The real answer is to deploy all that "machine learning" and "AI" bullshit to anticipate, and prevent, problems.
Nope. The answer is "blockchains". The whole point of blockchains is dealing with trust, by distributing "trust" among many entities. Although none of them are fully trustworthy, they also don't fully trust each other, so the blockchain system as a whole has integrity.
Wasn't that the whole point of obama care. Economic mobility even when you have a pre-existing condition.
No. Obamacare is for the self-employed, not for people getting insurance through their employers.
It was a bandaid solution applied to a broken and bleeding system that already had a pile of bandages a foot thick. A clean, sensible solution to America's healthcare system is not politically feasible. Obamacare sucks. The Republican alternative doesn't exist. So here we are.
call them part times jobs, thatâ(TM)s what they are
Because that is not what they are. A part time job means that you are an employee with reduced hours. A "gig" means you may set your own hours, decide for yourself which days to take off, work for Uber for one fare, and then take a Lyft fare 10 minutes later, etc.
He also sent busses into the south to recruit black sharecroppers to move north and work on his assembly lines. His plan was to break the UAW, which, at the time, refused to allow blacks to join.
His plan didn't work, because the UAW opened up their membership to blacks, who turned out to be just willing as whites to agitate and strike for higher wages.
This alliance of labor and civil rights that began in Ford's factories, later became a core coalition of the Democratic Party.
We can make a strong society with a good social safety net and also have capitalism, you know.
Sure, but that is not what JC was advocating. From Matthew 19:21: Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
If JC really wanted to "help the poor" he should have advised the rich young man to invest his money wisely and maximize ROI, so as to generate sustainable employment for as many people as possible, and perhaps even issue stock options so the former-poor can have capital of their own.
What JC was advocating (total liquidation of capital and a massive diversion of resources into immediate consumption) would have been a disaster if practiced widely.
Also instead of just commenting on taxes by saying "Give unto Ceasar what is Caesar's", he should have noted that the Romans were giving the people the aqueduct, sanitation, roads, irrigation, law and order, etc. Of course the government has a proper role, and Infrastructure investment is far more helpful to an economy than charity or redistribution.
According to a first century moral philosopher by the name of Jesus Christ, the accumulation of wealth for its own sake is immoral.
JC was a carpenter, not an economist.
I am sure he was a nice guy, and meant well, but the policies he advocated were based on "zero-sum" fallacies, and do not stand up to analysis, nor are they supported by empirical evidence.
Investment is better than charity. Profit seeking capitalists have done a lot more to help the poor than philanthropists.
Sounds more like epigenetics to me than just straight up nurture
Perhaps, but that is not what TFA is claiming. They are asserting that their method is analogous to disentangling nature from nurture using adoption studies, and twin studies (comparing the difference between identical and fraternal twins), But adoption/twin studies suffer from too few available subjects, while this new method makes collecting and comparing data much easier.
Resulting in a black hole of "my politics is better than yours" arguments.....
Except this is an argument about logic, not politics.
Saying "We should fund X because we already spend even more on Y", where X and Y are totally unrelated, is a fallacious argument, regardless of whether you think X and Y, or both, or neither, is a wise expense. It is simply illogical.
Each expense should be justified on its on merits.
It is idiotic to complain that the roof is leaking when your house is swept away by a flood.
If your house is being swept away, you are likely to ignore everything else. So by your logic, absolutely anything that costs less than the F-35 can be justified, just by pointing to the F-35 as the "greater stupidity".
You can read about on their own website. They see the major threats to human existence as "unchecked climate change" and "abuse of social media". This is classic mission creep.
The "Doomsday Clock" is no longer about just nuclear war, since the chance of that has faded. They have diversified into alarmism about climate change, and GMO fear mongering. After all, the best way to make people take climate change seriously is shrill warnings that it is going to destroy the earth in two minutes.
i cite Rule of acquisition #34 War is good for business
War is only good for business if you win. Even then, the effect is often only temporary, since wars increase both inflation and debt. They are often followed by economic depression even in the countries that won the war.
I don't think anyone believes that a nuclear war would be good for business.
I've never understood this move. So he gets his 15 minutes of "fame" and then is quickly forgotten.
I live in San Jose, and I had no idea that Sam was on the FCC advisory committee. So if he hadn't resigned, I would have never known his position. Neither would you.
Sam is a moderate, and is actually considered "right-wing" by Bay Area standards, so his voice carries weight. He is not just a knee-jerk anti-Trump liberal.
the board/committee now has one less voice to advance the cause he represented.
Nobody was listening to dissenting voices anyway. The FCC is a victim of regulatory capture.
The real problem is not bad policies, but the corruption of the process of creating those policies.
So... you're saying that you prefer Trump cutting the program that you admit is less stupid?
In absolutely no way whatsoever are the ISS and the F-35 "alternatives", so a "preference" for one over the other is meaningless. Both are a waste of money, and both should be defunded. If we don't have the political will to defund one of them, it is idiotic to use that as justification for continued funding of the other.
The Space Shuttle was (partly) justified because it could be used to build a space station.
So the purpose of the ISS was to give the Space Shuttle someplace to go.
IIRC, it was mostly *scientists* who argued against building the ISS, and politicians who argued for it.
Refusing to build the ISS would have meant admitting that the Shuttle was a mistake. In politics, you can never admit that you made a mistake. No matter how stupid and obvious a blunder may be, you just double-down and find a way to rationalize it.
Slashdot Mirror
Other than the lack of a widely used multi-site micropayment service that respects viewers' privacy.
You could use satoshis. They are currently worth about a hundredth of a US cent, so can be used for very small transactions.
Of course, there is also a $30 blockchain transaction fee, and it takes a week to clear, so it isn't a perfect solution.
The real answer is to deploy all that "machine learning" and "AI" bullshit to anticipate, and prevent, problems.
Nope. The answer is "blockchains". The whole point of blockchains is dealing with trust, by distributing "trust" among many entities. Although none of them are fully trustworthy, they also don't fully trust each other, so the blockchain system as a whole has integrity.
Wasn't that the whole point of obama care. Economic mobility even when you have a pre-existing condition.
No. Obamacare is for the self-employed, not for people getting insurance through their employers.
It was a bandaid solution applied to a broken and bleeding system that already had a pile of bandages a foot thick. A clean, sensible solution to America's healthcare system is not politically feasible. Obamacare sucks. The Republican alternative doesn't exist. So here we are.
call them part times jobs, thatâ(TM)s what they are
Because that is not what they are. A part time job means that you are an employee with reduced hours. A "gig" means you may set your own hours, decide for yourself which days to take off, work for Uber for one fare, and then take a Lyft fare 10 minutes later, etc.
All benefits should be portable. For everyone.
what is the distinction between a big torch and a flamethrower?
A torch shoots out heat.
A flamethrower shoots out burning liquid fuel.
It's actually legal is most states
As it should be. A flamethrower consists of:
1. A fuel tank.
2. A compressed air tank.
3. A hose
4. An ignitor
Since these components are legal, it seems silly to make it illegal to connect them.
Flamethrowers have legitimate peaceful uses, such as brush clearing.
What we really needs is a compact flamethrower that can be mounted on a drone.
He also sent busses into the south to recruit black sharecroppers to move north and work on his assembly lines. His plan was to break the UAW, which, at the time, refused to allow blacks to join.
His plan didn't work, because the UAW opened up their membership to blacks, who turned out to be just willing as whites to agitate and strike for higher wages.
This alliance of labor and civil rights that began in Ford's factories, later became a core coalition of the Democratic Party.
Indeed. 10,000 Microsoft employees became millionaires through their stock options.
Bill paid way better than Henry.
We can make a strong society with a good social safety net and also have capitalism, you know.
Sure, but that is not what JC was advocating. From Matthew 19:21: Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
If JC really wanted to "help the poor" he should have advised the rich young man to invest his money wisely and maximize ROI, so as to generate sustainable employment for as many people as possible, and perhaps even issue stock options so the former-poor can have capital of their own.
What JC was advocating (total liquidation of capital and a massive diversion of resources into immediate consumption) would have been a disaster if practiced widely.
Also instead of just commenting on taxes by saying "Give unto Ceasar what is Caesar's", he should have noted that the Romans were giving the people the aqueduct, sanitation, roads, irrigation, law and order, etc. Of course the government has a proper role, and Infrastructure investment is far more helpful to an economy than charity or redistribution.
According to a first century moral philosopher by the name of Jesus Christ, the accumulation of wealth for its own sake is immoral.
JC was a carpenter, not an economist.
I am sure he was a nice guy, and meant well, but the policies he advocated were based on "zero-sum" fallacies, and do not stand up to analysis, nor are they supported by empirical evidence.
Investment is better than charity. Profit seeking capitalists have done a lot more to help the poor than philanthropists.
Sounds more like epigenetics to me than just straight up nurture
Perhaps, but that is not what TFA is claiming. They are asserting that their method is analogous to disentangling nature from nurture using adoption studies, and twin studies (comparing the difference between identical and fraternal twins), But adoption/twin studies suffer from too few available subjects, while this new method makes collecting and comparing data much easier.
Does NASA have a fixed budget?
No.
Is ISS part of that budget?
Yes.
If NASA removes ISS from their budget can they do other things with that money?
No.
So, the TFA claims phishing and social engineering are "physics-based attacks?" I'm not seeing it.
How would an attack on a sensor be based on phishing or social engineering? I'm not seeing it.
Resulting in a black hole of "my politics is better than yours" arguments.....
Except this is an argument about logic, not politics.
Saying "We should fund X because we already spend even more on Y", where X and Y are totally unrelated, is a fallacious argument, regardless of whether you think X and Y, or both, or neither, is a wise expense. It is simply illogical.
Each expense should be justified on its on merits.
It is idiotic to complain that the roof is leaking when your house is swept away by a flood.
If your house is being swept away, you are likely to ignore everything else. So by your logic, absolutely anything that costs less than the F-35 can be justified, just by pointing to the F-35 as the "greater stupidity".
If I hit something with a hammer, is that a "physics-based attack", or a physical attack?
Both. TFA is using the term "physics-based attack" to mean any attack that is not via software.
If that is true it's very unfortunate.
You can read about on their own website. They see the major threats to human existence as "unchecked climate change" and "abuse of social media". This is classic mission creep.
Tell that to the people of Florida, when they are underwater in the not too distant future.
Silly alarmism makes that more likely to happen, since it jades the public, and reduces the credibilty of scientists.
Brits should be offended that their tax dollars were spent on something as frivolous as this "study".
The "Doomsday Clock" is no longer about just nuclear war, since the chance of that has faded. They have diversified into alarmism about climate change, and GMO fear mongering. After all, the best way to make people take climate change seriously is shrill warnings that it is going to destroy the earth in two minutes.
i cite Rule of acquisition #34 War is good for business
War is only good for business if you win. Even then, the effect is often only temporary, since wars increase both inflation and debt. They are often followed by economic depression even in the countries that won the war.
I don't think anyone believes that a nuclear war would be good for business.
I've never understood this move. So he gets his 15 minutes of "fame" and then is quickly forgotten.
I live in San Jose, and I had no idea that Sam was on the FCC advisory committee. So if he hadn't resigned, I would have never known his position. Neither would you.
Sam is a moderate, and is actually considered "right-wing" by Bay Area standards, so his voice carries weight. He is not just a knee-jerk anti-Trump liberal.
the board/committee now has one less voice to advance the cause he represented.
Nobody was listening to dissenting voices anyway. The FCC is a victim of regulatory capture.
The real problem is not bad policies, but the corruption of the process of creating those policies.
Or, they could just... you know, charge people who get in more accidents higher premiums. Just a thought.
Life insurance should work the same way. They should only charge more to people that die.
So... you're saying that you prefer Trump cutting the program that you admit is less stupid?
In absolutely no way whatsoever are the ISS and the F-35 "alternatives", so a "preference" for one over the other is meaningless. Both are a waste of money, and both should be defunded. If we don't have the political will to defund one of them, it is idiotic to use that as justification for continued funding of the other.
NASA has spent about $70 billion (2010 USD) on the ISS total. You can probably take that outta petty cash at the Pentagon.
The F-35 has cost 10 International Space Stations...
You know the ISS was a waste of money when the best argument its defenders have is that we also waste money on other things that are even stupider.
The ISS had no compelling reason to be built.
The Space Shuttle was (partly) justified because it could be used to build a space station.
So the purpose of the ISS was to give the Space Shuttle someplace to go.
IIRC, it was mostly *scientists* who argued against building the ISS, and politicians who argued for it.
Refusing to build the ISS would have meant admitting that the Shuttle was a mistake. In politics, you can never admit that you made a mistake. No matter how stupid and obvious a blunder may be, you just double-down and find a way to rationalize it.