Hmm... I can't imagine why Google would want to develop a network protocol where devices/people could be persistently tracked by unique, persistent identifiers that would allow identification regardless of the applications used...
Good point. Considering how good Google is at tracking people, making it absurdly easy to track people would be a huge boost to their competitors while only improving their own abilities a tiny bit.
Also, couldn't the device be setup to change its GUID frequently if the user wanted to?
Is being retarded a requirement for holding a public office or does it just help a lot?
People are all too happy to assume incompetence rather than malice for politicians. Oh, politicians are such idiots! Yes, even the ones that graduated from a top school, convinced millions of people to vote for them, and their "mistake" seldom costs them any votes while being immensely beneficial to someone connected to them -- at the taxpayer's expense, not their own.
Netflix and Steam became so convenient, people were willing to pay. But whereas game makers want their game bought by anyone and everyone via whatever method people want, most shows were viewed via broadcasters and cable companies, whose business is selling their channels not the shows -- so companies like Netflix are a moral enemy to them and their obsolete business model. Even the film companies play a role in this; they might not like the cable companies but they sure don't want new competitors to have easy ways to publish and popularize their productions.
So he downloaded it (copy on his computer) and posted it on Facebook (copy on Facebook). Also he's a total idiot. But Facebook made millions of copies, and they aren't a common carrier.
Countries regularly refuse to acknowledge someone's ownership of something, even if it is obvious. For example, many countries don't acknowledge Taiwan as a country separate from China, at least not officially. It's just politics.
Of course high IQ is better. The trouble in biology is that everything comes at a cost. For example, neurons are very power-hungry and our brain uses enormous amounts of energy. Also human brains are about as big as they can be; even to the point where we are born vastly underdeveloped and have evolved to have squishable skulls so it can fit through the birth canal and even so dying in childbirth was a major cause of death until recent times. Also higher IQ seem to be correlated with various mental irregularities like autism.
Even so, if you consider human evolution and evolutionary timescales, we went pretty quickly from ape intelligence to human intelligence. Finally, various studies do show an increase in IQ, thought to be far too rapid to be explained by evolution (more likely due to nutrition, healthcare, and education). However, the IQ test is normalized as 100=average, so they keep adjusting the test to match the population.
Building a wall and having the ocean pay for it is called tidal power (and the wall is a tidal barrage, a type of dam) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What you buy, at what price, is an objective measure of what you REALLY value.
No it isn't. I value air but I've never paid a cent for it. Now if circumstances were different I would be willing to pay quite the exorbitant price for air, but as things stand now not a cent. Because, you see, even the most valuable things can and do have a market value of zero when they are freely available in abundance.
Installing fire sprinklers in 100,000 homes will cost $600 million and save about 6 lives. ($10 million per life). Should we do that?
Does your answer change when you find out that by instead spending that $600 million educating kids and encouraging healthy habits we'd save about 25,000 times as many lives, from heart disease and similar killers? ($4,000 per life).
Seems to me that both those things cost the same amount of money. Are you agreeing with the OP that price and value are not the same, that you can't measure a thing's value by its price?
Just so long as you remember that money is a measure of price and not a measure of value. For example, consider what the price of a breath of air is vs its value.
The electoral college has two jobs: 1) To allow smaller states to override the popular vote (hence why those states get extra electoral college votes) 2) To pick a good candidate
If the electoral college is going to overrule the will of the voters in the states, then they should pick a good candidate. Hillary and Trump may have won a lot of votes, but can you honestly say either of them would make the best president? Hell no! It's a sad fact that the people best qualified to be president are not the best people qualified to run for president. The best president we could have is probably someone most of us have never heard of, and that is who the electoral college ought to make president.
* Just one example that I feel would make a better president than either Hillary or Trump, but surely there's better people that I haven't heard of.
It seems it has come to this -- we need to occasionally create fake news to see which are the fake news sites that will mindlessly repeat things without fact-checking.
Yes, it is about free speech. The only free speech is anonymous speech, because only then are there no consequences. For non-anonymous speech, the more people fear consequences, the more they will self-censor. I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences for speech, only pointing out that such consequences make people less free to speak their minds.
It seems Trumps new advisor is willing to call out stupid rules and even refuse to follow them (no idea if these were laws or internal policy). He seems to have done this stuff during the presidencies of Bush and Obama, and eventually got fired but not criminally prosecuted. I'm not familiar enough with the rules he broke to know whether they are laws, nor whether they are stupid. But he does seem like a good match for Trump.
No bullshit nor conspiracy. A lot of people want a more open election process, including verifiable voting machines and always having at least a few random recounts. But apparently for a recount to happen on of the candidates needs to request it, and Hillary doesn't want to (she would look like a sore loser and a hypocrite). But if we can't have random recounts we can at least ask someone with the authority to request one.
Enough with the carrot, we need the stick. Then Apple will turn over a new leaf -- they will have a big plant here, get rid of all the deadwood, and plant its roots in the USA. Expect lots of branching out.
1) Deny that the planet is warming 2) Deny that warming is a problem 3) Deny that humans caused the warming 4) Accept that past human actions affected the climate, but deny that future actions will affect the climate (It's too late to do anything about it) 5) Grudgingly accept that we should replace expensive fossil fuels with cheaper renewable energy.
I never understood how this could work given that there are no slave masters standing their with whips and guns like in the old days. What keeps these people from lynching their managers right on the factory floor?
That would be the men with truncheons, tasers, and guns.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... I can't imagine why Google would want to develop a network protocol where devices/people could be persistently tracked by unique, persistent identifiers that would allow identification regardless of the applications used ...
Good point. Considering how good Google is at tracking people, making it absurdly easy to track people would be a huge boost to their competitors while only improving their own abilities a tiny bit.
Also, couldn't the device be setup to change its GUID frequently if the user wanted to?
Is being retarded a requirement for holding a public office or does it just help a lot?
People are all too happy to assume incompetence rather than malice for politicians. Oh, politicians are such idiots! Yes, even the ones that graduated from a top school, convinced millions of people to vote for them, and their "mistake" seldom costs them any votes while being immensely beneficial to someone connected to them -- at the taxpayer's expense, not their own.
Duty calls
Netflix and Steam became so convenient, people were willing to pay. But whereas game makers want their game bought by anyone and everyone via whatever method people want, most shows were viewed via broadcasters and cable companies, whose business is selling their channels not the shows -- so companies like Netflix are a moral enemy to them and their obsolete business model. Even the film companies play a role in this; they might not like the cable companies but they sure don't want new competitors to have easy ways to publish and popularize their productions.
tl;dr: They brought this on themselves.
Someone should get to the root of the problem.
People saying they can only afford to live paycheck-to-paycheck always get mad when I ask them how much they save by living paycheck-to-paycheck.
So he downloaded it (copy on his computer) and posted it on Facebook (copy on Facebook). Also he's a total idiot. But Facebook made millions of copies, and they aren't a common carrier.
Countries regularly refuse to acknowledge someone's ownership of something, even if it is obvious. For example, many countries don't acknowledge Taiwan as a country separate from China, at least not officially. It's just politics.
Of course high IQ is better. The trouble in biology is that everything comes at a cost. For example, neurons are very power-hungry and our brain uses enormous amounts of energy. Also human brains are about as big as they can be; even to the point where we are born vastly underdeveloped and have evolved to have squishable skulls so it can fit through the birth canal and even so dying in childbirth was a major cause of death until recent times. Also higher IQ seem to be correlated with various mental irregularities like autism.
Even so, if you consider human evolution and evolutionary timescales, we went pretty quickly from ape intelligence to human intelligence. Finally, various studies do show an increase in IQ, thought to be far too rapid to be explained by evolution (more likely due to nutrition, healthcare, and education). However, the IQ test is normalized as 100=average, so they keep adjusting the test to match the population.
This isn't the first time they made delicious wire insulation. The solution the last time was to add something that tastes disgusting to rodents.
Building a wall and having the ocean pay for it is called tidal power (and the wall is a tidal barrage, a type of dam)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'm no expert, but aren't the pure ethanol and pure gasoline worth more separate than mixed?
What you buy, at what price, is an objective measure of what you REALLY value.
No it isn't. I value air but I've never paid a cent for it. Now if circumstances were different I would be willing to pay quite the exorbitant price for air, but as things stand now not a cent. Because, you see, even the most valuable things can and do have a market value of zero when they are freely available in abundance.
Installing fire sprinklers in 100,000 homes will cost $600 million and save about 6 lives. ($10 million per life). Should we do that?
Does your answer change when you find out that by instead spending that $600 million educating kids and encouraging healthy habits we'd save about 25,000 times as many lives, from heart disease and similar killers? ($4,000 per life).
Seems to me that both those things cost the same amount of money. Are you agreeing with the OP that price and value are not the same, that you can't measure a thing's value by its price?
Just so long as you remember that money is a measure of price and not a measure of value. For example, consider what the price of a breath of air is vs its value.
The electoral college has two jobs:
1) To allow smaller states to override the popular vote (hence why those states get extra electoral college votes)
2) To pick a good candidate
If the electoral college is going to overrule the will of the voters in the states, then they should pick a good candidate. Hillary and Trump may have won a lot of votes, but can you honestly say either of them would make the best president? Hell no! It's a sad fact that the people best qualified to be president are not the best people qualified to run for president. The best president we could have is probably someone most of us have never heard of, and that is who the electoral college ought to make president.
* Just one example that I feel would make a better president than either Hillary or Trump, but surely there's better people that I haven't heard of.
It seems it has come to this -- we need to occasionally create fake news to see which are the fake news sites that will mindlessly repeat things without fact-checking.
Yes, it is about free speech. The only free speech is anonymous speech, because only then are there no consequences. For non-anonymous speech, the more people fear consequences, the more they will self-censor. I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences for speech, only pointing out that such consequences make people less free to speak their minds.
It seems Trumps new advisor is willing to call out stupid rules and even refuse to follow them (no idea if these were laws or internal policy). He seems to have done this stuff during the presidencies of Bush and Obama, and eventually got fired but not criminally prosecuted. I'm not familiar enough with the rules he broke to know whether they are laws, nor whether they are stupid. But he does seem like a good match for Trump.
No bullshit nor conspiracy. A lot of people want a more open election process, including verifiable voting machines and always having at least a few random recounts. But apparently for a recount to happen on of the candidates needs to request it, and Hillary doesn't want to (she would look like a sore loser and a hypocrite). But if we can't have random recounts we can at least ask someone with the authority to request one.
Enough with the carrot, we need the stick. Then Apple will turn over a new leaf -- they will have a big plant here, get rid of all the deadwood, and plant its roots in the USA. Expect lots of branching out.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of high-tech thermometers!
1) Deny that the planet is warming
2) Deny that warming is a problem
3) Deny that humans caused the warming
4) Accept that past human actions affected the climate, but deny that future actions will affect the climate (It's too late to do anything about it)
5) Grudgingly accept that we should replace expensive fossil fuels with cheaper renewable energy.
I never understood how this could work given that there are no slave masters standing their with whips and guns like in the old days. What keeps these people from lynching their managers right on the factory floor?
That would be the men with truncheons, tasers, and guns.
I care now about what will happen after I die, even though after I'm dead I'll be incapable of caring.