That one is extreme, but she's hardly alone. The point is that taxi drivers, no matter how bad they might be, are regulated a whole lot more than the rest of us. Btw, that's cute - turning a key... so 1990s.
Star Trek's utopian view of the universe is one potential outcome, which is very much in line with your "share the wealth". You see none of that now, and the current trend is to share less. Government needs to be out of everything, smaller government, etc. See the huge backlash at anything approaching universal healthcare. So, who's going to share the wealth? Everything going on today in the US is about carving out that little section of wealth for an individual and hanging onto it as long as possible, since getting more is almost impossible for most, much like it's been for much of civilization's history.
Do you equate "value creation" to "having a real job"?
I sure don't. Driving a car, or preparing meals could be considered more value creation than what I do. It's the circumstances surrounding what these people do. I could be a door man, paid by a hotel to open doors and greet people. Or I could be a homeless bum that gets a bottle for opening the door for a day, replaceable by the poor sap sitting on the curb down the street pining for a bottle. One is a profession, the other is merely doing what they can to get by. Same basic effect - the door is opened when I walk up.
Yes, but if I'm giving up something of mine (e.g. 80% of my house) then the process is not creating anything for me. That's the situation these people are in. They didn't invest in a hotel or multi-family unit to rent out a portion, they're cutting up what they had to preserve a small piece for themselves. That's cannibalization.
Nothing is being created. Did you even read TFA's (I'll wait for the roar of laughter to die down) on what these supposed sharing economy traits are? I did, and several other stories about the phenomenon besides that were stated earlier. In each case of "success" it's people making money off what they already own. It's the rich person living in a row house splitting the levels into apartments and renting them out and living in the basement with the proceeds of the rent. Or the person with a car working as a taxi driver for the day to make his car and gas payments while trying to have a real job. It's not a positive statement.
The "Sharing Economy" is a race to the bottom. The people engaged are selling time and use of the only things they have left (houses, cars, and their personal time) for money to people still working because they cannot find a job that pays enough. It's people hanging onto a shard of what they used to have while renting out the rest. This can only implode, and the faster it grows, the bigger the implosion will be.
The predictions of the 40s and 50s about the future are coming true - robotics will do most menial labor, people will have more free time, except that free time is not evenly divided up among the population. There's the group working 80-120 hour weeks, and the unemployed or sub 20 hours per week minimum wage slave. That will continue until there are not enough consumers to support the people working, and then more layoffs ensue, until we're back in the serfdom and squalor of a good middle ages city with a wealthy elite and beggars and almost no one else in between.
OK, maybe that's a little extreme and apocalyptic view of the future, but where we're going is somewhere between now and there unless some major things change. Automation will remove more manual labor and service type jobs going forward, and there really won't be anything replacing it.
People chose VHS over BetaMax because the hardware they had couldn't display the better picture and nothing was in the works that would have made BetaMax worth the cost difference. Today, until you go over about 42" on a HDTV, you'll have a tough time telling the difference with streaming or DVD quality video over BluRay at a normal viewing distance.
I code in VB.Net as my day job, and I have to say, I don't mind the verbosity one bit.... Sadly though, it autocorrects "Wend" to "End While" At least let me shorten things a little.
If I had mod points, you'd get a funny for that one.
And that says "The first spanning tree protocol was invented in 1985" which predates the earliest patent, therefore is prior art and invalidates the entire lawsuit. Why is this still in court?
I took a look at 4,956,835, the first thing I noticed is that it was published in 1988 and should no longer be valid, and quite possibly out of their sue capable window. The second thing I noticed is that it seemingly describes the already in use at the time ATM and TCP / DARPANET configurations. So, with those as prior art, wouldn't this particular patent already be invalid? I'm short of time, or I'd dig more deeply.
The biggest problem with Verizon's argument is that they took billions of tax dollars to build out this so-called broadband network. They were paid to do it. It's not theirs, it's the tax payers. Perhaps we should take it back?
If you're storing PCI data on anything but a highly controlled hardware in a secure network, you will not be PCI compliant. I personally don't even want to process PCI data, preferring to offload that onto systems explicitly configured for that task.
My comment would probably be that sparse checkouts aren't smart to begin with, and why would you do them? SVN sucks in so many ways, perhaps the problem isn't with git and how it works, but with the perceptions of people who've compromised efficiency for familiarity, much like many people got used to MS Windows XP and find all other systems "inferior" when it's really a familiarity question. If you've only learned to hammer a screw, odds are you'll find a screwdriver inefficient and bad.
Nope, I've just 50+ separate artifacts with roughly 2 million LOCs building a total of 5 deliverable components for one 3 year project. A 1 million LOC project with 3 components on another 1 year project. A 20 component distributed system with unknown LOCs across more than 10 source repos for another 1 year project.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can't see the difference, you never will. You have an MBA by chance?
why do you think there's a fight? My comment was that it's a sad situation.
I'd be happy if the restaurants are inspected regularly. Food trucks? Seriously? I take much care where I get my food from, thank you.
That one is extreme, but she's hardly alone. The point is that taxi drivers, no matter how bad they might be, are regulated a whole lot more than the rest of us. Btw, that's cute - turning a key... so 1990s.
Star Trek's utopian view of the universe is one potential outcome, which is very much in line with your "share the wealth". You see none of that now, and the current trend is to share less. Government needs to be out of everything, smaller government, etc. See the huge backlash at anything approaching universal healthcare. So, who's going to share the wealth? Everything going on today in the US is about carving out that little section of wealth for an individual and hanging onto it as long as possible, since getting more is almost impossible for most, much like it's been for much of civilization's history.
Do you equate "value creation" to "having a real job"?
I sure don't. Driving a car, or preparing meals could be considered more value creation than what I do. It's the circumstances surrounding what these people do. I could be a door man, paid by a hotel to open doors and greet people. Or I could be a homeless bum that gets a bottle for opening the door for a day, replaceable by the poor sap sitting on the curb down the street pining for a bottle. One is a profession, the other is merely doing what they can to get by. Same basic effect - the door is opened when I walk up.
Yes, but if I'm giving up something of mine (e.g. 80% of my house) then the process is not creating anything for me. That's the situation these people are in. They didn't invest in a hotel or multi-family unit to rent out a portion, they're cutting up what they had to preserve a small piece for themselves. That's cannibalization.
Nothing is being created. Did you even read TFA's (I'll wait for the roar of laughter to die down) on what these supposed sharing economy traits are? I did, and several other stories about the phenomenon besides that were stated earlier. In each case of "success" it's people making money off what they already own. It's the rich person living in a row house splitting the levels into apartments and renting them out and living in the basement with the proceeds of the rent. Or the person with a car working as a taxi driver for the day to make his car and gas payments while trying to have a real job. It's not a positive statement.
Food trucks may or may not be registered and inspected. That driver sharing with you might be this one. Still feel safe?
The "Sharing Economy" is a race to the bottom. The people engaged are selling time and use of the only things they have left (houses, cars, and their personal time) for money to people still working because they cannot find a job that pays enough. It's people hanging onto a shard of what they used to have while renting out the rest. This can only implode, and the faster it grows, the bigger the implosion will be.
The predictions of the 40s and 50s about the future are coming true - robotics will do most menial labor, people will have more free time, except that free time is not evenly divided up among the population. There's the group working 80-120 hour weeks, and the unemployed or sub 20 hours per week minimum wage slave. That will continue until there are not enough consumers to support the people working, and then more layoffs ensue, until we're back in the serfdom and squalor of a good middle ages city with a wealthy elite and beggars and almost no one else in between.
OK, maybe that's a little extreme and apocalyptic view of the future, but where we're going is somewhere between now and there unless some major things change. Automation will remove more manual labor and service type jobs going forward, and there really won't be anything replacing it.
1982, but I thought it interesting when I saw it, although slightly implausible. Now I'm not too sure. I am Legend is 1954.
Try Michael Crichton's The Andromeda Strain or Richard Matheson's I am Legend if you want to go back to as original source as I can come up with.
People chose VHS over BetaMax because the hardware they had couldn't display the better picture and nothing was in the works that would have made BetaMax worth the cost difference. Today, until you go over about 42" on a HDTV, you'll have a tough time telling the difference with streaming or DVD quality video over BluRay at a normal viewing distance.
So I have a burger, and I serve it to people. One costs 1 dollar and another costs 10 dollars. Does the 10 dollar burger have better quality?
It depends. Did you hand carve the meat out of a prime rib roast and create the $10 burger with it and use the leftovers for the $1 burger?
I code in VB.Net as my day job, and I have to say, I don't mind the verbosity one bit.... Sadly though, it autocorrects "Wend" to "End While" At least let me shorten things a little.
If I had mod points, you'd get a funny for that one.
And that says "The first spanning tree protocol was invented in 1985" which predates the earliest patent, therefore is prior art and invalidates the entire lawsuit. Why is this still in court?
I took a look at 4,956,835, the first thing I noticed is that it was published in 1988 and should no longer be valid, and quite possibly out of their sue capable window. The second thing I noticed is that it seemingly describes the already in use at the time ATM and TCP / DARPANET configurations. So, with those as prior art, wouldn't this particular patent already be invalid? I'm short of time, or I'd dig more deeply.
The biggest problem with Verizon's argument is that they took billions of tax dollars to build out this so-called broadband network. They were paid to do it. It's not theirs, it's the tax payers. Perhaps we should take it back?
No.
If you're storing PCI data on anything but a highly controlled hardware in a secure network, you will not be PCI compliant. I personally don't even want to process PCI data, preferring to offload that onto systems explicitly configured for that task.
My comment would probably be that sparse checkouts aren't smart to begin with, and why would you do them? SVN sucks in so many ways, perhaps the problem isn't with git and how it works, but with the perceptions of people who've compromised efficiency for familiarity, much like many people got used to MS Windows XP and find all other systems "inferior" when it's really a familiarity question. If you've only learned to hammer a screw, odds are you'll find a screwdriver inefficient and bad.
You mean like this?
SVN is better?
Nope, I've just 50+ separate artifacts with roughly 2 million LOCs building a total of 5 deliverable components for one 3 year project. A 1 million LOC project with 3 components on another 1 year project. A 20 component distributed system with unknown LOCs across more than 10 source repos for another 1 year project.
Nope, I bow to your anonymity.
Maybe they're not. They're certainly not the group I was discussing, as that requires more than passing knowledge of quite a few technologies.