They're both regulated. The regulations are not the same, nor should they be. Dispatched rides are also rationed, and for some reason the ration books (i.e. medallions) are transferrable between private parties, raising barriers to entry for newcomers and allowing a cartel of entrenched speculator/investors to control the industry, to the detriment of both drivers and riders.
I would shop in a store that had a "regular-tacular" protest ad campaign on black friday. (I mean, I wouldn't shop there on black friday, I'd shop there later. Only crazy people go shopping on black friday.)
Tried the "ages 6-10" pathway, and a positive thing I can say is that it uses the a MIT Scratch-like programming language for the coding challenges (giving credit to Harvard and Berkley...), which I think is a great idea for introducing coding concepts to people not familiar with the traditional languages yet.
There are 15 levels and every few levels there is a video message from someone involved in star wars talking about the movies (nice ad placement, btw) or about javascript (which makes no sense to include on the "ages 6-10" visual code based track). There is even a button to show the "underlying code" which shows some javascript commands that don't quite implement the same thing that the user has created in the block-based language.
Worse, it's not a game of puzzles of slowly increasing difficulty that must be solved by increasingly clever code. Instead it's 15 challenges of almost zero difficulty, used as a tutorial for a small number of code elements before dumping the user into a sandbox to "create their own game."
It's clearly written to appeal not to 6-10 year-olds, but to education activists in the education activist conference circuit (i.e. not actual educators in actual classrooms).
I realize it's only an hour, but wouldn't "getting kids interested in code" be better served by creating more games that rely on "code-thinking" to solve? A game like "Human Resources Machine" but with a shallower difficulty ramp-up (and a concept of functions, and disguising some of the tasks to have more rewarding results) would, I think, be far more enticing to children of varying exposure to programming than an overblown Disney/Javascript ad. As would a Scratch-based update to the classic robowar-type games (codecombat.com does something somewhat similar with javascript, which I think is too text-y for young children), but without exposing new users to an online community of already-mature robot designs.
I'd be cool with commercials being way higher in volume, if DVR manufacturers are prohibited owning any copyrighted video content. I figure "sound level" would be a pretty easy trigger for commercial skip algorithms, and if the DVR makers weren't in league with the people putting out the commercials in the first place, the'd compete on who has the best commercial skipping.
The more prominent ads are, the easer it should be for machine filtering to remove them from your experience.
They're not just some indie channel struggling to get by. They're part of a huge conglomerate that owns dozens of channels and puts ghost-hunting wrestler shit on all of them.
How about differentiate your channels a bit and if a science fiction channel can't cut it vs. the house-swap channel, then eventually just drop it. If they need cheap material on the sci fi channel, then bring back the Forbidden Planet and Gamera, etc. re-runs that they originally built the audience with.
I think he's saying that at each accuracy-level you're cryptographically hashing something, and then when you do the compares, you do the same thing.. cryptographically hash at the different levels and compare those to the stored hashes and the best one that matches defines your confidence in the match.
A few hours? More like 5 minutes in a photo editor and twenty cents worth of effort. At least at the level Mythbusters tested a while back. All they needed to do was print the fingerprint using a laser printer.
We're in the future right now - I'll lay even odds you have in your pocket or nearby right now, a personal magic map that nearly always knows where you are and can show you how to get to where you want to go, and you can even use it to communicate with people over a distance!
your speed limit example is actually a perfect example of how laws DO in fact need to keep pace and don't.
especially as we move towards autonomous vehicles, but in fact applicable even with today's vehicles.
a high performance sports car can easily handle higher speeds and sharper turns than a semi hauling two trailers. yet both are given the same 70mph limit, even though its rather too much for the double semi, and rather below the sports cars safe capability.
so why shouldn't they have different legal limits on what's safely acceptable?
On an open road with no other drivers, this makes sense. However on an open road with no other drivers, who are you protecting from unsafe operation of either the truck or the sports car? If there is no traffic, then maybe you don't need the limits at all.
On a road with lots of other vehicles, though, a few vehicles traveling at significantly different speeds increases the risk and damage in accidents and due to the extra attention that must be paid and the maneuvers needed to accommodate the slower/faster drivers, causes traffic, which ironically reduces throughput to below even the slow-driver limit.
Hang on, what is the current vehicle replacement rate? If you start right now and every new vehicle is fully autonomous, what fraction of the total national vehicle fleet could you expect to have converted in only 10 years?
The purpose of an infrastructure job shouldn't be the construction jobs that will result from creating it. The purpose should be to reduce cost (in time or resources) of transportation of people and goods to points within the covered area.
Which is why generics are typically pretty affordable, except where there are not enough manufacturers competing. The problem is that you want new drugs, that you previously couldn't buy for any price, to be priced similarly to generics once discovered, and drug companies want to segment the market to maximize profits. If they could, I suspect they would have a different price for each individual.
Insurance exacerbates this problem, because patients with it don't see the price where it counts, so they don't pressure doctors to try less expensive/generic drugs first. Insurance companies are evaluated on percent of premiums paid on claims, so they also don't have an incentive to cut costs—the higher he medical costs are, the more they can charge in premiums.
I agree with your first line. Your second, however, just demonstrates that you haven't actually read Atlas Shrugged. That's not uncommon; I can't, off the top of my head, think of another book which more people claim to have read without ever having done so.
I'd say 1984 is a pretty good contender for the title. Uncle Tom's Cabin should probably get a mention as well.
Makes no difference to the employee, or makes no difference all around?
I can see that if you only tax a company's gross revenue that it wouldn't make a difference. Is that the case in the UK?
What if instead you tax gross revenue at a lesser rate (or not at all) and tax net profits? By the language definition, payroll is a cost of operation that would not be included in "net profit" so the money used to pay employees would only see the gross revenue tax event and the paid-to-employee tax event, while bonuses from a linguistic point of view are "not part of the normal payroll" and are discretionary on the part of companies, so they would presumably be paid based-on and out-of the profits. The money would then see all of the tax events and effectively be taxed at a higher rate (although from the employee's point of view it would all be the same rate)
I don't know how it really is. I was just stating how a reasonable interpreter of the language (i.e. me) would assume things are (absent a cynical assumption that accountants and bureaucrats have twisted the language and the law the point that no reasonable interpretation is reasonable any more).
Where do you live? In a lot of regions of the country there might not be a rapid charging station on your way home from work. And it needs to be a rapid charging station if you're not charging during work.. who wants to wait 2-8 hours at the changing station just to get home and charge another 8 hours to then go to work? At least at home you can sleep and whatnot. At work you could get work done. What are you going to get done at the charging station?
Sure.. but most EVs can handle over 20 miles between charges, so what about just charging on specific roads, like freeways?
Perhaps using some kind of 3rd-rail, mechanically coupled system that would let the car drive itself while connected to the charging rail. (obviously, such a system would either need to be a loop or have some buffer capacity at the end of the line for people who don't take back control of their vehicles in time)
Sometimes the price of gasoline goes down. How often do you see regulated monopoly pricing do that? In New England last year, most states got a 30% electric rate hike "due on the price of natural gas" (which had been stagnant for 7 years...).
Employees aren't paid out of taxes, they're paid out of the revenue. Profits are Revenue - Expenses(one of which is payroll). I'm not sure where bonuses figure in, though. As a non-accountant, my gut feeling would be that bonuses necessarily come out of profit, or they're not really bonuses.
Slashdot Mirror
They're both regulated. The regulations are not the same, nor should they be. Dispatched rides are also rationed, and for some reason the ration books (i.e. medallions) are transferrable between private parties, raising barriers to entry for newcomers and allowing a cartel of entrenched speculator/investors to control the industry, to the detriment of both drivers and riders.
I would shop in a store that had a "regular-tacular" protest ad campaign on black friday. (I mean, I wouldn't shop there on black friday, I'd shop there later. Only crazy people go shopping on black friday.)
Tried the "ages 6-10" pathway, and a positive thing I can say is that it uses the a MIT Scratch-like programming language for the coding challenges (giving credit to Harvard and Berkley...), which I think is a great idea for introducing coding concepts to people not familiar with the traditional languages yet.
There are 15 levels and every few levels there is a video message from someone involved in star wars talking about the movies (nice ad placement, btw) or about javascript (which makes no sense to include on the "ages 6-10" visual code based track). There is even a button to show the "underlying code" which shows some javascript commands that don't quite implement the same thing that the user has created in the block-based language.
Worse, it's not a game of puzzles of slowly increasing difficulty that must be solved by increasingly clever code. Instead it's 15 challenges of almost zero difficulty, used as a tutorial for a small number of code elements before dumping the user into a sandbox to "create their own game."
It's clearly written to appeal not to 6-10 year-olds, but to education activists in the education activist conference circuit (i.e. not actual educators in actual classrooms).
I realize it's only an hour, but wouldn't "getting kids interested in code" be better served by creating more games that rely on "code-thinking" to solve? A game like "Human Resources Machine" but with a shallower difficulty ramp-up (and a concept of functions, and disguising some of the tasks to have more rewarding results) would, I think, be far more enticing to children of varying exposure to programming than an overblown Disney/Javascript ad. As would a Scratch-based update to the classic robowar-type games (codecombat.com does something somewhat similar with javascript, which I think is too text-y for young children), but without exposing new users to an online community of already-mature robot designs.
I'd be cool with commercials being way higher in volume, if DVR manufacturers are prohibited owning any copyrighted video content. I figure "sound level" would be a pretty easy trigger for commercial skip algorithms, and if the DVR makers weren't in league with the people putting out the commercials in the first place, the'd compete on who has the best commercial skipping.
The more prominent ads are, the easer it should be for machine filtering to remove them from your experience.
They're not just some indie channel struggling to get by. They're part of a huge conglomerate that owns dozens of channels and puts ghost-hunting wrestler shit on all of them.
How about differentiate your channels a bit and if a science fiction channel can't cut it vs. the house-swap channel, then eventually just drop it. If they need cheap material on the sci fi channel, then bring back the Forbidden Planet and Gamera, etc. re-runs that they originally built the audience with.
I think he's saying that at each accuracy-level you're cryptographically hashing something, and then when you do the compares, you do the same thing.. cryptographically hash at the different levels and compare those to the stored hashes and the best one that matches defines your confidence in the match.
A few hours? More like 5 minutes in a photo editor and twenty cents worth of effort. At least at the level Mythbusters tested a while back. All they needed to do was print the fingerprint using a laser printer.
Warren Buffet is probably doing a happy dance, though. Guess those campaign contributions really paid off!
We're in the future right now - I'll lay even odds you have in your pocket or nearby right now, a personal magic map that nearly always knows where you are and can show you how to get to where you want to go, and you can even use it to communicate with people over a distance!
your speed limit example is actually a perfect example of how laws DO in fact need to keep pace and don't.
especially as we move towards autonomous vehicles, but in fact applicable even with today's vehicles.
a high performance sports car can easily handle higher speeds and sharper turns than a semi hauling two trailers.
yet both are given the same 70mph limit, even though its rather too much for the double semi, and rather below the sports cars safe capability.
so why shouldn't they have different legal limits on what's safely acceptable?
On an open road with no other drivers, this makes sense. However on an open road with no other drivers, who are you protecting from unsafe operation of either the truck or the sports car? If there is no traffic, then maybe you don't need the limits at all.
On a road with lots of other vehicles, though, a few vehicles traveling at significantly different speeds increases the risk and damage in accidents and due to the extra attention that must be paid and the maneuvers needed to accommodate the slower/faster drivers, causes traffic, which ironically reduces throughput to below even the slow-driver limit.
But then you'd have to explain this
Uh.. car dealerships are cartels colluding with other car dealerships.
Hang on, what is the current vehicle replacement rate? If you start right now and every new vehicle is fully autonomous, what fraction of the total national vehicle fleet could you expect to have converted in only 10 years?
The purpose of an infrastructure job shouldn't be the construction jobs that will result from creating it. The purpose should be to reduce cost (in time or resources) of transportation of people and goods to points within the covered area.
Which is why generics are typically pretty affordable, except where there are not enough manufacturers competing. The problem is that you want new drugs, that you previously couldn't buy for any price, to be priced similarly to generics once discovered, and drug companies want to segment the market to maximize profits. If they could, I suspect they would have a different price for each individual.
Insurance exacerbates this problem, because patients with it don't see the price where it counts, so they don't pressure doctors to try less expensive/generic drugs first. Insurance companies are evaluated on percent of premiums paid on claims, so they also don't have an incentive to cut costs—the higher he medical costs are, the more they can charge in premiums.
vim :set list
nano Alt-P
(note: I sometimes use vim, I only googled nano)
Winston Smith, Is that you?
I agree with your first line. Your second, however, just demonstrates that you haven't actually read Atlas Shrugged. That's not uncommon; I can't, off the top of my head, think of another book which more people claim to have read without ever having done so.
I'd say 1984 is a pretty good contender for the title. Uncle Tom's Cabin should probably get a mention as well.
Makes no difference to the employee, or makes no difference all around?
I can see that if you only tax a company's gross revenue that it wouldn't make a difference. Is that the case in the UK?
What if instead you tax gross revenue at a lesser rate (or not at all) and tax net profits? By the language definition, payroll is a cost of operation that would not be included in "net profit" so the money used to pay employees would only see the gross revenue tax event and the paid-to-employee tax event, while bonuses from a linguistic point of view are "not part of the normal payroll" and are discretionary on the part of companies, so they would presumably be paid based-on and out-of the profits. The money would then see all of the tax events and effectively be taxed at a higher rate (although from the employee's point of view it would all be the same rate)
I don't know how it really is. I was just stating how a reasonable interpreter of the language (i.e. me) would assume things are (absent a cynical assumption that accountants and bureaucrats have twisted the language and the law the point that no reasonable interpretation is reasonable any more).
They don't need ads; They could just sell subscriptions as was suggested by the AC.
The Tesla driver doesn't need a charging spot. The Tesla has the range of a regular car.
Where do you live? In a lot of regions of the country there might not be a rapid charging station on your way home from work. And it needs to be a rapid charging station if you're not charging during work.. who wants to wait 2-8 hours at the changing station just to get home and charge another 8 hours to then go to work? At least at home you can sleep and whatnot. At work you could get work done. What are you going to get done at the charging station?
Sure.. but most EVs can handle over 20 miles between charges, so what about just charging on specific roads, like freeways?
Perhaps using some kind of 3rd-rail, mechanically coupled system that would let the car drive itself while connected to the charging rail. (obviously, such a system would either need to be a loop or have some buffer capacity at the end of the line for people who don't take back control of their vehicles in time)
Sometimes the price of gasoline goes down. How often do you see regulated monopoly pricing do that? In New England last year, most states got a 30% electric rate hike "due on the price of natural gas" (which had been stagnant for 7 years...).
Employees aren't paid out of taxes, they're paid out of the revenue. Profits are Revenue - Expenses(one of which is payroll). I'm not sure where bonuses figure in, though. As a non-accountant, my gut feeling would be that bonuses necessarily come out of profit, or they're not really bonuses.