Humans are 0.01% of all life (by weight?) but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals. So, what do wild mammals represent as a portion of mammals? Or of life in total. And how many cows, pigs, goats and other domesticated animals did we replace those wild ones with?
The whole point of Facebook is that everyone is on the same site and so can share information and details with each other
There's e-mail. There's the web. There's Usenet. Etc, etc.
There are a lot of ways to maintain one-to-one or one-to-may communications with other people. Zuckerberg just adopted the Microsoft model of tying a bunch of services together to make it 'easier' for the general public to use. You don't have to maintain a bunch of accounts on different systems.
If you break that up one of the parts will become dominant
Not if you break it up by function. Posting content (cat videos, for example) would be separated from messaging functions. Everyone could conceivably use the same system for each function. But those functions would no longer be bundled within a single corporate parent. And the end result would be that for the functions to interoperate, they would have to use open standards. And if everyone is pushed toward open standards, it will be easier for smaller companies to compete.
So lets say I make a reservation at a local restaurant in California (two party notification state) but I do so through an AI hosted in a one party notification state (like Texas). Who' s laws apply?
History is fiiled with times that humans have attempted to improve on nature
Most often when they interfere with Darwin to save the life of someone who might better have been removed from the gene pool. Obama-care, I'm looking at you.
.. of the scene in Das Leben der Anderen where Dreyman goes to the Stasi headquarters to view all the files they had on him. They bring out hand trucks with boxes full of paper files.
Isn't technology wonderful? Now they can just hand you a thumb drive.
I've been seeing that still frame on all the news services (see TFA). Looks like globs of stuff raining down in front of the camera. The evening news just showed the video from that cam. It's just splatter on the lens/window. Crater is steaming away in the background and the globs aren't moving.
First of all, I don't really see this working with publicly subsidized (or straight up public) housing. And how can you tell the difference between a hipster and a homeless person?
Sale requires a buyer no more than 125% of income for a given neighborhood.
But what about people at 80% or 60% of the neighborhood income? This is who Seattle is trying to help. Not start a program to put hipsters into their first condo. The poor will probably never be able to buy. They'll be renters forever.
I know the argument that providing the young people (with rapidly increasing incomes) an opportunity to move up out of a shithole rental will free that unit up for the poor. Good luck with that in a hot market. The crappy apartments will rent for a lot when they become available. Or get bulldozed and pricey condos will be built. And this is all starting to sound like Reagan and his trickle down economics. Subsidize the reasonably well off and (somehow) benefits will make their way to the poor.
That's not preventing anything. Common sense is. I don't invest in anything where some other entity is actively trying to drive prices down. And we don't live in a society (yet) where the government dictates how people use their money.
I agree. Sort of. Reasonable levels of physical activity tend to improve one's cardiovascular fitness and lifespan. But many of the jobs providing such activity also involve some level of danger. Linemen getting electrocuted or falling off poles. Roofers falling off roofs. Farmers getting pulled into combine harvesters. These sorts of things can mess with the statistics.
hipsters will move out of their grunge studio apartments
Grunge studio apartments often rent for a premium.
The problem with trying to flood the private market is that the private market isn't stupid. They won't build in an oversupplied rental market. So the city will do it. But if the city puts their stuff into the general market, the private developers will still pull out. And the city will just get grief for subsidizing rents for better off people. So the city will restrict their supply to the homeless and low income. But you'd better stay low income, or no more subsidy. So you get Cabrini Green, full of residents with a motivation to stay poor.
Or it will be filled with students going to graduate school.
Perhaps. But many universities operate or subsidize undergrad/graduate student housing. Specifically to separate themselves from hot rental markets. What Seattle wants to build probably won't be available to students.
They just come back. A midwest city tried putting them on a plane with a one way ticket to Honolulu. They won't die of exposure sleeping in a park. And they'll never scrape together enough money for airfare back. But Hawaii put a stop to that. Anywhere else is just a Greyhound bus ride away. And the homeless influx into Seattle is accelerating now that the city council has found more funds for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Humans are 0.01% of all life (by weight?) but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals. So, what do wild mammals represent as a portion of mammals? Or of life in total. And how many cows, pigs, goats and other domesticated animals did we replace those wild ones with?
"Plan 9".
Damn. I was really looking forward to meeting Vampira.
dvd.com
...do they process automatically
Yes.
BTW, anyone suspect that the move to the dvd.com domain name is in preparation for selling off the physical media business?
fruits and vegetables
Those would be the ones sitting in front of the TV set.
You already live in a surveillance state with no right to possess a spork. We didn't think you'd mind.
Sincerely yours,
Google
The whole point of Facebook is that everyone is on the same site and so can share information and details with each other
There's e-mail. There's the web. There's Usenet. Etc, etc.
There are a lot of ways to maintain one-to-one or one-to-may communications with other people. Zuckerberg just adopted the Microsoft model of tying a bunch of services together to make it 'easier' for the general public to use. You don't have to maintain a bunch of accounts on different systems.
If you break that up one of the parts will become dominant
Not if you break it up by function. Posting content (cat videos, for example) would be separated from messaging functions. Everyone could conceivably use the same system for each function. But those functions would no longer be bundled within a single corporate parent. And the end result would be that for the functions to interoperate, they would have to use open standards. And if everyone is pushed toward open standards, it will be easier for smaller companies to compete.
So lets say I make a reservation at a local restaurant in California (two party notification state) but I do so through an AI hosted in a one party notification state (like Texas). Who' s laws apply?
Oblig Futurama.
History is fiiled with times that humans have attempted to improve on nature
Most often when they interfere with Darwin to save the life of someone who might better have been removed from the gene pool. Obama-care, I'm looking at you.
.. of the scene in Das Leben der Anderen where Dreyman goes to the Stasi headquarters to view all the files they had on him. They bring out hand trucks with boxes full of paper files.
Isn't technology wonderful? Now they can just hand you a thumb drive.
Hawaii is west of Java per navigational standards. You measure longitude to Hawaii West from the Greenwich Meridian and East to Java.
I've been seeing that still frame on all the news services (see TFA). Looks like globs of stuff raining down in front of the camera. The evening news just showed the video from that cam. It's just splatter on the lens/window. Crater is steaming away in the background and the globs aren't moving.
they don't have to approve hipsters
First of all, I don't really see this working with publicly subsidized (or straight up public) housing. And how can you tell the difference between a hipster and a homeless person?
I saw that episode of the X-Files.
Not when there's a housing shortage and the 120 percenters bump everyone below them out of the market.
Sale requires a buyer no more than 125% of income for a given neighborhood.
But what about people at 80% or 60% of the neighborhood income? This is who Seattle is trying to help. Not start a program to put hipsters into their first condo. The poor will probably never be able to buy. They'll be renters forever.
I know the argument that providing the young people (with rapidly increasing incomes) an opportunity to move up out of a shithole rental will free that unit up for the poor. Good luck with that in a hot market. The crappy apartments will rent for a lot when they become available. Or get bulldozed and pricey condos will be built. And this is all starting to sound like Reagan and his trickle down economics. Subsidize the reasonably well off and (somehow) benefits will make their way to the poor.
That's not preventing anything. Common sense is. I don't invest in anything where some other entity is actively trying to drive prices down. And we don't live in a society (yet) where the government dictates how people use their money.
don't look very muscular or thin.
Stop using GQ models as a benchmark for fitness.
I agree. Sort of. Reasonable levels of physical activity tend to improve one's cardiovascular fitness and lifespan. But many of the jobs providing such activity also involve some level of danger. Linemen getting electrocuted or falling off poles. Roofers falling off roofs. Farmers getting pulled into combine harvesters. These sorts of things can mess with the statistics.
hipsters will move out of their grunge studio apartments
Grunge studio apartments often rent for a premium.
The problem with trying to flood the private market is that the private market isn't stupid. They won't build in an oversupplied rental market. So the city will do it. But if the city puts their stuff into the general market, the private developers will still pull out. And the city will just get grief for subsidizing rents for better off people. So the city will restrict their supply to the homeless and low income. But you'd better stay low income, or no more subsidy. So you get Cabrini Green, full of residents with a motivation to stay poor.
Or it will be filled with students going to graduate school.
Perhaps. But many universities operate or subsidize undergrad/graduate student housing. Specifically to separate themselves from hot rental markets. What Seattle wants to build probably won't be available to students.
Local news. They interview the new arrivals from time to time for public interest spots.
rezone a whole lot of real estate to be multi-family / apartments
That will play right into the hands of developers who will just build high rent units targeting the techie hipsters.
Seattle wants to build and operate their own subsidized housing.
They just come back. A midwest city tried putting them on a plane with a one way ticket to Honolulu. They won't die of exposure sleeping in a park. And they'll never scrape together enough money for airfare back. But Hawaii put a stop to that. Anywhere else is just a Greyhound bus ride away. And the homeless influx into Seattle is accelerating now that the city council has found more funds for them.