Sort of like for trains, in the autopilot systems I worked on with UPS, there are systems in place to ensure pilot inventiveness. If you don't touch some control for around, I think it was like 10 minutes IIRC, the master caution sounds an alert. If the pilot falls asleep or whatnot, the system will wake them up. Basically, in Tesla vehicles, if you don't touch the steering wheel for 4 minutes, it sounds an alarm and then warns that it will cease autopilot control unless the driver takes specific action. Sounds like they are taking precautions to me.
Because the link is to an automatic news aggregator. The FCC thing is way down the page already and the summary contains the entire linked article. The actual article is here: https://consumerist.com/2016/0...
Why the shit do you always reference other posts that are sitting on the front page, usually only one article below, from every fucking non-related story? This is the first one I've seen where you referenced something that someone other than yourself posted.
I'm not for abolishing patents, but I am for reducing the length the patent can be held. Technology patents that last even 20 years are crazy these days with the pace tech moves. I'd say 5 year max on tech related patents. By then, the tech will be out of date anyways, but they become open for use. If a company is only coming up with one product every 5 years, they're probably going to fail.
DRM in the form of something like HDCP. If the phone only allows an authorized (read as licensed) set of headphones to connect, and the link is encrypted, they've just plugged the analog hole that the media companies have been wanting to get rid of since, well, forever.
So what's the worst case scenario if we actually try to cut emissions and work on the problem? We fuck it up and get cleaner air? I don't understand why so many people are so vocally objective to mitigating the problem.
Just for the sake of argument: Who cares where it started? Obviously, if it's natural, then (natural + human interaction > 100%) So we try to reduce our output. At the very least, we remove ourselves from the problem.
It seems to only be an issue in the USA where "Not my fault" has been the default position for everything from bad driving and car accidents, to who's president and AGW.
David fucking Koresh people, get a grip. Working on the problem can't hurt so why fight it?
Throughout all of your posts, I keep seeing you make the same assumption. That this will simply add $1000 per month to everyone's income. That's not how it would work.
Basically, say someone is receiving a salary of $3000/mo. You then give them a basic income of $1000/mo. They aren't now making $4000/mo. It could work one of 2 ways.
1. Either their salary is not $2000/mo + $1000/mo UBI for a net gain of $0. 2. Their salary stays the same and they receive $0 in UBI until they are out of work, at which point they start collecting UBI.
To me, the first option seems better as there is no lag in reception of benefits, and the overhead on the administration side goes down since nobody has to manage signing people up and all the associated paperwork with keeping track of who is currently receiving what.
In a second scenario, you have someone receiving $800/mo in welfare or government assistance such as food stamps or whatnot. This supplements their currently low salary of $2400/mo (approx $15/hr @ 40 hrs/wk) bringing their total income to $3200/mo. They start receiving $1000/mo UBI and stop receiving the welfare payments. The person, using method 1 above, their salary would be reduced to $1400/mo, and they start receiving UBI.
The UBI would not be additive, it would be subtractive, with the difference being made up for in increased taxes on corporations. These taxes are offset by the fact that the wages the companies are paying to employees go down by $1000/mo per employee.
Basically, nobody's effective income changes at all, but everyone gets a safety net. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Jaywalking
http://hackaday.com/2016/07/19...
We gotta thin out his numbers!
Your lawnmower is also not traveling on public roads at multiples of tens of kilometers per second.
Sort of like for trains, in the autopilot systems I worked on with UPS, there are systems in place to ensure pilot inventiveness. If you don't touch some control for around, I think it was like 10 minutes IIRC, the master caution sounds an alert. If the pilot falls asleep or whatnot, the system will wake them up. Basically, in Tesla vehicles, if you don't touch the steering wheel for 4 minutes, it sounds an alarm and then warns that it will cease autopilot control unless the driver takes specific action. Sounds like they are taking precautions to me.
BeauHD, always spouting the alarmist stance. This may affect .6% of Americans.
Because the link is to an automatic news aggregator. The FCC thing is way down the page already and the summary contains the entire linked article. The actual article is here: https://consumerist.com/2016/0...
like Geoworks! or Desqview!
Why the shit do you always reference other posts that are sitting on the front page, usually only one article below, from every fucking non-related story? This is the first one I've seen where you referenced something that someone other than yourself posted.
Stop with your attempted click driving shit.
Notepadqq?
What kind of sandwich runs on thorium?
I'm not for abolishing patents, but I am for reducing the length the patent can be held. Technology patents that last even 20 years are crazy these days with the pace tech moves. I'd say 5 year max on tech related patents. By then, the tech will be out of date anyways, but they become open for use. If a company is only coming up with one product every 5 years, they're probably going to fail.
DRM in the form of something like HDCP. If the phone only allows an authorized (read as licensed) set of headphones to connect, and the link is encrypted, they've just plugged the analog hole that the media companies have been wanting to get rid of since, well, forever.
So what's the worst case scenario if we actually try to cut emissions and work on the problem? We fuck it up and get cleaner air? I don't understand why so many people are so vocally objective to mitigating the problem.
Just for the sake of argument: Who cares where it started? Obviously, if it's natural, then (natural + human interaction > 100%) So we try to reduce our output. At the very least, we remove ourselves from the problem.
It seems to only be an issue in the USA where "Not my fault" has been the default position for everything from bad driving and car accidents, to who's president and AGW.
David fucking Koresh people, get a grip. Working on the problem can't hurt so why fight it?
I tend to use a philosophy of "less is more"
That's why you have a multi megabyte host file right?
Also. Bing? Really?
This is just a guess, but the reason most people call you a "fanboi" is because of 2 things:
1. Your username screams "fanboi"
2. Every single one of your posts promotes macs and apple
Like I said, just a guess, but, it just could be your fault.
I think the more interesting part of this is the cleanup algorithms they're using to reconstruct speech from crappy sources.
Bah, you kids and reading the articles. ;)
By the way everyone, the F in RTFA is for "Fucking", not "Fine", and "trolls" are a reference to fishing, not things that live under bridges.
That almost hurt to read.
"All suspects are guilty. Otherwise, they wouldn't be suspect would they?" - Troops
Did I mention anywhere that only certain people get it? No. This REPLACES the other government handouts, not supplement them.
Throughout all of your posts, I keep seeing you make the same assumption. That this will simply add $1000 per month to everyone's income. That's not how it would work.
Basically, say someone is receiving a salary of $3000/mo. You then give them a basic income of $1000/mo. They aren't now making $4000/mo. It could work one of 2 ways.
1. Either their salary is not $2000/mo + $1000/mo UBI for a net gain of $0.
2. Their salary stays the same and they receive $0 in UBI until they are out of work, at which point they start collecting UBI.
To me, the first option seems better as there is no lag in reception of benefits, and the overhead on the administration side goes down since nobody has to manage signing people up and all the associated paperwork with keeping track of who is currently receiving what.
In a second scenario, you have someone receiving $800/mo in welfare or government assistance such as food stamps or whatnot. This supplements their currently low salary of $2400/mo (approx $15/hr @ 40 hrs/wk) bringing their total income to $3200/mo. They start receiving $1000/mo UBI and stop receiving the welfare payments. The person, using method 1 above, their salary would be reduced to $1400/mo, and they start receiving UBI.
The UBI would not be additive, it would be subtractive, with the difference being made up for in increased taxes on corporations. These taxes are offset by the fact that the wages the companies are paying to employees go down by $1000/mo per employee.
Basically, nobody's effective income changes at all, but everyone gets a safety net. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Time to break out the port scanner.
I walked my mother through installing Mint on her laptop. Then downloaded a Windows 10 theme for it. She can't even tell the difference.
Do organs have their own consciousness that is a direct constituent of the highest-level consciousness of thought?
No.