Without having any indicator other than that link to an article a couple of lines long, we have no info.
Is the $150 million value the "normal throughput of transactions during the regular operation of that same time frame that the outage occurred? Because if so, I highly doubt they lost that much. I tried to place an order somewhere during that outage. There was an error. So i tried again later and placed my order. The company lost nothing in regards to my order. I'm sure mine is not the only transaction that was not re-tried later on.
Bold statements about what an outage costs are not helpful unless the methodology for calculating that cost is both divulged and reasonably calculated.
I think there's probably some subtleties in there, more granular than full-day coverage.
Perhaps the camera are remote activated at the start of each dispatch call, if they are not already on and cannot be turned off until dispatch closes the call. That way between calls, the camera does not have to b on when some poor schmoe in blue is taking a leak or eating his lunch. We all deserve some "off time".
This is the sort of one sided rhetoric that demeans us as a nation. I'm a "lefty" that worked hard and made something of himself. I believe in doing my fair share and at the same time I understand that it's harder for some folks to make their way. We are ALL standing on the shoulders of those that came before us. There is a penultimate point at which we all worked hard before we managed to get ahead. What I reject is the notion that it somehow makes us better than others. We all should be working to help every one of us do better. The divisiveness of politics today is our greatest weakness as a nation. We work as a team, we succeed as a team. That is the lesson lost in the current wave of righteous indignation and self-reinforced politics. We are all Americans and we should spend more time working to help our fellows than casting stones over the differences which from the outside are minuscule. We spend our time attacking our neighbor for their beliefs than in trying to find common ground. Politics is the new racism.We would rather find fault in our neighbor than actually think about what all of these actions mean to us as a people. It is easier to attack than to think.
The great American Experiment in a way of life is losing it's momentum as more become focused on their personal issues than the society as a whole and I find myself greatly saddened by the direction we are choosing.
I beg of you all, please stop being angry and start thinking about us as a people.
I would guess the difference is in creating new routing algos that reduce/eliminate left turns.
It's not that point A to point B with no left turns is necessarily shorter/faster, it's that 3 deliveries in one linear route with reduced left turns could lead to a more optimized circular route utilizing more right and straight events and lead to increased efficiency versus the "turn however you need, to get to the next closest delivery point" approach.
I haven't seen any actual numbers on how the supposed UBI would work. Any info out there?
If you offer a basic income, some portion of the populace will drop off the employment rolls. I mean above and beyond those who already subsist on government programs today.
If the premise of the professor is that we'd all be on UBI while corporate robots do the work, won't that essentially be a populace living on some level of standardized income and we're all paid by what... the government... who gets the money from what... corporate taxes as it's the last thing still working? And Corporations would be the only thing paying taxes anymore, and would control the government in a way that makes today look like nirvana. When corporations pay taxes and citizens do not, isn't that the next "taxation without representation" revolution after which only corporations get to vote and citizens do not?
I am having a hard time seeing that vision being something that works.
To me, my handheld devices are appliances. my expectations of them are connectivity, flawless operation and and a constant deluge of new apps to amuse myself with. I'm happy to live within the Apple walled garden for this class of device. I don't want to spend any time worrying over the various security and abuse topics for these devices like I would for a truly open system
My desktop systems however, for these my expectations are for unfettered use as I see fit, with open ended ability to install, use or create any application I choose to.
So there are cases where it's not just a brand loyalty, but rather a contextual separation that drives some of the differences in perception between some walled-off ecosystem and desktop systems.
I'm not one to throw stones, but you might consider getting some help with that anger of yours. This topic is not worth the amount of emotion and vitriol you are investing it with.
It is clear that the Apple Watch, as a project, is quite profitable for Apple. Each Watch costs Apple much less to make than it sells for, and they sell millions.
Actually the metric would be more along the lines of:
Total costs Investment costs of designing/creating the watch Cost of software adaptation Ongoing costs in both categories Cost of manufacturing taxes, and other varied expenses.
versus
Total revenues Sales App sales Supplemental ad-ons (bands, etc. etc.)
Whether it's "quite profitable" is a fun topic to explore, but let's treat it as a real topic and not assume "it costs less to make the 50,000th watch than it sold for" is in any way a valid metric of "profitable".
The trouble is that it's inherently never going to be a hot button topic for the winner.
Whomever wins the election, using the electoral college, will put electoral reform on the bottom of the priority list. Catch-22.
I've said for some time now, I'd vote for a candidate who ran on a single issue: total reform of the voting process. Republican. Democrat. Whatever. The system needs updating and until that happens the rest is just side-effects.
I'm very sorry that you feel compelled to lash out for not real reason.
I had a question. I implied nothing, simply asked a question. Often the Slashdotters are better informed on many topics than I am, and usually a few folks dig into any given subject posted and really dive deep. Asking a question that this group might answer seems pretty reasonable for a discussion board.
Not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes a question is just a question. Reading the attached article(but not the study) pointed out multiple flaws in the approach, but did not address this question.
I'm not saying there's any intentional bias here, I'm just curious and posing the question. If the data was collected from a any study with multiple data points on population... is there a control factor for whether studies including population data in general are more likely to occur on species that are dwindling? If a species has no population issues to begin with, is it likely to have a study?
I think the trouble with your stance here is the assumption that "rigging" is not the designed operation of the Convention.
There's no clause in the Constitution that guarantees voting equality in a party's primary. The primaries are run, each according to the rules set forth by that party. Superdelegates have been a part of the Democratic party's charter for quite some time now.
The Superdelegates provides a means for a level of centralized agreement when it comes to choosing a candidate. For example, if one of the potential candidates were a Totally Racist Underhanded Misogynistic Pig, the party can turn to Superdelegates to avoid that person from becoming the nominee. Think of it as a way to prevent hate and fear mongering from being the party message. They have a chance to exert some control over what SHOULD be a rational process, but can be easily subverted by a candidate that panders to the worst instincts of the people.
At this very moment, I'm betting the GOP wish they had Superdelegates, they might have been able to head off the disaster that is tearing their party apart.
I would guess (not scientific) that most of the drop in complaints are because people realize they might be caught on camera and acting better or not lieing to try and get a lawsuit. I am certain there are some police that are acting better as there are bad apples, but I would guess the drop is probably 10%/90% with the 90% being the people changing behavior as opposed to the police office.
This does not track
If there's a 50% chance that encounters had a camera present, then -at most-, the public could have seen cameras and behaved better in half of the cases. This could not cause the 93% drop.
It is far more likely that police, being the only ones who definitely knew that recordings are happening (themselves, their partner, other officers on the scene) rose to the occasion and acted in a manner that led to less escalation and antagonism.
I think your guess at the 90/10 split is actually the reverse.
I find it difficult to attribute a preponderance of the change onto the public. The individuals who might have normally filed a complaint would have no inclination to not file a complaint when the officer in question was not wearing a camera.
If the reduction in complaints matched the likely hood that a camera was involved, sure, I'd agree that the numbers track. I find it far more likely that the officers, knowing there's a chance that someone is recording (themselves, their partner, or another unit that shows up) are acting on their best behavior in all cases and thsi have a larger impact on the overall results.
The two factors together are likely what is influencing the outcomes.
I hear the anger in your voice, I can only imagine at what drives that, but I think an understanding of how a business works is missing from your stance here.
"without bias" I think everyone can agree to, excepting the ISPs
"without throttles, and without caps" is a fever dream. The cost of providing service to meet such a bar would cause a rate shift that would drive us all off the net. You think a $19 per month user should expect petabit throughput and unlimited usage no matter what?
"if, you, a provider faces congestion issues, it's your own fucking fault for overselling your resources too much." This is exactly what you are demanding they do. Your yardstick of success is unattainable. If they improved their infrastructure by a factor of 10 they could still never meet your expectation.
But Snowden hasn't been tried and convicted of anything yet. He did not put himself at the mercy of the justice system, That's where he lost the moral highground. If he were convicted and had served a few years, he could make a case for being pardoned. As it is, it's an ex-pat and has little claim to mercy.
I'm sorry to be the one to point it out, but you are wrong.
Someoen spends 50 hours on Peggle or Tetris and asks for a refund? I would agree that's a suspicious request.
But 50 hours is an arbitrary number. There are games for which 50 hours is a trivial drop in the bucket of the overall playtime value of the game. I'm sure you could fill a phone book with players of WoW that have a thousand plus hours in it. NMS was promising a universe so vast that it sets a far higher expectation of playtime where 50 hours is trivial.
What justifies "giving a game every change to live up to it's promise"? Seems to me that the people with 50 hours (which can be done in just a couple of days) have given the game every possible opportunity to shine and the game has failed. They were coming at this with expectations set by the developers of a universe so vast that they could spend thousands of hours in the game world. After 50 hours they have had enough and found the vast array of missing features and at that point are actually UNIQUELY QUALIFIED to call BS on the game and ask for a refund.
To me, the bottom line is that the developer failed to deliver what was promised. Users paid for what was promised. Therefore it's fraud and asking for a refund is the least that the developer be worried about.
Slashdot Mirror
We purchased a 75" Samsung TV last year. It had a single pixel in the middle of the screen stuck on as a bright red dot.
Returned it without any issues. Just said there's a pixel stuck on bright red full time and it was happily exchanged for a replacement set.
Nintendo need to get it's head out of it's Asterix. Word of mouth like this is how you kill a product launch.
I think it's even more overstated than that.
Without having any indicator other than that link to an article a couple of lines long, we have no info.
Is the $150 million value the "normal throughput of transactions during the regular operation of that same time frame that the outage occurred? Because if so, I highly doubt they lost that much. I tried to place an order somewhere during that outage. There was an error. So i tried again later and placed my order. The company lost nothing in regards to my order. I'm sure mine is not the only transaction that was not re-tried later on.
Bold statements about what an outage costs are not helpful unless the methodology for calculating that cost is both divulged and reasonably calculated.
I think there's probably some subtleties in there, more granular than full-day coverage.
Perhaps the camera are remote activated at the start of each dispatch call, if they are not already on and cannot be turned off until dispatch closes the call. That way between calls, the camera does not have to b on when some poor schmoe in blue is taking a leak or eating his lunch. We all deserve some "off time".
Hatred cannot cure hatred. Words like "we", "us" and "together" are the only way to break down hatred.
Participating in the hatred against those you blame for being hateful isn't a solution, it's growing the problem.
Pay people what the job is actually worth!
In a world of globalization, that figure drops rapidly to whatever a migrant is willing to do to stay in our beautiful country.
Shortened that for you:
STFY:
Pay the most desperate worker available what the job is worth to them.
This is the sort of one sided rhetoric that demeans us as a nation. I'm a "lefty" that worked hard and made something of himself. I believe in doing my fair share and at the same time I understand that it's harder for some folks to make their way. We are ALL standing on the shoulders of those that came before us. There is a penultimate point at which we all worked hard before we managed to get ahead. What I reject is the notion that it somehow makes us better than others. We all should be working to help every one of us do better. The divisiveness of politics today is our greatest weakness as a nation. We work as a team, we succeed as a team. That is the lesson lost in the current wave of righteous indignation and self-reinforced politics. We are all Americans and we should spend more time working to help our fellows than casting stones over the differences which from the outside are minuscule. We spend our time attacking our neighbor for their beliefs than in trying to find common ground. Politics is the new racism.We would rather find fault in our neighbor than actually think about what all of these actions mean to us as a people. It is easier to attack than to think.
The great American Experiment in a way of life is losing it's momentum as more become focused on their personal issues than the society as a whole and I find myself greatly saddened by the direction we are choosing.
I beg of you all, please stop being angry and start thinking about us as a people.
Drat, meant to say "300 deliveries" no "3 deliveries"
I would guess the difference is in creating new routing algos that reduce/eliminate left turns.
It's not that point A to point B with no left turns is necessarily shorter/faster, it's that 3 deliveries in one linear route with reduced left turns could lead to a more optimized circular route utilizing more right and straight events and lead to increased efficiency versus the "turn however you need, to get to the next closest delivery point" approach.
I haven't seen any actual numbers on how the supposed UBI would work. Any info out there?
If you offer a basic income, some portion of the populace will drop off the employment rolls. I mean above and beyond those who already subsist on government programs today.
If the premise of the professor is that we'd all be on UBI while corporate robots do the work, won't that essentially be a populace living on some level of standardized income and we're all paid by what... the government... who gets the money from what... corporate taxes as it's the last thing still working? And Corporations would be the only thing paying taxes anymore, and would control the government in a way that makes today look like nirvana. When corporations pay taxes and citizens do not, isn't that the next "taxation without representation" revolution after which only corporations get to vote and citizens do not?
I am having a hard time seeing that vision being something that works.
I believe it's a matter of context.
To me, my handheld devices are appliances. my expectations of them are connectivity, flawless operation and and a constant deluge of new apps to amuse myself with. I'm happy to live within the Apple walled garden for this class of device. I don't want to spend any time worrying over the various security and abuse topics for these devices like I would for a truly open system
My desktop systems however, for these my expectations are for unfettered use as I see fit, with open ended ability to install, use or create any application I choose to.
So there are cases where it's not just a brand loyalty, but rather a contextual separation that drives some of the differences in perception between some walled-off ecosystem and desktop systems.
I'm not one to throw stones, but you might consider getting some help with that anger of yours. This topic is not worth the amount of emotion and vitriol you are investing it with.
Cheers.
It is clear that the Apple Watch, as a project, is quite profitable for Apple. Each Watch costs Apple much less to make than it sells for, and they sell millions.
Actually the metric would be more along the lines of:
Total costs
Investment costs of designing/creating the watch
Cost of software adaptation
Ongoing costs in both categories
Cost of manufacturing
taxes, and other varied expenses.
versus
Total revenues
Sales
App sales
Supplemental ad-ons (bands, etc. etc.)
Whether it's "quite profitable" is a fun topic to explore, but let's treat it as a real topic and not assume "it costs less to make the 50,000th watch than it sold for" is in any way a valid metric of "profitable".
The trouble is that it's inherently never going to be a hot button topic for the winner.
Whomever wins the election, using the electoral college, will put electoral reform on the bottom of the priority list. Catch-22.
I've said for some time now, I'd vote for a candidate who ran on a single issue: total reform of the voting process. Republican. Democrat. Whatever. The system needs updating and until that happens the rest is just side-effects.
... keep up with the times!
https:\\www.thisisareallink\donaltrumpdead-imposterrunsforpresident\18277jmcr5
I'm very sorry that you feel compelled to lash out for not real reason.
I had a question. I implied nothing, simply asked a question. Often the Slashdotters are better informed on many topics than I am, and usually a few folks dig into any given subject posted and really dive deep. Asking a question that this group might answer seems pretty reasonable for a discussion board.
Not everything is a conspiracy. Sometimes a question is just a question. Reading the attached article(but not the study) pointed out multiple flaws in the approach, but did not address this question.
Cheers
I'm not saying there's any intentional bias here, I'm just curious and posing the question. If the data was collected from a any study with multiple data points on population... is there a control factor for whether studies including population data in general are more likely to occur on species that are dwindling? If a species has no population issues to begin with, is it likely to have a study?
Let us not forget that the individuals were aware that they were being recorded. Awareness of a measurement biases the results.
I think the trouble with your stance here is the assumption that "rigging" is not the designed operation of the Convention.
There's no clause in the Constitution that guarantees voting equality in a party's primary. The primaries are run, each according to the rules set forth by that party. Superdelegates have been a part of the Democratic party's charter for quite some time now.
The Superdelegates provides a means for a level of centralized agreement when it comes to choosing a candidate. For example, if one of the potential candidates were a Totally Racist Underhanded Misogynistic Pig, the party can turn to Superdelegates to avoid that person from becoming the nominee. Think of it as a way to prevent hate and fear mongering from being the party message. They have a chance to exert some control over what SHOULD be a rational process, but can be easily subverted by a candidate that panders to the worst instincts of the people.
At this very moment, I'm betting the GOP wish they had Superdelegates, they might have been able to head off the disaster that is tearing their party apart.
I would guess (not scientific) that most of the drop in complaints are because people realize they might be caught on camera and acting better or not lieing to try and get a lawsuit. I am certain there are some police that are acting better as there are bad apples, but I would guess the drop is probably 10%/90% with the 90% being the people changing behavior as opposed to the police office.
This does not track
If there's a 50% chance that encounters had a camera present, then -at most-, the public could have seen cameras and behaved better in half of the cases. This could not cause the 93% drop.
It is far more likely that police, being the only ones who definitely knew that recordings are happening (themselves, their partner, other officers on the scene) rose to the occasion and acted in a manner that led to less escalation and antagonism.
I think your guess at the 90/10 split is actually the reverse.
I find it difficult to attribute a preponderance of the change onto the public. The individuals who might have normally filed a complaint would have no inclination to not file a complaint when the officer in question was not wearing a camera.
If the reduction in complaints matched the likely hood that a camera was involved, sure, I'd agree that the numbers track. I find it far more likely that the officers, knowing there's a chance that someone is recording (themselves, their partner, or another unit that shows up) are acting on their best behavior in all cases and thsi have a larger impact on the overall results.
The two factors together are likely what is influencing the outcomes.
So you don't think that just perhaps the officers wearing cameras were behaving better knowing they were being recorded?
It seems to me that to place all of the blame on one side is rather narrow minded of you.
I hear the anger in your voice, I can only imagine at what drives that, but I think an understanding of how a business works is missing from your stance here.
"without bias" I think everyone can agree to, excepting the ISPs
"without throttles, and without caps" is a fever dream. The cost of providing service to meet such a bar would cause a rate shift that would drive us all off the net. You think a $19 per month user should expect petabit throughput and unlimited usage no matter what?
"if, you, a provider faces congestion issues, it's your own fucking fault for overselling your resources too much." This is exactly what you are demanding they do. Your yardstick of success is unattainable. If they improved their infrastructure by a factor of 10 they could still never meet your expectation.
I'm all for what Snowden did.
But Snowden hasn't been tried and convicted of anything yet. He did not put himself at the mercy of the justice system, That's where he lost the moral highground. If he were convicted and had served a few years, he could make a case for being pardoned. As it is, it's an ex-pat and has little claim to mercy.
...whatever data request i'm sending right now.
That'll do, ISP, that'll do.
I'm sorry to be the one to point it out, but you are wrong.
Someoen spends 50 hours on Peggle or Tetris and asks for a refund? I would agree that's a suspicious request.
But 50 hours is an arbitrary number. There are games for which 50 hours is a trivial drop in the bucket of the overall playtime value of the game. I'm sure you could fill a phone book with players of WoW that have a thousand plus hours in it. NMS was promising a universe so vast that it sets a far higher expectation of playtime where 50 hours is trivial.
What justifies "giving a game every change to live up to it's promise"? Seems to me that the people with 50 hours (which can be done in just a couple of days) have given the game every possible opportunity to shine and the game has failed. They were coming at this with expectations set by the developers of a universe so vast that they could spend thousands of hours in the game world. After 50 hours they have had enough and found the vast array of missing features and at that point are actually UNIQUELY QUALIFIED to call BS on the game and ask for a refund.
To me, the bottom line is that the developer failed to deliver what was promised. Users paid for what was promised. Therefore it's fraud and asking for a refund is the least that the developer be worried about.