The main news coverage was also very soft on Trump, often covered critical stories much later than other organizations and both downplayed them and softened language. I was a subscriber, it was pretty glaring.
I like the anti-cheating programs, but I never saw that they stopped much cheating, it just helped me identify the students who did (a lot). I switched my classes to have challenging, hand-written programming. Simple mistakes weren't punished (missed semi-colons) but it forced the students to do the work without the aid of the internet or their peers in a controlled environment. The students who cheated all semester failed out on the tests. The students who completed the homework usually breezed through the tests.
The rich can get richer, at the expense of middle and upper middle class people. They'll produce goods for very low marginal cost and sell them at relatively low price to the new lower middle class. And we have seen increased lower middle class unemployment and they haven't created their own black market to support each other. They continue to buy goods from Walmart that are produced by cheap overseas labor because those good are cheaper than they would be if they supported local production. They don't, they buy the cheapest good.
This is ok when those lower middle class consumers can still get jobs, even if they aren't as good of jobs as they had before because living a higher class lifestyle is now less expensive because of those cheaper goods (cars, food, consumer items, etc.). But when there aren't enough jobs, even lower class jobs, those people will not be able to support that level of living on current government aid, which isn't indefinite anyway.
They need to keep the system online, they are likely paying a subsidy to the driver for the low cost, they pay sign-on fees for new drivers, they run offices and recruitment campaigns for drivers, and they pay for advertising. It adds up.
The CEOs are considering today instead of tomorrow. And they are in competition with all the other CEOs who are doing the same thing. This isn't an omnipresent cabal who universally dictates a single economy. They know there are customers today to buy their items, and they know if they aren't the company providing those items made by robots then someone else will.
Putting your faith in companies to manage the global economy is bad. Those companies are selfish and over-focused. This is exactly why governments exist. They exist to protect the interests of the population as a whole.
It's a feature, but the purpose isn't to make smaller states relevant. The feature exists because the framers of the Constitution didn't trust direct democracy and wanted electors who would buck the will of the people if those people were making a bad choice. We can argue about unintendedeffects like increasing the voice of middle-America, but that wasn't it's intent.
The true Trump supporters wouldn't vote for Clinton, but fake news was able to propagate really quickly on Facebook and it's reasonable to assume that the volume of those fake stories could have negatively influenced support and turnout for Clinton among people who weren't die-hard Trump supporters but were "friends" with those Trump supporters on Facebook.
To be fair, about 90% of the time someone comes to me and says, "We have to do this because of." they have a very specific solution in mind and their specific solution isn't the only solution and is generally not an optimal solution. They're generally trying to use a regulation to get some unrelated thing they've been insisting on having for months.
This is why this ruling is so juicy for content holders. They don't have to spend the money to pursue these downloaders in court. Now they can simply send ISPs a list of people to warn and then disconnect. All the impact, none of the due-process hassle.
Except a lot of the drone issues aren't criminals. The issues are inexperienced citizens doing stupid things. Telling people they need to register, and possibly need to read a pamphlet or take a test gets a fair bit more information out into the public, and hopefully stops at least one science teacher from dropping a drone on a crowd at the US Open, or flying it around airports.
Not everyone wants to be a leader. I say this as an introvert who has taken on leadership roles. I appreciate that some people are awesome at being top-notch individual contributors, and teachers who try to shoe-horn kids into extrovert styles are doing those students a disservice. Frankly, it's way more common that teachers are extroverts, so they're trying to make their students act like extroverts too.
Per the article, they're knapped. The only picture on the article that seems to show that is the picture at the top, but knapping is pretty specific. It's how ancient cultures shaped stone into useful tools (like arrow heads and the like).
As tepples mentioned, the road wear goes up exponentially, which is why the discussion of fuel taxes and hybrid drivers is so frustrating. Automobiles have a very limited impact on roads compared to heavy, loaded, tractor trailers.
According to this GAO report (http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf) a fully loaded tractor trailer does ~9,600 times the damage to roads that a car does. An average driver does ~15k miles per year and gets 25 mpg. Using the Michigan gas tax, that car would pay about $110/year in gas tax which is supposed to support the roads. If we're interested in assigning fees based on road wear and impact, that truck needs to pay over $1M. It's a regressive tax that has general drivers subsidizing business use of the roads. I know we need goods, but if we forced businesses to assume the cost to move their goods, they may get a lot better at distributing goods more efficiently (trains, boats, etc.)
"Environmentally friendly" doesn't mean, "can't be bad for certain elements of the environment". Sure, maybe today's pesticides to kill off predatory birds, but removing the "kill predatory bird" chemical doesn't imply that "kill the bees" isn't present in today's pesticides.
It's better to ask these questions now, before we do have things to hide, like ebanking info. It's been considered that chip-and-pin would eventually push the liability for lost funds onto the consumer on the assumption that the consumer was negligent in losing his PIN. Bitcoin is another example of a thing that if you lose it, it's gone. It's not mainstream now, but I have heard of the Canadian mint experimenting with encrypted digital copies of it's currency (to allow electronic transactions, but ostensibly to make sure the Canadian government is notified of transactions so they can take a tax cut). It's conceivable you would have little to no recourse in recovering these funds. It's better to have the tools before we need them.
Money. Less money for industries that rely on fossil fuels (and since they have the most money right now, they're kind of powerful) and higher costs for individuals, which drives people to believe some awfully unbelievable things.
Companies tend to do way better when their intent isn't to screw customers. Steve Jobs was a delusional, but he believed locking down the software and forcing it to only work on Apple hardware provided the best user experience for the customer. That works out well for the company making the hardware, but the company didn't look for the money first and implement the product second. Keurig saw companies making money by lock-in and thought that lock-in was what it needed to do. Instead, it needed to make the best coffee pods. It needed to make them so much better that customers wouldn't want to use other coffee pods. If that involved lock-in, customers would have been fine with it. As it happens, the secret isn't the pods, it's the coffee, and lots of other people know that too, so lock-in wasn't ever a viable option, unless your goal was to piss off your customers.
Start making products people want, and they'll be happy to be locked-in with you.
Amazon does ridiculous stuff like this regularly. Free shipping for Prime members was a crazy idea when it was first introduced. Now several companies have copied their prime model. I don't think these buttons are the end-game. They may be a wedge/marketing gimic that gets people to start buying household products from Amazon. I buy laundry detergent locally because I usually don't think about it until I'm almost out. Having a button staring me in the face reminds me 1) that Amazon sells it, and 2) that I might want to think about it a few days in advance on needing it. Once I get that habit, it won't be a stretch to get rid of the buttons and simply have a phone app that lets me easily order non-perishables.
Alternately, Amazon is hoping the price for these buttons becomes negligible as "Internet of Things" chips ramp up. Either way, homeowners buying name brand products through Amazon without even thinking about the price, is good for Amazon.
But we haven't reached that yet. We're already hitting limitations on new tech like watches. Smaller, more power efficient, but powerful is still in demand. Wait until we can put processors on the edge of a contact lens giving us persistent HUD.
It's an anachronism of the early concerns of the US founders. They wanted to balance the interests of the more populated colonies/states with the interests of the less populated colonies/states. So they setup the house that is strictly based on the proportion of population to "represent the will of the people, and the Senate which has 2 votes per state regardless of population to ensure smaller states aren't drowned out in this republic. They never foresaw the effects of gerrymandering on the House. It's the downside of being the first modern democracy, we had to work some kinks out. I think there is value in discussing proportional representation, but the existing interests would never let that happen.
The scary thing is that this is in the industry with the most consumer data protection laws (healthcare). We've never had a breach this large, so we have no idea on the fine size. The largest fine levied so far was a combined $4.8M split between two entities. Unfortunately, I suspect the cost of securing a network this large accumulated over 5 years is probably more than the fine. The bigger pain will be the knock on effects of lost business, remediations, etc. The only other similar breach is Community Health Systems who lost ~4.5M records around August. Fines haven't been announced that I know of, but the all-in estimate is about $100-$150M.
Slashdot Mirror
The main news coverage was also very soft on Trump, often covered critical stories much later than other organizations and both downplayed them and softened language. I was a subscriber, it was pretty glaring.
I like the anti-cheating programs, but I never saw that they stopped much cheating, it just helped me identify the students who did (a lot). I switched my classes to have challenging, hand-written programming. Simple mistakes weren't punished (missed semi-colons) but it forced the students to do the work without the aid of the internet or their peers in a controlled environment. The students who cheated all semester failed out on the tests. The students who completed the homework usually breezed through the tests.
The rich can get richer, at the expense of middle and upper middle class people. They'll produce goods for very low marginal cost and sell them at relatively low price to the new lower middle class. And we have seen increased lower middle class unemployment and they haven't created their own black market to support each other. They continue to buy goods from Walmart that are produced by cheap overseas labor because those good are cheaper than they would be if they supported local production. They don't, they buy the cheapest good.
This is ok when those lower middle class consumers can still get jobs, even if they aren't as good of jobs as they had before because living a higher class lifestyle is now less expensive because of those cheaper goods (cars, food, consumer items, etc.). But when there aren't enough jobs, even lower class jobs, those people will not be able to support that level of living on current government aid, which isn't indefinite anyway.
They need to keep the system online, they are likely paying a subsidy to the driver for the low cost, they pay sign-on fees for new drivers, they run offices and recruitment campaigns for drivers, and they pay for advertising. It adds up.
The CEOs are considering today instead of tomorrow. And they are in competition with all the other CEOs who are doing the same thing. This isn't an omnipresent cabal who universally dictates a single economy. They know there are customers today to buy their items, and they know if they aren't the company providing those items made by robots then someone else will.
Putting your faith in companies to manage the global economy is bad. Those companies are selfish and over-focused. This is exactly why governments exist. They exist to protect the interests of the population as a whole.
It's a feature, but the purpose isn't to make smaller states relevant. The feature exists because the framers of the Constitution didn't trust direct democracy and wanted electors who would buck the will of the people if those people were making a bad choice. We can argue about unintendedeffects like increasing the voice of middle-America, but that wasn't it's intent.
The true Trump supporters wouldn't vote for Clinton, but fake news was able to propagate really quickly on Facebook and it's reasonable to assume that the volume of those fake stories could have negatively influenced support and turnout for Clinton among people who weren't die-hard Trump supporters but were "friends" with those Trump supporters on Facebook.
To be fair, about 90% of the time someone comes to me and says, "We have to do this because of ." they have a very specific solution in mind and their specific solution isn't the only solution and is generally not an optimal solution. They're generally trying to use a regulation to get some unrelated thing they've been insisting on having for months.
This is why this ruling is so juicy for content holders. They don't have to spend the money to pursue these downloaders in court. Now they can simply send ISPs a list of people to warn and then disconnect. All the impact, none of the due-process hassle.
Except a lot of the drone issues aren't criminals. The issues are inexperienced citizens doing stupid things. Telling people they need to register, and possibly need to read a pamphlet or take a test gets a fair bit more information out into the public, and hopefully stops at least one science teacher from dropping a drone on a crowd at the US Open, or flying it around airports.
Not everyone wants to be a leader. I say this as an introvert who has taken on leadership roles. I appreciate that some people are awesome at being top-notch individual contributors, and teachers who try to shoe-horn kids into extrovert styles are doing those students a disservice. Frankly, it's way more common that teachers are extroverts, so they're trying to make their students act like extroverts too.
Except a lot of drones can now autopilot their way to GPS way points. Set it and forget it, no RF control needed.
Per the article, they're knapped. The only picture on the article that seems to show that is the picture at the top, but knapping is pretty specific. It's how ancient cultures shaped stone into useful tools (like arrow heads and the like).
Yeah, I didn't want to go there. It's even more egregious here ...
As tepples mentioned, the road wear goes up exponentially, which is why the discussion of fuel taxes and hybrid drivers is so frustrating. Automobiles have a very limited impact on roads compared to heavy, loaded, tractor trailers. According to this GAO report (http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf) a fully loaded tractor trailer does ~9,600 times the damage to roads that a car does. An average driver does ~15k miles per year and gets 25 mpg. Using the Michigan gas tax, that car would pay about $110/year in gas tax which is supposed to support the roads. If we're interested in assigning fees based on road wear and impact, that truck needs to pay over $1M. It's a regressive tax that has general drivers subsidizing business use of the roads. I know we need goods, but if we forced businesses to assume the cost to move their goods, they may get a lot better at distributing goods more efficiently (trains, boats, etc.)
"Environmentally friendly" doesn't mean, "can't be bad for certain elements of the environment". Sure, maybe today's pesticides to kill off predatory birds, but removing the "kill predatory bird" chemical doesn't imply that "kill the bees" isn't present in today's pesticides.
It's better to ask these questions now, before we do have things to hide, like ebanking info. It's been considered that chip-and-pin would eventually push the liability for lost funds onto the consumer on the assumption that the consumer was negligent in losing his PIN. Bitcoin is another example of a thing that if you lose it, it's gone. It's not mainstream now, but I have heard of the Canadian mint experimenting with encrypted digital copies of it's currency (to allow electronic transactions, but ostensibly to make sure the Canadian government is notified of transactions so they can take a tax cut). It's conceivable you would have little to no recourse in recovering these funds. It's better to have the tools before we need them.
Money. Less money for industries that rely on fossil fuels (and since they have the most money right now, they're kind of powerful) and higher costs for individuals, which drives people to believe some awfully unbelievable things.
Companies tend to do way better when their intent isn't to screw customers. Steve Jobs was a delusional, but he believed locking down the software and forcing it to only work on Apple hardware provided the best user experience for the customer. That works out well for the company making the hardware, but the company didn't look for the money first and implement the product second. Keurig saw companies making money by lock-in and thought that lock-in was what it needed to do. Instead, it needed to make the best coffee pods. It needed to make them so much better that customers wouldn't want to use other coffee pods. If that involved lock-in, customers would have been fine with it. As it happens, the secret isn't the pods, it's the coffee, and lots of other people know that too, so lock-in wasn't ever a viable option, unless your goal was to piss off your customers.
Start making products people want, and they'll be happy to be locked-in with you.
Amazon does ridiculous stuff like this regularly. Free shipping for Prime members was a crazy idea when it was first introduced. Now several companies have copied their prime model. I don't think these buttons are the end-game. They may be a wedge/marketing gimic that gets people to start buying household products from Amazon. I buy laundry detergent locally because I usually don't think about it until I'm almost out. Having a button staring me in the face reminds me 1) that Amazon sells it, and 2) that I might want to think about it a few days in advance on needing it. Once I get that habit, it won't be a stretch to get rid of the buttons and simply have a phone app that lets me easily order non-perishables.
Alternately, Amazon is hoping the price for these buttons becomes negligible as "Internet of Things" chips ramp up. Either way, homeowners buying name brand products through Amazon without even thinking about the price, is good for Amazon.
Sounds like an indictment of the speech, not the technology...
But we haven't reached that yet. We're already hitting limitations on new tech like watches. Smaller, more power efficient, but powerful is still in demand. Wait until we can put processors on the edge of a contact lens giving us persistent HUD.
I have another retirement company (employer provided) that allows only numeric up to 6 characters so it will work with their phone system.
It's an anachronism of the early concerns of the US founders. They wanted to balance the interests of the more populated colonies/states with the interests of the less populated colonies/states. So they setup the house that is strictly based on the proportion of population to "represent the will of the people, and the Senate which has 2 votes per state regardless of population to ensure smaller states aren't drowned out in this republic. They never foresaw the effects of gerrymandering on the House. It's the downside of being the first modern democracy, we had to work some kinks out. I think there is value in discussing proportional representation, but the existing interests would never let that happen.
The scary thing is that this is in the industry with the most consumer data protection laws (healthcare). We've never had a breach this large, so we have no idea on the fine size. The largest fine levied so far was a combined $4.8M split between two entities. Unfortunately, I suspect the cost of securing a network this large accumulated over 5 years is probably more than the fine. The bigger pain will be the knock on effects of lost business, remediations, etc. The only other similar breach is Community Health Systems who lost ~4.5M records around August. Fines haven't been announced that I know of, but the all-in estimate is about $100-$150M.