You will almost certainly be able to buy two or even three nicely outfitted Threadripper 2 workstations for the cost of that CPU alone. Intel sells 28-core Xeons now, but they aren't anywhere near 5 GHz, and they cost about $10k each.
Syria isn't in Africa, and Germany didn't send U-Hauls to anyone. Arable land has been going up. Population has grown faster than arable land, but not nearly as fast as they productivity if that arable land. You need a better source for your talking points.
Because the people and companies in this story are from the US, I supposed you wanted the US to enact a tax. I pointed out that, contrast to your claim, the US does not have a carbon tax, or in fact anything like one. You then stated that not all the world is the US. Did you not mean to suggest that the EU was the obvious place to implement such a tax? Africa, Asia, South America, Australia could not hope to make such a tax stick, which leaves the EU.
Go back to preschool, you have apparently not mastered the process of elimination.
RMS is a US citizen, the companies in question are headquartered in the the US, and I think a large majority of Slashdot readers are from the US. If you want to argue that "we" need another GDPR-like law that helps the incumbent social media companies, while taxing them for the same things that GDPR regulates, issued by the same governments that already used the GDPR against the same kind of activities, you should just say that you think the GDPR was a mistake and that the EU should try again. And you should avoid saying "we" if you mean to refer to a minority of the audience.
Taxes are for things that are not "wrong" in the eyes of the law. There are sin taxes, but those are for things that are merely discouraged. If we want to extract money for a (perceived) harm, that would be a fine or penalty.
"The suspect was recorded on CCTV carrying a large speaker into the surveillance system room. The recording stopped approximately a minute and a half later." type inside job that leaves no traces?
Did you even RTFA? The GCat group is catching felines on the Googleplex campus. Google absolutely can control what its employees do on its property. Also, companies can and do fire employees for things outside the scope of their employment. Do you remember "Has Justine landed yet?"
Nope, these employees are implementing the new "*do* be evil" directive in the employee handbook.
If banks can refuse to do business with companies that make or sell guns, Google can refuse to employ people who release feral cats in a protected species' critical habitat. It's on Google if they sit back and pay those employees tons of money while the employees do that.
Yup. Only about 125 years ago, there were clear signs that the expectations exponential growth of the number of horses in big cities meant that soon, the streets of London, New York, and other major cities of the world would be covered in feet, or even tens of feet, of horse droppings.
In school, we all learned about those feces-filled years of horror before common-sense regulation of the carriage and buggy trade was adopted, right?
Read the page he linked. It says "automobile fires", without a qualifier for fuel type. Tesla shill added that himself, hoping that people won't remember all the data fires that have happened in Tesla cars.
I get it, you don't want to talk about the times that Tesla skirts or skips safety rules that every auto manufacturer adopts as best practices, and Tesla's choices lead to fatalities. You'd rather talk about indents that are mostly minor and don't involve injuries to any person.
Get back to us when there are a statistically significant number of Tesla cars on the roads, you shill. Also, the statistics you cited include Tesla fires and fatalities.
That's nice. Would you like a cookie? You sound upset. Triggered, even.
If you wanted to talk about objections to third party collection of information, maybe you should have mentioned that in the first place. Instead you made a comment that suggests you misunderstand both the primary purposes of metadata and the fact that US law currently protects metadata less than it protects communications content.
Carriers generate metadata so that they know where to ship contents, how much to charge, and who to bill. That means that metadata is usually designed to succinctly identify people. The same is not true of most communications contents.
That's a false dichotomy. The point of metadata collection has always been to identify the parties to a conversation. The point of collecting the content is to find it whether the parties are talking about weddings and grandchildren or about compromised email servers and collusion with foreign governments.
Then you can go make a copy from the public viewing system in Washington DC. It's in the basement, in the bottom drawer of a locked filing cabinet, inside a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard".
Laws (and/or regulations, depending on jurisdiction) require the companies to keep that information and make it available to government officials. Securus is supposed to be acting as an agent of government when it does this. Unsurprisingly, neither government nor the middleman do a very good job of access control or oversight.
Wrong. The EPA has a process for determining nonattainment, and that is what determines nonattainment, not "draft/preliminary" and "subject to change" numbers that "have not yet been CQ'ed or certified".
Kind of. This is Auer deference rather than just Chevron deference. Unless the EPA has really bogus reasons or obviously lies about its reasons, it will win the case. It only really needs a fig leaf under current precedent. Or do you think that this is the case where the Supreme Court will suddenly change its mind about courts deferring to the expertise of regulatory agencies?
Slashdot Mirror
The fallacy you were looking for is "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this, therefore because of this), not "correlation implies causation".
You will almost certainly be able to buy two or even three nicely outfitted Threadripper 2 workstations for the cost of that CPU alone. Intel sells 28-core Xeons now, but they aren't anywhere near 5 GHz, and they cost about $10k each.
They could be from the moon for all I care. It's easily apparent they aren't from the parts of Africa with the worst famine.
Syria isn't in Africa, and Germany didn't send U-Hauls to anyone. Arable land has been going up. Population has grown faster than arable land, but not nearly as fast as they productivity if that arable land. You need a better source for your talking points.
Forget it, Jake, it's Chi--er, an AC troll.
Because the people and companies in this story are from the US, I supposed you wanted the US to enact a tax. I pointed out that, contrast to your claim, the US does not have a carbon tax, or in fact anything like one. You then stated that not all the world is the US. Did you not mean to suggest that the EU was the obvious place to implement such a tax? Africa, Asia, South America, Australia could not hope to make such a tax stick, which leaves the EU.
Go back to preschool, you have apparently not mastered the process of elimination.
RMS is a US citizen, the companies in question are headquartered in the the US, and I think a large majority of Slashdot readers are from the US. If you want to argue that "we" need another GDPR-like law that helps the incumbent social media companies, while taxing them for the same things that GDPR regulates, issued by the same governments that already used the GDPR against the same kind of activities, you should just say that you think the GDPR was a mistake and that the EU should try again. And you should avoid saying "we" if you mean to refer to a minority of the audience.
You are aware that there is no "carbon tax" in the United States, right?
Taxes are for things that are not "wrong" in the eyes of the law. There are sin taxes, but those are for things that are merely discouraged. If we want to extract money for a (perceived) harm, that would be a fine or penalty.
"The suspect was recorded on CCTV carrying a large speaker into the surveillance system room. The recording stopped approximately a minute and a half later." type inside job that leaves no traces?
Did you even RTFA? The GCat group is catching felines on the Googleplex campus. Google absolutely can control what its employees do on its property. Also, companies can and do fire employees for things outside the scope of their employment. Do you remember "Has Justine landed yet?"
Nope, these employees are implementing the new "*do* be evil" directive in the employee handbook.
If banks can refuse to do business with companies that make or sell guns, Google can refuse to employ people who release feral cats in a protected species' critical habitat. It's on Google if they sit back and pay those employees tons of money while the employees do that.
Yup. Only about 125 years ago, there were clear signs that the expectations exponential growth of the number of horses in big cities meant that soon, the streets of London, New York, and other major cities of the world would be covered in feet, or even tens of feet, of horse droppings.
In school, we all learned about those feces-filled years of horror before common-sense regulation of the carriage and buggy trade was adopted, right?
It's not Luddite to ask that cars stop pretending they have level 4 or 5 autonomy when they don't.
Read the page he linked. It says "automobile fires", without a qualifier for fuel type. Tesla shill added that himself, hoping that people won't remember all the data fires that have happened in Tesla cars.
I get it, you don't want to talk about the times that Tesla skirts or skips safety rules that every auto manufacturer adopts as best practices, and Tesla's choices lead to fatalities. You'd rather talk about indents that are mostly minor and don't involve injuries to any person.
Get back to us when there are a statistically significant number of Tesla cars on the roads, you shill. Also, the statistics you cited include Tesla fires and fatalities.
I think the question you were looking for is "Must every question in a headline that can be answered with 'no' be answered with 'no'?"
That's nice. Would you like a cookie? You sound upset. Triggered, even.
If you wanted to talk about objections to third party collection of information, maybe you should have mentioned that in the first place. Instead you made a comment that suggests you misunderstand both the primary purposes of metadata and the fact that US law currently protects metadata less than it protects communications content.
Carriers generate metadata so that they know where to ship contents, how much to charge, and who to bill. That means that metadata is usually designed to succinctly identify people. The same is not true of most communications contents.
That's a false dichotomy. The point of metadata collection has always been to identify the parties to a conversation. The point of collecting the content is to find it whether the parties are talking about weddings and grandchildren or about compromised email servers and collusion with foreign governments.
ed. Not vi, ed.
Now get off my lawn, I'm growing belt onions right there.
Then you can go make a copy from the public viewing system in Washington DC. It's in the basement, in the bottom drawer of a locked filing cabinet, inside a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard".
Laws (and/or regulations, depending on jurisdiction) require the companies to keep that information and make it available to government officials. Securus is supposed to be acting as an agent of government when it does this. Unsurprisingly, neither government nor the middleman do a very good job of access control or oversight.
Wrong. The EPA has a process for determining nonattainment, and that is what determines nonattainment, not "draft/preliminary" and "subject to change" numbers that "have not yet been CQ'ed or certified".
Kind of. This is Auer deference rather than just Chevron deference. Unless the EPA has really bogus reasons or obviously lies about its reasons, it will win the case. It only really needs a fig leaf under current precedent. Or do you think that this is the case where the Supreme Court will suddenly change its mind about courts deferring to the expertise of regulatory agencies?