They're very diligent about keeping tax costs low and manufacturing costs very low. They use marketing and image to keep prices high. They pump as much money out of the middle class and as little as possible into the (world) lower class.
Nominally, that's supposed to be how businesses work, but in that same nominal world, competition is supposed to bring prices down. Apple is the clearest example of how marketing and branding are tools to keep that from happening.
Yes, this is the point. Humanity is a continuum, and development represents growth of that.
Do we pretend that babies are capable of consenting to things we expect adults to decide on? No.
Do we expect that of 13 year olds? Not much, but sometimes. We'd try them as adults for murder, for example. They're a year from being able to have a job. 2 from operating a deadly vehicle with supervision.
Educated guess: Iron deposits. When exposed to a moving charged particles, say, solar wind, iron very slowly begins to magnetize, as individual electron spins are pushed very gently into alignment with their neighbors. We exploit this much more vigorously in the purposeful creation of permanent magnets here on earth.
I can't even begin to imagine how impossibly long it must have taken to happen on the moon.
Or another theory: it's magneto's secret moon base.
True or false, that has very little to do with debate between two companies, one of whom has only the role of delivering passive entertainment.
If we're losing a middle class, there's probably more blame to be laid on our own watching of netflix marathons than this particular dispute over net neutrality. That isn't to say the dispute isn't important, but this is not where revolutionaries need to be laying their cards.
I'm incredulous of that claim, not because it seems improbable, but because "pollution" is a multi-variable entity and reducing pollution as a whole to a simple percentage is the kind of claim I'd expect from someone with an agenda, and them picking a simplified metric that maximizes(or minimizes) that percentage.
Where did you hear that number, and how did they establish it?
That one has. It's not even a particularly amazing entry in the series, though it has its moments. Nintendo's main source of innovation has been "same series, same plot, new mechanics", and cart racers, at least, seem to be very low on ideas for new mechanics.
7 inches per 60 tears is only a little bit less than the worldwide average of coastal sea level changes(of 2-3 feet per century), so no your counter-argument isn't really rational as we're not over-localizing the phenomenon. Sorry.
People buried soldiers in WWII imagining sea level as a constant thing, and evidence bears out that this isn't true.
Press releases from coal companies never really consist of "evidence against" though. They're usually just "rhetoric against". And they've discovered that's not really as necessary now that they've managed to instill denying it as a core value of one political party. People will assert counter-factual things because that's far easier than accepting the idea of previously being wrong.
The really dumb thing is we're doing it all to ourselves, and there's not even much of a conspiracy to manipulate us anymore.
Yes, but high tide has consistently been going up as the average does. I don't think that's a particularly meaningful objection.
I'm going to have to research the material on this to be sure, but I believe one of the artifacts of increasing water levels is that the gap between high and low tide gets larger, as more mass is available to be pulled on by the moon.
Since all you've got is a sarcastic reply that doesn't actually address the question, I'll help.
Water pressure only causes perfect leveling to human eyes, but as the transmission distance of that pressure increases, the effects of random interference, and natural obstacles becomes the dominant ones. This manifests most discernably in the relatively huge sea level differences between the pacific side the Panama canal and the Atlantic side.
Now as to what mechanisms allow changes to be different, instead of just static value, it gets a little bit beyond my comprehension as to the exact mechanisms, but I believe it might have to do with where thermal expansion occurs(the deepest parts of the ocean most) and where land ice is melting to.
I think I made it clear that that was subjective and provided a relatively simple observation in support. I suppose the best way to answer your query would be to ask what makes you incredulous and tailor my response at that.
There can be no free society among people who are being watched.
I'd contest that in theory, but with the current ability we have to build in protections into a government against abuse, in practice it's absolutely true.
I just also think that the corporate interests at play here cause substantial harm too.
Please, in spite of how much worse some things have gotten, the respect for dissent in the US has expanded, no contracted. Hell, both major parties like to cast themselves as rebels against the system because of how popular the notion has become.
There are two ways for this not to be a disaster, and we can't make up our minds about what we want:
1. Information wants to be free and we live lives where everyone can find out whatever they want about us, and we collectively use that to hold those in power responsible too. 2. We find a way to secure and limit the availability of data both to regular people and powerful people.
As it stands we're on a course where information inflates a information imbalance that exacerbates a power imbalance that already exists.
Maybe it does. We haven't collectively decided to become an open society, though. So really all that's really happening is that people and their personal lives are being attacked from multiple directions.
I think if we did decide to become a less private and personal culture, it wouldn't be a terrible dystopia, but that's sure as hell not my decision to make on the behalf of others. The default understood social contract of the US is one of separate and distinct personal and public lives.
No, it's just that privatization has become incredibly normalized, and the idea of pushing out government duties to contractors(and the potential abuse that entails) is second nature nowadays. If you honestly think this is the only time student records got entered into a third party system without consideration of the effects, I've got some minor's personal data to sell you.
Facebook's evil laughter as their monopoly on distributing childrens' personal information becomes secure from local governments inadvertent competition. Elsewhere a "marketing expert" begins the process to pony up an extra half-cent per human being whose privacy is permanently and irrevocably destroyed.
In theory, sure. In practice, we're not all perfect super drivers who pay proper attention to the road at all times, and very short glances at a control panel in realtively safe moments isn't an extraordinary risk.
Heck, forget "now". It's never been a myth. Improved technology has always enabled more efficient, less personal killing, that distances power from consequences.
Where the myth comes in is that AI would develop anything akin to human greed. We have billions of years of evolution telling us to survive and reproduce no matter the consequences to others(and a couple hundred thousand of evolving and learning to value cooperation). AI is going to motivated to serve the interests of its creators.
Right now that's research and a bit of profit. Someday it'll be killing the "right" people.
Slashdot Mirror
They're very diligent about keeping tax costs low and manufacturing costs very low. They use marketing and image to keep prices high. They pump as much money out of the middle class and as little as possible into the (world) lower class.
Nominally, that's supposed to be how businesses work, but in that same nominal world, competition is supposed to bring prices down. Apple is the clearest example of how marketing and branding are tools to keep that from happening.
And intelligent isn't an on/off switch. Black and white thinking is what computers can already do.
Yes, this is the point. Humanity is a continuum, and development represents growth of that.
Do we pretend that babies are capable of consenting to things we expect adults to decide on?
No.
Do we expect that of 13 year olds?
Not much, but sometimes. We'd try them as adults for murder, for example. They're a year from being able to have a job. 2 from operating a deadly vehicle with supervision.
This argument is not a good counter.
Sure it is.
They convinced a human that they were talking to an unimpressive human. That's definitely a step above "not human at all".
Educated guess:
Iron deposits. When exposed to a moving charged particles, say, solar wind, iron very slowly begins to magnetize, as individual electron spins are pushed very gently into alignment with their neighbors. We exploit this much more vigorously in the purposeful creation of permanent magnets here on earth.
I can't even begin to imagine how impossibly long it must have taken to happen on the moon.
Or another theory: it's magneto's secret moon base.
Yes, but that waste isn't malfeasance.
Ah, sulfate pollution. So we're getting acid rain from China. Thanks. Not the same as 15% "of pollution" but a problem, nonetheless.
True or false, that has very little to do with debate between two companies, one of whom has only the role of delivering passive entertainment.
If we're losing a middle class, there's probably more blame to be laid on our own watching of netflix marathons than this particular dispute over net neutrality. That isn't to say the dispute isn't important, but this is not where revolutionaries need to be laying their cards.
I'm incredulous of that claim, not because it seems improbable, but because "pollution" is a multi-variable entity and reducing pollution as a whole to a simple percentage is the kind of claim I'd expect from someone with an agenda, and them picking a simplified metric that maximizes(or minimizes) that percentage.
Where did you hear that number, and how did they establish it?
like [...] Mario Kart, haven't even released
That one has. It's not even a particularly amazing entry in the series, though it has its moments. Nintendo's main source of innovation has been "same series, same plot, new mechanics", and cart racers, at least, seem to be very low on ideas for new mechanics.
He's right in that any solution needs to involve China, but that's not a reason to do nothing, and I'm not sure how it counters the idea I presented.
7 inches per 60 tears is only a little bit less than the worldwide average of coastal sea level changes(of 2-3 feet per century), so no your counter-argument isn't really rational as we're not over-localizing the phenomenon. Sorry.
People buried soldiers in WWII imagining sea level as a constant thing, and evidence bears out that this isn't true.
Press releases from coal companies never really consist of "evidence against" though. They're usually just "rhetoric against". And they've discovered that's not really as necessary now that they've managed to instill denying it as a core value of one political party. People will assert counter-factual things because that's far easier than accepting the idea of previously being wrong.
The really dumb thing is we're doing it all to ourselves, and there's not even much of a conspiracy to manipulate us anymore.
Yes, but high tide has consistently been going up as the average does. I don't think that's a particularly meaningful objection.
I'm going to have to research the material on this to be sure, but I believe one of the artifacts of increasing water levels is that the gap between high and low tide gets larger, as more mass is available to be pulled on by the moon.
Since all you've got is a sarcastic reply that doesn't actually address the question, I'll help.
Water pressure only causes perfect leveling to human eyes, but as the transmission distance of that pressure increases, the effects of random interference, and natural obstacles becomes the dominant ones. This manifests most discernably in the relatively huge sea level differences between the pacific side the Panama canal and the Atlantic side.
Now as to what mechanisms allow changes to be different, instead of just static value, it gets a little bit beyond my comprehension as to the exact mechanisms, but I believe it might have to do with where thermal expansion occurs(the deepest parts of the ocean most) and where land ice is melting to.
I think I made it clear that that was subjective and provided a relatively simple observation in support. I suppose the best way to answer your query would be to ask what makes you incredulous and tailor my response at that.
There can be no free society among people who are being watched.
I'd contest that in theory, but with the current ability we have to build in protections into a government against abuse, in practice it's absolutely true.
I just also think that the corporate interests at play here cause substantial harm too.
I'm not saying that everyone does that, just that it doesn't represent the biggest source of distraction based risk.
Please, in spite of how much worse some things have gotten, the respect for dissent in the US has expanded, no contracted. Hell, both major parties like to cast themselves as rebels against the system because of how popular the notion has become.
There are two ways for this not to be a disaster, and we can't make up our minds about what we want:
1. Information wants to be free and we live lives where everyone can find out whatever they want about us, and we collectively use that to hold those in power responsible too.
2. We find a way to secure and limit the availability of data both to regular people and powerful people.
As it stands we're on a course where information inflates a information imbalance that exacerbates a power imbalance that already exists.
Maybe it does. We haven't collectively decided to become an open society, though. So really all that's really happening is that people and their personal lives are being attacked from multiple directions.
I think if we did decide to become a less private and personal culture, it wouldn't be a terrible dystopia, but that's sure as hell not my decision to make on the behalf of others. The default understood social contract of the US is one of separate and distinct personal and public lives.
No, it's just that privatization has become incredibly normalized, and the idea of pushing out government duties to contractors(and the potential abuse that entails) is second nature nowadays. If you honestly think this is the only time student records got entered into a third party system without consideration of the effects, I've got some minor's personal data to sell you.
Facebook's evil laughter as their monopoly on distributing childrens' personal information becomes secure from local governments inadvertent competition. Elsewhere a "marketing expert" begins the process to pony up an extra half-cent per human being whose privacy is permanently and irrevocably destroyed.
In theory, sure. In practice, we're not all perfect super drivers who pay proper attention to the road at all times, and very short glances at a control panel in realtively safe moments isn't an extraordinary risk.
Heck, forget "now". It's never been a myth. Improved technology has always enabled more efficient, less personal killing, that distances power from consequences.
Where the myth comes in is that AI would develop anything akin to human greed. We have billions of years of evolution telling us to survive and reproduce no matter the consequences to others(and a couple hundred thousand of evolving and learning to value cooperation). AI is going to motivated to serve the interests of its creators.
Right now that's research and a bit of profit. Someday it'll be killing the "right" people.