Then he should never be allowed to work in IT again. Having your contract run out is not being fired by machine. Your contract ran out. Thus you can no longer be employed at that company. That is a failure of management, not a machine firing you. As of the contract expiration date you no longer worked there. So stupid.
I rarely find four movies in a month that are playing at theaters that I want to see. I realize this means I'm probably not their target market, but even four movies a month consistently seems like a stretch. Even a summer blockbuster month like June... I might want to see a couple of the films released this month. Incredibles 2 and Jurassic World 2..maybe Ocean's 8. If I was going to sign up for this AMC thing, I'd have to change my entertainment plans to consistently be going to movies. Not too dissimilar from how I cut cable and went to Netflix. I watch the shit out of Netflix. I get my 11.99 worth for sure. Anyway, that's just me.
If the runways were made of tents, then perhaps that would make sense. Nothing about the terminal being a tent implies any safety concerns for flights into and out of that airport.
I was surprised this includes new releases...but the press release and the consumer FAQ both at least imply that there are no restrictions on what movies can be seen. Perhaps the business model includes the assumption that some percentage of members won't use all three movies each week. I mean honestly, I don't think I could keep up with 3 movies a week. That's a lot of time commitment and there just aren't that many movies out at any given time that I want to see. I guess if I knew in a given month that there were more than a couple movies that I wanted to see then I would consider signing up for one month, but then I'd want to cancel. I don't think AMC wants that kind of subscriber.
Some Amazon Shareholders perhaps. If it was a majority of them, or even a 30% of the shareholders maybe this headling could pass the BS test. Whatever.
To some extent I agree. But if there is something about society that could be changed, willingly, that would make people less likely to make that choice, then I might be for it. If the cause is external, why can't the solution be external?
I think Blinkin1200 is saying he/she would have no choice but to install it against his/her will if it was made for whatever non-Apple device he/she is concerned about polluting with Apple software.
The maximums are so far off from the medians that I don't see how they wouldn't throw those out as outliers. But it's enviro-science (defined as real science taken out of context), whose goal is almost always to scare people into action, so this is par for the course.
They did have a stock price increase that could be correlated to a 2014 implementation. But since mid-2016 the stock has been on a steady decline. Obviously these are neither indicators of this specific activity directly impacting profitability, but still brings their claim into question. Being unwilling to give details of the program also makes it questionable.
Well it's not much of an improvement if the net profit doesn't go up. I'd even give them the benefit of the doubt if net profit rose proportionally. But since it dropped considerably that $315 million increase is meaningless even if there is an actual on the books number that it comes from.
Their publicly disclosed net income went from about $130 million in 2014 to $160 million in 2016 and then dropped considerably to about $65 million in 2017? Couldn't possibly be exaggerating or just plain lying right?
Universal Dividend aka Universal basic Income funded through magic fund that only gains value and never loses it. An even less intelligent way to fund that direct taxation, which is also being proven over and over to be unsustainable. Even in the magical world where this trust fund never loses value, if it only gains 1% does that mean people get less money that month?
The arguments for UBI whether funded by a Universal Dividend or taxes, is that no one creates anything on their own. That they everyone who creates anything does so as a collective so the collective should benefit. First, that's a fallacy. Yes, creations build off other creations and ideas. But no, 100% of the population did not contribute to it. However, let's pretend every invention/creation is the product of every person. Then everyone should make exactly the same amount of money as everyone else. Not just a percentage of each creation. It should be completely equally distributed to the point of no one having more than another person. Hooray communisim. Not going to happen. Or, what really should happen is that everyone has the opportuntiy to benefit equally from all things that are created, but it is up to each individual to take that opportunity and do something with it. Some will succeed, some won't. That's LIFE.
Giving anybody, anything at all for doing nothing is not a sustainable action. Eventually the anything at all runs out. If work is such a burden, change your life-style. Become self-sustaining yourself. Realize that some things that you take for granted now won't be available to you (Cable TV, internet, cell phone) and move on with your simplified life. Just stay the heck away from my and everyone else's wallet.
It works either through magic, or through taxation renamed making some portion of EVERY company nationalized and entered into a trust fund to fund it. It's a means to abstract the fund away from the fact that stolen wealth will still fund it. Because certainly no company would ever lose value right?
That's like almost a statistically relevant number in a population of 1,000. I guess since the world is 7 billion people though, these 50 don't really register. But wait, you say. Not all 7 billion are AI experts! Well, there are 10,000+ people that could be labeled that, so it's still not statistically relevant.
What a lame choice of inventions to rip off credit for...I mean if it's supposed to harken back to the "four great inventions" this does those actual inventions a HUGE disservice. High-speed rail is at least somewhat interesting, but compared to papermaking? Gunpowder? Forget about it.
In my job I deal with people giving me solutions as their business needs all the time. I'm pretty patient about it, I don't mind if they give me a suggested solution. But it does get frustrating when someone asks me to do something extremely specific IN LIEU of stating their actual business need. Then I have to spend extra time trying to figure out why they are asking which almost always ends up with the requested solution being determined to not actually meet their need. I get why people do that, it's hard not to assume that you know how your needs can be met. But I've proven to everyone from users to executives exactly why I want them to focus on just describing why they are asking for something time and time again. Most of them trust me implicitly and won't even bother to suggest solutions unless I ask them for their thoughts.
Because the security that one little SOC supposedly gives you is lost because it is still physically part of this super secret system you're trying to keep safe. The connection to the monitor, power, etc could all be used to gain access to the alternate system. If you're that hard up for security, you're doing it wrong if you keep them connected in any way. Someone will figure out how to use that against you to get the super secret stuff.
Explain what the need is and you'll have your answer. This is a solution to a proposed need. It is a bad solution. No one needs a bad solution. Someone may or may not have the need that drove this completely ludicrous solution, but regardless the solution is terrible and no one needs that.
While I can't comment on the proportion of autonomous vehicles to human-operated vehicles, there are multiple thousands of pedestrian hit and killed each year. Multiple tens of thousands hit and injured. I would expect this number to go down dramatically for every increase in autonomous cars.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope I sure didn't read it. I blame robots.
Then he should never be allowed to work in IT again. Having your contract run out is not being fired by machine. Your contract ran out. Thus you can no longer be employed at that company. That is a failure of management, not a machine firing you. As of the contract expiration date you no longer worked there. So stupid.
I rarely find four movies in a month that are playing at theaters that I want to see. I realize this means I'm probably not their target market, but even four movies a month consistently seems like a stretch. Even a summer blockbuster month like June... I might want to see a couple of the films released this month. Incredibles 2 and Jurassic World 2..maybe Ocean's 8. If I was going to sign up for this AMC thing, I'd have to change my entertainment plans to consistently be going to movies. Not too dissimilar from how I cut cable and went to Netflix. I watch the shit out of Netflix. I get my 11.99 worth for sure. Anyway, that's just me.
If the runways were made of tents, then perhaps that would make sense. Nothing about the terminal being a tent implies any safety concerns for flights into and out of that airport.
Wanda Group. Relatively large multi-national China-based conglomerate.
I was surprised this includes new releases...but the press release and the consumer FAQ both at least imply that there are no restrictions on what movies can be seen. Perhaps the business model includes the assumption that some percentage of members won't use all three movies each week. I mean honestly, I don't think I could keep up with 3 movies a week. That's a lot of time commitment and there just aren't that many movies out at any given time that I want to see. I guess if I knew in a given month that there were more than a couple movies that I wanted to see then I would consider signing up for one month, but then I'd want to cancel. I don't think AMC wants that kind of subscriber.
They would love that. How much cash on-hand in Australian jurisdiction? Apple: what cash?
Some Amazon Shareholders perhaps. If it was a majority of them, or even a 30% of the shareholders maybe this headling could pass the BS test. Whatever.
You know how I know you're not from the future? Because you think blockchain will still be around in any meaningful capacity.
To some extent I agree. But if there is something about society that could be changed, willingly, that would make people less likely to make that choice, then I might be for it. If the cause is external, why can't the solution be external?
I think Blinkin1200 is saying he/she would have no choice but to install it against his/her will if it was made for whatever non-Apple device he/she is concerned about polluting with Apple software.
I will now have no trouble identifying what a website is for just by looking at its URL!
The maximums are so far off from the medians that I don't see how they wouldn't throw those out as outliers. But it's enviro-science (defined as real science taken out of context), whose goal is almost always to scare people into action, so this is par for the course.
They did have a stock price increase that could be correlated to a 2014 implementation. But since mid-2016 the stock has been on a steady decline. Obviously these are neither indicators of this specific activity directly impacting profitability, but still brings their claim into question. Being unwilling to give details of the program also makes it questionable.
Well it's not much of an improvement if the net profit doesn't go up. I'd even give them the benefit of the doubt if net profit rose proportionally. But since it dropped considerably that $315 million increase is meaningless even if there is an actual on the books number that it comes from.
Their publicly disclosed net income went from about $130 million in 2014 to $160 million in 2016 and then dropped considerably to about $65 million in 2017? Couldn't possibly be exaggerating or just plain lying right?
Universal Dividend aka Universal basic Income funded through magic fund that only gains value and never loses it. An even less intelligent way to fund that direct taxation, which is also being proven over and over to be unsustainable. Even in the magical world where this trust fund never loses value, if it only gains 1% does that mean people get less money that month?
The arguments for UBI whether funded by a Universal Dividend or taxes, is that no one creates anything on their own. That they everyone who creates anything does so as a collective so the collective should benefit. First, that's a fallacy. Yes, creations build off other creations and ideas. But no, 100% of the population did not contribute to it. However, let's pretend every invention/creation is the product of every person. Then everyone should make exactly the same amount of money as everyone else. Not just a percentage of each creation. It should be completely equally distributed to the point of no one having more than another person. Hooray communisim. Not going to happen. Or, what really should happen is that everyone has the opportuntiy to benefit equally from all things that are created, but it is up to each individual to take that opportunity and do something with it. Some will succeed, some won't. That's LIFE.
Giving anybody, anything at all for doing nothing is not a sustainable action. Eventually the anything at all runs out. If work is such a burden, change your life-style. Become self-sustaining yourself. Realize that some things that you take for granted now won't be available to you (Cable TV, internet, cell phone) and move on with your simplified life. Just stay the heck away from my and everyone else's wallet.
It works either through magic, or through taxation renamed making some portion of EVERY company nationalized and entered into a trust fund to fund it. It's a means to abstract the fund away from the fact that stolen wealth will still fund it. Because certainly no company would ever lose value right?
That's like almost a statistically relevant number in a population of 1,000. I guess since the world is 7 billion people though, these 50 don't really register. But wait, you say. Not all 7 billion are AI experts! Well, there are 10,000+ people that could be labeled that, so it's still not statistically relevant.
What a lame choice of inventions to rip off credit for...I mean if it's supposed to harken back to the "four great inventions" this does those actual inventions a HUGE disservice. High-speed rail is at least somewhat interesting, but compared to papermaking? Gunpowder? Forget about it.
In my job I deal with people giving me solutions as their business needs all the time. I'm pretty patient about it, I don't mind if they give me a suggested solution. But it does get frustrating when someone asks me to do something extremely specific IN LIEU of stating their actual business need. Then I have to spend extra time trying to figure out why they are asking which almost always ends up with the requested solution being determined to not actually meet their need. I get why people do that, it's hard not to assume that you know how your needs can be met. But I've proven to everyone from users to executives exactly why I want them to focus on just describing why they are asking for something time and time again. Most of them trust me implicitly and won't even bother to suggest solutions unless I ask them for their thoughts.
Because the security that one little SOC supposedly gives you is lost because it is still physically part of this super secret system you're trying to keep safe. The connection to the monitor, power, etc could all be used to gain access to the alternate system. If you're that hard up for security, you're doing it wrong if you keep them connected in any way. Someone will figure out how to use that against you to get the super secret stuff.
Explain what the need is and you'll have your answer. This is a solution to a proposed need. It is a bad solution. No one needs a bad solution. Someone may or may not have the need that drove this completely ludicrous solution, but regardless the solution is terrible and no one needs that.
Yeah, it's a darwin award.
While I can't comment on the proportion of autonomous vehicles to human-operated vehicles, there are multiple thousands of pedestrian hit and killed each year. Multiple tens of thousands hit and injured. I would expect this number to go down dramatically for every increase in autonomous cars.