When you were a kid, you could get a drivers licence at 16, and possibly a learners' permit a few months before that, but the driving age has been creeping up all over the country as the most inexperienced drivers are found to make the most mistakes, so obviously the solution is to push their opportunities for experience out even more. I think in many states you can't even get a full license until 18.
School buses shouldn't be picking everyon up at their doorstep either. That's way too many stops for something as massive as a school bus. They must be spending a fortune on gas and brake pads alone.
So, if you are lacking social skills, you should be excluded from controversial discussions? What if you have a disability that makes it difficult to socialize or recognize social cues?
OR, use the OTA model online - put out you own client that streams the shows for no cost but pay for it with ads/commercials.
Personally, I think that one is the worst scenario. Not the least likely, but the worst for the audiences. My time is a lot more valuable to me as time than it is to them as "attention". I'd rather just make money doing the thing I do to make money, and send it to them for the content than have to sit a thousand dollars worth of time through commercials for a hundred dollars worth of entertainment.
I don't think there's inherently a problem with everyone going their own on streaming, either, but I don't think each studio is worth $10/month. If it shakes out that everyone tries to charge that much, it'll suck for consumers for a while and then consolidate somehow. If there's a spectrum of prices and they collaborate just enough to have some kind of universal protocol people can write clients to as a portal to the whole thing, it might work out the way everyone wanted.
The thing is, how do you filter them out? You can't just get a list of how much everyone campaigned and pick the bottom person off the list. Everyone who doesn't want the job would be campaigning all over the place and you'd still end up with the power-hungry.
Everyone is in some weird 1% that doesn't quite fit in.
Maybe I'm using the wrong definition of SJW; I have been assuming it's a term for people who are so enamored with the idea of fighting for civil rights, that they don't really examine whether they're helping things get better, but there's a kernel that they are fighting for that either was at one time an issue or still is at least somewhat of an issue.
And that's why I think Star Trek is a good home for them: Star Trek was sometimes overbearing in its social commentary and that's part of what made it Star Trek. With that, though, you can help get people thinking about what's really going on and what should be better.
If there's one place where SJW's belong, it's Star Trek. Frankly, the reboot movies were kind of boring because they were generic action flicks with none of the social commentary that Roddenberry was all about. Speculative fiction in general is partly built on presenting social issues with some of the prejudices stripped away through the use of alien ideas.
Even if the positions are silly or the metaphors don't hold up under scrutiny, at least they could've tried, rather than done yet another safe-but-not-super J.J. "I know how to start a story but have no clue how to finish it" Abrams vehicle.
If people are building houses that they like, but which others find garish, what's really the problem with that? Why should I judge someone's exterior decor choices? Even the so-called mansions in other AC's "primer" are often built with facades mimicing the styles they present. I'm not saying that inconsistent exterior styling and unnecessary extra gables makes sense, but who am I to aesthetic shame people's architectural preferences? How is it hurting you?
The users in your computer shouldn't be the same as the users of your computer. You can have different users for different roles, as many as you feel like remembering passwords for.
I seem to recal some articles about Apple having had (speculative?) plans to create some kind of (highly automated) domestic factory since well before the election, so maybe President Trump didn't talk to Cook and simply was briefed on that? or read an article on that?
So.. you're saying that no Democrats crossed over to Republican primaries to try to spoil the Republican field and no Republicans did the same on the Democrat side last year?
Do you never wonder how we keep getting crappy candidates?
Frankly, I'm suspicious of even the numbers. Firstly, 22 incidents over a four month period in a country of 60 million doesn't seem like very much, but I'm even suspicious of that number. Is there actual evidence in 22 cases of drone involvement, or is it more like 22 cases of a pilot "seeing something whiz by fast" and calling it a drone instead of a goose.
Nice. I was really hoping to see Max Headroom pop back up for the modern era. When watching that show I distinctly remember thinking: "Wait a minute, how can corporations be more powerful than the government?". I wish i could go back to that innocence.....
All this time the corporations were thinking the same thing, but with different inflection.
All of those things you named, you knew about already. With the ads, you now now of the existence of the other things, too. Technically, they're succeeding.
You're telling the computer to do something in the context of another user (generally root/admin) who has permission/capability to perform the command. A perfectly valid english interpretation is, "Pseudo-chef, Make me a sandwich"
It's worse than 3D. 3D at least has a tangeable difference in the product - some scenes will have a stereoscopic 3D effect that part of the audienct that includes me likes very much (when used to help build scale), other parts of the audience don't care for or can't see, and another group that may or may not be in the audience has an irrational hatred of.
Since Distribution is all digital now, the only thing shooting in 70mm adds is film grain and color gamut that you could reproduce more accurately or in a more controlled manner by filming in digital with the same shutter ratios and applying clever filters later on. If you shoot in 70mm film, you still need to run it over a digital camera/scanner/whatever at some point later on.
California cares enough to put those things in its university requriements, but not enough to teach you those things during the 12 years it has your legally mandated attention?
Public transit should absolutly not rely on fees from car drivers for revenue. If you tie them together like that, then you will encourage people to switch from cars to public transit (which is the goal, I assume), but you will also see revenues drop as your public transit costs rise due to the increased ridership.
If you want to subsidize public transit, you should do that, and if you want to discourage private car driving, you should do that, too. But you shouldn't tie the fees from one to the revenues for the other unless you want to invite disaster down the road.
Slashdot Mirror
When you were a kid, you could get a drivers licence at 16, and possibly a learners' permit a few months before that, but the driving age has been creeping up all over the country as the most inexperienced drivers are found to make the most mistakes, so obviously the solution is to push their opportunities for experience out even more. I think in many states you can't even get a full license until 18.
A database called Casssandra? I don't believe it.
School buses shouldn't be picking everyon up at their doorstep either. That's way too many stops for something as massive as a school bus. They must be spending a fortune on gas and brake pads alone.
So, if you are lacking social skills, you should be excluded from controversial discussions? What if you have a disability that makes it difficult to socialize or recognize social cues?
OR, use the OTA model online - put out you own client that streams the shows for no cost but pay for it with ads/commercials.
Personally, I think that one is the worst scenario. Not the least likely, but the worst for the audiences. My time is a lot more valuable to me as time than it is to them as "attention". I'd rather just make money doing the thing I do to make money, and send it to them for the content than have to sit a thousand dollars worth of time through commercials for a hundred dollars worth of entertainment.
I don't think there's inherently a problem with everyone going their own on streaming, either, but I don't think each studio is worth $10/month. If it shakes out that everyone tries to charge that much, it'll suck for consumers for a while and then consolidate somehow. If there's a spectrum of prices and they collaborate just enough to have some kind of universal protocol people can write clients to as a portal to the whole thing, it might work out the way everyone wanted.
Exactly. It's not difficult to get passwords wrong, even Bruce Schneier is wrong about passwords - see his criticism of the XKCD method:
The thing is, how do you filter them out? You can't just get a list of how much everyone campaigned and pick the bottom person off the list. Everyone who doesn't want the job would be campaigning all over the place and you'd still end up with the power-hungry.
Everyone is in some weird 1% that doesn't quite fit in.
Maybe I'm using the wrong definition of SJW; I have been assuming it's a term for people who are so enamored with the idea of fighting for civil rights, that they don't really examine whether they're helping things get better, but there's a kernel that they are fighting for that either was at one time an issue or still is at least somewhat of an issue.
And that's why I think Star Trek is a good home for them: Star Trek was sometimes overbearing in its social commentary and that's part of what made it Star Trek. With that, though, you can help get people thinking about what's really going on and what should be better.
If there's one place where SJW's belong, it's Star Trek. Frankly, the reboot movies were kind of boring because they were generic action flicks with none of the social commentary that Roddenberry was all about. Speculative fiction in general is partly built on presenting social issues with some of the prejudices stripped away through the use of alien ideas.
Even if the positions are silly or the metaphors don't hold up under scrutiny, at least they could've tried, rather than done yet another safe-but-not-super J.J. "I know how to start a story but have no clue how to finish it" Abrams vehicle.
Sessions cracking down on marijuana..
Don't forget about his trying to increase the use of civil forfeiture.
If people are building houses that they like, but which others find garish, what's really the problem with that? Why should I judge someone's exterior decor choices? Even the so-called mansions in other AC's "primer" are often built with facades mimicing the styles they present. I'm not saying that inconsistent exterior styling and unnecessary extra gables makes sense, but who am I to aesthetic shame people's architectural preferences? How is it hurting you?
What is a McMansion then? I think they do not even exist except as a way for old money to find something about new money to despise.
The users in your computer shouldn't be the same as the users of your computer. You can have different users for different roles, as many as you feel like remembering passwords for.
Windows are great. They let light in and keep rain out. What have you got against windows?
I seem to recal some articles about Apple having had (speculative?) plans to create some kind of (highly automated) domestic factory since well before the election, so maybe President Trump didn't talk to Cook and simply was briefed on that? or read an article on that?
So.. you're saying that no Democrats crossed over to Republican primaries to try to spoil the Republican field and no Republicans did the same on the Democrat side last year?
Do you never wonder how we keep getting crappy candidates?
Frankly, I'm suspicious of even the numbers. Firstly, 22 incidents over a four month period in a country of 60 million doesn't seem like very much, but I'm even suspicious of that number. Is there actual evidence in 22 cases of drone involvement, or is it more like 22 cases of a pilot "seeing something whiz by fast" and calling it a drone instead of a goose.
Nice. I was really hoping to see Max Headroom pop back up for the modern era. When watching that show I distinctly remember thinking: "Wait a minute, how can corporations be more powerful than the government?". I wish i could go back to that innocence.....
All this time the corporations were thinking the same thing, but with different inflection.
All of those things you named, you knew about already. With the ads, you now now of the existence of the other things, too. Technically, they're succeeding.
You're telling the computer to do something in the context of another user (generally root/admin) who has permission/capability to perform the command. A perfectly valid english interpretation is, "Pseudo-chef, Make me a sandwich"
Therefore both pronunciations are valid.
It's weird that we call them "baby names", when most people carry their name through their whole life.
It's worse than 3D. 3D at least has a tangeable difference in the product - some scenes will have a stereoscopic 3D effect that part of the audienct that includes me likes very much (when used to help build scale), other parts of the audience don't care for or can't see, and another group that may or may not be in the audience has an irrational hatred of.
Since Distribution is all digital now, the only thing shooting in 70mm adds is film grain and color gamut that you could reproduce more accurately or in a more controlled manner by filming in digital with the same shutter ratios and applying clever filters later on. If you shoot in 70mm film, you still need to run it over a digital camera/scanner/whatever at some point later on.
California cares enough to put those things in its university requriements, but not enough to teach you those things during the 12 years it has your legally mandated attention?
IIRC keepassX on Linux even bypasses the clipboard buffer, putting the password directly into the fields. Does it still do that?
Public transit should absolutly not rely on fees from car drivers for revenue. If you tie them together like that, then you will encourage people to switch from cars to public transit (which is the goal, I assume), but you will also see revenues drop as your public transit costs rise due to the increased ridership.
If you want to subsidize public transit, you should do that, and if you want to discourage private car driving, you should do that, too. But you shouldn't tie the fees from one to the revenues for the other unless you want to invite disaster down the road.