed before the reclassification. They also need a little history lesson in the fact that deregulation of telecommunications in the 80s lead to the internet as we know it today. Prior to 1985, use of the internet for commercial purposes was "frowned upon in this establishment!"
If net neutrality is such a good idea, then why is AT&T building FirstNet?
Apparently, it will sous vide.
What happens when this species is "accidentally" released near a plastic-lined holding pond for toxic waste?
It would appear that nobody in their right mind would code in C# unless they were getting paid for it.
There are others, to be sure, but the fact that AT&T is building FirstNet as a dedicated network for law enforcement and "first responders" illustrates a fundamental flaw in net neutrality. Not all content is equally important.
Soooo, a "machine learning" system made this evaluation. I'll bet other machines got perfect scores. Bias much?
The SSA employs over 60,000 people. They aren't cheap. https://www.glassdoor.com/Sala...
That means that it's costing somewhere around $3 billion a year (probably more) to run the program not including pensions for retired employees. And they don't produce anything. They merely add an expense to moving money around. These days, the entire system could be automated.
Medicare doesn't employ nearly as many people directly but the number of people needed by doctors and hospitals to deal with the paperwork is where a lot of money goes.
This is a really dangerous oversimplification. What they should be looking at is the overhead costs associated with government spending. Supposedly, Social Security is a "third rail" of politics. Usually, if a politician talks about reforming it or fixing it, they're toast because the voters have been lead to believe that every dollar that goes into Social Security comes back out. It simply can't work that way. There are too many people employed by the Social Security Administration. Every single one of them gets a salary and a pension. They all need a physical place to work. Ergo, that all costs money. A LOT of money. Same thing for Medicare. Both of these entitlement programs represent the bulk of government spending.
Also, whenever some pundit screams bloody murder about "cuts" to either of these programs, the are flat out lying to you. Nothing ever gets cut. That's how baseline budgeting works. What they're really talking about is reductions to proposed INCREASES in spending over and above previous baselines.
Where did they test this thing and what was the relative humidity during the test? 3 liters isn't enough for one person to survive on in the desert (1 gallon per person per day) so you'd really need a lot of them for normal daily use and a lot more to be able to grow crops.