Not saying your experiment that your citing is wrong, but there were many things they could have done to provide more reliable data. The test was conducted with just two tweets. Would have been nice to see hundreds of tweets getting reported. Additionally only two variations were used. Trump/black and Clinton/white. Would have been nice to see Trump/white and Clinton/black variations as well. Additionally there was no control, (Random person)/(random race) established. Again that's not invalidating what was done, but what was tested left a lot to be desired.
it only means that they want something to be private
Yeah I think you're missing the central axiom here. Stanly G-Man doesn't really know if your Tor is "Hey I just want to privately watch my squid fetish" or if it is "Hey here's the blueprints for where to put the bomb." Seeing how they'll tend to look similar at cursory glance. So if you do have something you want to hide, because it's just easier to assume you are the next bin Laden in waiting and then breathe the customary/belittling sigh of relief where you are not, they'll just go ahead and sit in on that tentacle scene with you.
So when the story is that Trump won the popular vote, that's fake news. It's pretty easy to show, Trump just up and up didn't win the popular vote.
My favorite from the Denver Guardian (to which I might add there is no such organization called the "Denver Guardian" which the "Denver Post" who does exist had to post a story on their site to ensure that no one confused them with this made up organization) of "FBI Agent suspected in Hillary email leaks found dead in apparent murder-suicide." The story went a little something like this for those who forgot, "Investigators believe FBI agent, Michael Brown, 45, shot and killed his 33-year-old wife, Susan Brown"... Needless to say all of those names are made up, the event is made up, no one of any of those names were ever shot/found dead in the Walkerville, MD area or by those names in the state of Maryland period.
One more just to hammer the point, Denzel Washington's support of Donald Trump. First, Denzel Washington openly supported Obama in 2008. Second, the words quoted as coming from Washington were actually someone else's words. Finally, Washington was never public about whom he supported in the 2016 election. He could've supported Clinton or Trump, but the fact remains we don't know because he never made any public comments about it.
Now some might argue that this is all lame crap anyway. Who cares what Denzel Washington thinks, seriously I can't remember the last movie I ever saw him in and he really doesn't strike me as being all that big of a political influencer!? One could say, "just look up the popular vote and those who don't actually research deserve to be treated like idiots." And finally, the Maryland murder some might just reply with, "Well that's what they want you to think!!" Or as I've heard a lot of folks make the argument for, "Well CNN/MSNBC/(insert some liberal scum's name here) are posting stories that aren't based on fact! So who are you going to trust!?"
The thing about it is that you need to take information in aggregate. We don't base scientific fact on just a single result, people shouldn't become homogenized to a single outlet, even though that is what every news site wants you to do when they say things like, "The most trusted source of... ". Additionally, fact outright rids itself and refuses introduction of just false at face value results. Hence the reason we are sorely lacking in theories describing the relationship of unicorns to gravity, all of those theories tend to get ousted from the word go. And yes, one might argue that news is different from scientific fact, because news is subjective or whatever. The thing is, is that news is events that have actually happened. Finding out the exact details of what happened, why it happened, and what possible outcomes from it happening are domains of journalism and I would dare say that that's evidence that while the methods of getting from point A to B in science and journalism are different, they are both ultimately motivated by an underlying desire to find truth.
Is there going to be bias, yes. Of course, there will be bias, it happens in science, it happens in news, it happens in politics, there's always some level of bias and we should always go into something with the understanding that there's going to be that bias there and it's the reason why we need multiple sources of information so that we can see where the points of truth intersect between the different sources. Fake news, is a source where zero of it's points intersect with any source of information and sometimes zero of its points intersect with reality. Yes, it's fun to go full on tin-foil hat and think that everyone is in on it and thus the reason no points intersect is due to some larger conspiracy, but geez I can tell you it gets very tiring working for the Illuminati having to modify all those Tweets and news stories from local vendors to keep all the sheep happy, it's just a ton of work.
A direct democracy election process is indistinguishable from mob rule.
That is quite a stretch. Minorities can and have banded together to have reform. Additionally, that's totally side stepping that there's two other branches of government. Bringing up mob mentality is fine, but you literally have to ignore everything else about the process and focus on nothing but a single vote on a single branch, for a single office. If the President was the sole authority in the United State, okay you've got a point there, but that's not how any of this works.
Additionally, that's also assuming a first past the pole approach being kept. The state's would totally have the power to run their part of the popular election the way they want, and if favoring minorities was a priority, which it's not but let's pretend it is, then they would do away with first past the pole voting. There's even more that could be to make systems more representable of the general public, and none of them strictly need the EC to be gone. So if the argument is, allow small groups to have some representation, our current system fails at that spectacularly and that's even before we consider how much the EC puts a thumb on the scale.
There is just no rational argument for keeping a system where it's one utility, to allow voting in an age where communication was difficult, is no longer applicable. I have heard this "mob mentality" notion before and if we were an "elected dictatorship" for lack of better term, fine you've got a point. But we're not, it literally tosses everything else that's in our government out the window in order to be a valid point. Additionally, our current system with the EC doesn't prevent mob mentality either. Even switching to where the EC vote is divided up, it doesn't prevent gerrymandering to ensure that all of the "divided" votes will vote in block. There's no argument for keeping the EC other than we're just too lazy to go through the process of getting that amendment.
Trump could be the lone force that could very well kick off a process to get that amendment, I honestly believe that with Trump riding high on a populist platform, he could get it done. But he won't. Dude's already got a ton on his plate from all the election promises. So do I think we'll seriously ever get rid of the EC anytime soon? No way. There's just no feasible path in today's political climate to get that change. Maybe twenty years down the road we'll cross another bridge, but whatever chance the American public has to have election reform has all but vaporized.
If the point of the EC is to get candidates to go to other places, then it sucks at doing that. The arguments i keep hearing about why we need the EC are exactly where it's failing.
It wouldn't matter Trump or Clinton. The EC needs to be done away with. In Tennessee, Democrats are in the same boat as Californian Republicans, so getting rid of the EC would be liberating for both parties. I basically vote Libertarian, Green, The go fuck yourself party simply because there is next to no point in a Democrat voting in Tennessee.
so some of those jobs would get transformed into supervisory or administrative jobs
The more accurate way of looking at this is. They are automating the hell out of mining in general, not just coal. In about ten years about 50% of those working in mines will be gone. To replace them is about a handful of remote watcher whose positions have already long been filled. Environment or not, regulation or not, those jobs are as obsolete as people who run around town lighting street lamps. One could remove all the environmental restrictions in place, it ain't bringing those jobs back, they're done, they're over. A lot of people in WV need to take a cold hard look in the mirror and start chewing on bitter pills. They don't have a job because they're human and robots do their job now for cheaper and less cost should a cave in happen. I'm not saying that's going to be easy for them to do and I know that it's going to be hard period. However, the thing that a lot of candidate should have been talking about back in 2012 that no one did, is that this is going to happen to more and more industries as we get further on down the road. IT, lawyers, doctors, fast food workers, truck drivers, train operators, farmers, investment bankers, and on and on and on. These jobs are getting automated and more and more people are losing their jobs for the simple reason that they have flesh and blood and we literally have no idea what to do about any of this.
In short, you thinking that people are losing their jobs over environmental issues is pretty much saying that a beach erodes because ants keep carrying off the sand. Yeah, that might be happening, but you're totally missing the waves crashing into the beach that are doing way more.
The details would easily be a multi-page article in of itself, but the short answer is that the legal system is nowhere near a point where any of this could be called "criminal negligence". Just to give you a jumping off point, in the spectrum of culpability there needs to exist a legally defined "reasonable expectation", currently in the realm of your personal information, there's next to nothing in the form of what is legally the minimum a reasonable person would do to protect it. In fact, your personal information isn't really viewed as something that needs protection. Getting on the Internet is basically, expect zero privacy while on it, as far a legality goes.
The why and how to change it, I'm sure someone could write a book on.
Hey, hey, hey there... It's not just limited to liberals. I live in the "deep south" surrounded by some of the biggest conservatives out there, and there's tons of folks around these parts that act like airbnb is some kind of liberator to their "freedom". You just stop and say, "um, you could have totally rented out your place before airbnb was invented WTF?!"
Didn't someone once say something about sealed hoods? Comparison to Microsoft... Something, something... I must not be remembering all the details correctly because Google isn't returning anything on my search queries. If I remember correctly it wasn't someone predicting something but more like a jab at how Microsoft was running their company. For some reason, all that just felt appropriate here. But I could be remembering it all wrong and I'll take the down vote to hell for my lack of recall.
It's not a question of, "if you still need them." You do still need them, just need fewer of them. I can't speak for all the other parts but I can speak for the coding part. There's just too many things to list that's made making programs way easier today. Heck, even some of our engineers will do up BPMN and we'll just take it and run it through a processor to produce a lot of the skeletons.
I know off-topic, but you can do this in Firefox via an about:config setting called media.autoplay.enabled. Setting the value to false kills auto-play for everything.
What would be great is if website's allowed a white list for auto-play and banned everything else from auto-playing. And I mean it in the sense that "by default" or at the very least "built in", yes extensions are great but a browser packing something in indicates that they actually care about whatever it is they are packing in. Mozilla brought us pop-up blocker packed into the browser and eventually pop-ups died off because everyone hated them greatly. I would argue that video auto-play is the modern pop-up. Browsers should have "built in" methods to stop it. Browsers should indicated that they care about their users by listening to one of the biggest pain points about being on the web.
I'm doubtful that "heads will roll". The manufacturing process is a risky one and higher ups usually accept a level of risk.
As for the problem itself, last I heard it was a defect in the entire process. The case itself shrinks and expands with usage. The battery wasn't sized properly. The pressure fitting can produce jagged edges from the expanding and contacting. Additionally the positive and negative ends are incredibly close on the battery. So the idea I've heard is that the expanding and contacting case eventually produces jagged edges on the pressure plate which cause shorts in the battery. Again that's just what I've heard, but it sounds like a failure from the ground up.
Okay I'll admit, I've heard this before. However, and this just may be me, I've not had a problem with my pair of bluetooth headphones sitting here on my desk. My Moto X and my laptop both are paired to the headphones, but they usually figure out between the two of them who needs to be in control. So I throw my hands up and say, black magic, but apparently I've got some magical setup that avoids this for some reason.
But from what I've heard and seen with co-workers and what not, I'm apparently the 0.000001% case here of a seamless case.
If anything I think it's the timing of the layoffs. Typically going into October, you should delay massive layoffs till January as you start running into the holidays. If you just have to by Q4, then at least offer some job assistance, letters of recommendation, etc to help them place as quickly as possible. Still though its hard to be mad at how small a cut this is for a merger with companies of this size.
get rid of the drivers and their cars and move to their own self driven vehicles
This is the thing that a lot of people quote as being the thing that will help Uber turn the corner but if anything it'll make turning a profit that much more difficult. As it currently stands Uber is deferring a lot of business costs to drivers. Things like equipment, insurance, fuel, repair, and so on. When they have their own fleet of self driving cars, they take on all of those things that they haven't been paying for. Not only that, depending on the regulation a state/city might have for self driving cars, there might be a very high cost associated with self driving taxis. Yes, Philadelphia is all too happy to jump on, but that's because of the novelty. Years from now when it goes mundane, I'm pretty sure governments will be less affable to companies wanting to have a lot of self driving autos crowding their streets wearing down their roads. Switching over to self driving isn't going to be this panacea that allows them to go crazy insane profitable, there's a lot of costs involved and Uber will have to switch (or pivot since that's the fun word this season) from being just a purely service based company to a more complex company altogether. Pair with that, the ever evolving attitude of governments that will ultimately wane as time marches on, with ever increasing expectations from locals. If they don't have that mental change happen early in the game as they go self driving, they won't last long. I've seen tons of companies try automation and them not fully understanding what they're getting into is a killer (worst case)/hindrance (best case) for most of them.
I'll add this, what Uber wants to do is of a scale that I've never dealt with personally, so something this large might have totally different challenges and I'm just talking out my butt. So that said, take all the above with grains of salt. But I do think that those are rationale challenges that they're going to run into down the road which will prevent them from being insta-profitable the second a robot hits the street.
Scripts might have not been a single monolith, but they sure functionally acted as one. Most admins tossed crap in rc.local because touching the actual init scripts was playing with black magic.
You can make write a single object file to do one thing and do it well. You can then take several other one thing done well object files and compile them into a library of really useful stuff. Does this act of compiling them all into a single thing suddenly break the one thing done well ethos of the objects within? So this whole thing of one thing done well, is just people cutting arbitrary lines in sand.
systemd fails in that department; just look at a few of the thousands of bug reports against it.
That's a ridiculous metric. The project is a very large one and projects of similar size have large amounts of bug reports as well.
Very frequently, if the designer decomposed it well, the nature of the failure will make it pretty obvious which part is failing.
Which is why we dumped scripts, trying to make heads of tails of where a change went wrong took an inordinate amount of time of swimming through script after script to see where the one thing that was supposed to be done, didn't happen. The very arguments that you've used against systemd are the exact same ones leveled against the very thing that everyone seems so damn certain to want to go back to. I'm just fully convinced at this point that haters going to hate and that's all there is to it.
Yes it does have systemd and here's the person who made that call on Reddit saying why he made that call.
Also we have three out of six digits in common in our user IDs, that doesn't happen often for me and I have issues because that's the first thing I noticed about your comment. Cheers!
The greatly depends on who your local service provider is. The Washington state and Oregon providers seem to be more relaxed on the encryption than anyone else. The type of encryption is called 5C and basically your local provider is the one who turns it on or off by show, channel, time slot, etc..
I don't argue your point per se, but I will add that I agree with the person from the Copyright office. Here's my rub on it though. There's those third parties that play nice and we love them, but then there's the others and what-not that are trying to build a company and make massive money with other people's copyright.
I totally agree with the idea of making a backup copy, I disagree with some dude making millions on exploiting that idea to the fullest extent. If third party boxes became a thing, I just imagine that 99% of them would be 1% popular and play nice. 1% would be 99% popular and try to nickel and dime everyone for "features" based around content that's copyrighted. I don't have any kind of problem with the first group, however, it's always the second group that comes and ruins it for everyone and tries to call it capitalism, freedom, fighting the man or whatever...
Based on that, I would say the Copyright office is doing something we're all asking government to actually do and be proactive. The FCC really needs to head back to the drawing board on this, they've got a great idea, it's just massively flawed and they just need to iron those out. And yes, I'm pretty sure that no matter how good the FCC makes the rules, the cable companies will be there to ruin the party.
it's tragic what burning man has to pay for permits now, especially when it takes place on land that supposedly belongs to all of us.
That is because Burning Man treats the land like it is theirs and theirs alone. That event is mostly the "man" and long left whatever it once stood for. Now it's just a way for 20-30 somethings to burn through mad amounts of cash, all while feeling like they're somehow counter cultural. When the event is over the land looks and smells like human waste and takes an insane amount of resources to reclaim, clean, and restore it to some remote resemblance of what state it use to be in. If there's anything tragic about Burning Man, it's what it has become.
Being a Mac and Linux user for sometime, I like working on my Mac but it is not my "go to" system and macOS will ensure that it stays that way. So a disclaimer, I am a programmer, so the majority of my work is not Photoshop or whatever grade A software everyone touts about as working perfectly on Mac. Compilers and mostly command line and IDE tools are what I mostly work with and things like Eclipse, Atom, and so on work pretty well across platforms. So I do get real work done on either platform. I get that's not the majority of users but at the same time I am not going to be able to relate to all the crazies out there that are like, "ZOMG, Linux has no Photoshop, you CAN'T DO ANYTHING!!!11!111one1111!!!!". What kind of work I get done on each platform is not the point I am going to be going for though if you bear with me for a bit.
Mac and its ecosystem are nice, but that is also the catch. A lot of the new features with macOS talk about how seamlessly it works for iPhone, iPad, Apple watch, and so on. In other words, those features don't exist unless you have those things. Additionally, you don't get cloud integration unless you are using their cloud. That's 5GB free and the pricing while reasonable does mean that you need to pay that per month/year to access that feature built into the OS as well. Also, the notes, calendar (to a lesser extent), mail (again to a lesser extent), maps, photo, and on and on applications only work well so long as you use that application. You can transfer your stuff from Evernote to Apple's notes, but you can only use Apple's notes on Apple's stuff. Using Evernote or some other program works across platforms but it's not "optimize" or doesn't integrate well into the OS. And there's several other examples where it's Apple's ecosystem or a less than ideal experience or just some features of the OS just don't happen.
And that's what ultimately puts me off from Apple as the "go to" system, why am I buying (which I only did once and man my Apple has been kicking for quite some years now) this hardware and OS for features I'll never get to use unless I get deeper into the ecosystem? Perhaps if I already had an iPhone (I don't) or an Apple Watch (I'm an old fuddy duddy who likes ticking watches still) some of this would make more sense. But I'm not that person and maybe it is just me but I do not feel like I should have to be that type of person in order to get all the features from my hardware/OS. I get that macOS does "more" in a sense than say my Linux box, but I get 100% of my Linux box and maybe that biases me toward it more often than not for things like gaming, programming, and just randomly looking at cat videos on the Internet. The Mac is nice, but I'm never going to use notes or photos the way Apple wants me to use them because I am just not going to go that deep into their ecosystem.
So all that said, seeing macOS tout more/tighter integration of their ecosystem and hardware into the mix of their OS is just off putting to me, and that may only extend as far as me for all it is worth. I get that this is the way things are moving, until they stop moving in that direction one day. However, I just don't see the justification for the cost of getting everything Apple just to get those features. I have an Android phone and use Dropbox for files, whatever the thing is with Google for photos and what-not, and my music comes from Amazon/Google/Apple depending on whatever I'm signed into at the time I decide to buy something. Netflix and HBO have mostly supplanted my need for videos (maybe I'm just tired of the stuff that comes out now a days). All of that works pretty well across whatever devices I use, so there's even less reason to just drop everything and move to Apple. That brings me to the point, macOS is really built for people who aren't in any ecosystem right now or people who are already Mac deep. It's not bringing anything that says to people Android/Linux/Windows entrenched, "Hey this is something you'd drop who you have now for us!" And t
It really is non-US chips no matter how they got the original blueprints. The notion of US intellectual property in China is laughable at best. Additionally, China may not have a lot of folks that can invent, and that pretty much goes for all other countries because Intel is actually that good at being a brain drain but I digress, but they are incredibly good at trial and error/educated guessing on quite remarkable scales. So while they may not invent the process for 5nm chips, once they see one done and get a few pictures of the process, they're pretty good at putting the pieces together to get up and running.
However, it is my opinion that the bigger point here isn't that China is great at stealing technology, it is that China, and more so the world, honestly doesn't need American technology especially if the Americans are so hell bent in making insecure devices and resorting to petty trade restrictions to maintain some sort of faux-superiority position because the American legislative body finds in unstylish to fund actual research to maintain a real superiority position or they feel that real superiority is found in funding some guy digging a tunnel to extract black rocks, pumping dead liquid dinosaur remains from the ground, or ensuring that humans build crap at ineffective rates.
If anything Americans should take this as a sign that their priorities are insanely messed up. Doubtful that they would actually do anything about it, but at least they can know that all their Jerry Springer level bickering will ultimately mean that they need to resort to more and more useless childish games on ensuring that they stay relevant on the global stage. The downside to that is that the rest of the world has to suffer these stupid antics because Americans can't grow up and admit that they're loosing the top spot.
Slashdot Mirror
Not saying your experiment that your citing is wrong, but there were many things they could have done to provide more reliable data. The test was conducted with just two tweets. Would have been nice to see hundreds of tweets getting reported. Additionally only two variations were used. Trump/black and Clinton/white. Would have been nice to see Trump/white and Clinton/black variations as well. Additionally there was no control, (Random person)/(random race) established. Again that's not invalidating what was done, but what was tested left a lot to be desired.
it only means that they want something to be private
Yeah I think you're missing the central axiom here. Stanly G-Man doesn't really know if your Tor is "Hey I just want to privately watch my squid fetish" or if it is "Hey here's the blueprints for where to put the bomb." Seeing how they'll tend to look similar at cursory glance. So if you do have something you want to hide, because it's just easier to assume you are the next bin Laden in waiting and then breathe the customary/belittling sigh of relief where you are not, they'll just go ahead and sit in on that tentacle scene with you.
Okay I'll bite. But I'm sure I'll regret it.
So when the story is that Trump won the popular vote, that's fake news. It's pretty easy to show, Trump just up and up didn't win the popular vote.
My favorite from the Denver Guardian (to which I might add there is no such organization called the "Denver Guardian" which the "Denver Post" who does exist had to post a story on their site to ensure that no one confused them with this made up organization) of "FBI Agent suspected in Hillary email leaks found dead in apparent murder-suicide." The story went a little something like this for those who forgot, "Investigators believe FBI agent, Michael Brown, 45, shot and killed his 33-year-old wife, Susan Brown"... Needless to say all of those names are made up, the event is made up, no one of any of those names were ever shot/found dead in the Walkerville, MD area or by those names in the state of Maryland period.
One more just to hammer the point, Denzel Washington's support of Donald Trump. First, Denzel Washington openly supported Obama in 2008. Second, the words quoted as coming from Washington were actually someone else's words. Finally, Washington was never public about whom he supported in the 2016 election. He could've supported Clinton or Trump, but the fact remains we don't know because he never made any public comments about it.
Now some might argue that this is all lame crap anyway. Who cares what Denzel Washington thinks, seriously I can't remember the last movie I ever saw him in and he really doesn't strike me as being all that big of a political influencer!? One could say, "just look up the popular vote and those who don't actually research deserve to be treated like idiots." And finally, the Maryland murder some might just reply with, "Well that's what they want you to think!!" Or as I've heard a lot of folks make the argument for, "Well CNN/MSNBC/(insert some liberal scum's name here) are posting stories that aren't based on fact! So who are you going to trust!?"
The thing about it is that you need to take information in aggregate. We don't base scientific fact on just a single result, people shouldn't become homogenized to a single outlet, even though that is what every news site wants you to do when they say things like, "The most trusted source of ... ". Additionally, fact outright rids itself and refuses introduction of just false at face value results. Hence the reason we are sorely lacking in theories describing the relationship of unicorns to gravity, all of those theories tend to get ousted from the word go. And yes, one might argue that news is different from scientific fact, because news is subjective or whatever. The thing is, is that news is events that have actually happened. Finding out the exact details of what happened, why it happened, and what possible outcomes from it happening are domains of journalism and I would dare say that that's evidence that while the methods of getting from point A to B in science and journalism are different, they are both ultimately motivated by an underlying desire to find truth.
Is there going to be bias, yes. Of course, there will be bias, it happens in science, it happens in news, it happens in politics, there's always some level of bias and we should always go into something with the understanding that there's going to be that bias there and it's the reason why we need multiple sources of information so that we can see where the points of truth intersect between the different sources. Fake news, is a source where zero of it's points intersect with any source of information and sometimes zero of its points intersect with reality. Yes, it's fun to go full on tin-foil hat and think that everyone is in on it and thus the reason no points intersect is due to some larger conspiracy, but geez I can tell you it gets very tiring working for the Illuminati having to modify all those Tweets and news stories from local vendors to keep all the sheep happy, it's just a ton of work.
As someone
A direct democracy election process is indistinguishable from mob rule.
That is quite a stretch. Minorities can and have banded together to have reform. Additionally, that's totally side stepping that there's two other branches of government. Bringing up mob mentality is fine, but you literally have to ignore everything else about the process and focus on nothing but a single vote on a single branch, for a single office. If the President was the sole authority in the United State, okay you've got a point there, but that's not how any of this works.
Additionally, that's also assuming a first past the pole approach being kept. The state's would totally have the power to run their part of the popular election the way they want, and if favoring minorities was a priority, which it's not but let's pretend it is, then they would do away with first past the pole voting. There's even more that could be to make systems more representable of the general public, and none of them strictly need the EC to be gone. So if the argument is, allow small groups to have some representation, our current system fails at that spectacularly and that's even before we consider how much the EC puts a thumb on the scale.
There is just no rational argument for keeping a system where it's one utility, to allow voting in an age where communication was difficult, is no longer applicable. I have heard this "mob mentality" notion before and if we were an "elected dictatorship" for lack of better term, fine you've got a point. But we're not, it literally tosses everything else that's in our government out the window in order to be a valid point. Additionally, our current system with the EC doesn't prevent mob mentality either. Even switching to where the EC vote is divided up, it doesn't prevent gerrymandering to ensure that all of the "divided" votes will vote in block. There's no argument for keeping the EC other than we're just too lazy to go through the process of getting that amendment.
Trump could be the lone force that could very well kick off a process to get that amendment, I honestly believe that with Trump riding high on a populist platform, he could get it done. But he won't. Dude's already got a ton on his plate from all the election promises. So do I think we'll seriously ever get rid of the EC anytime soon? No way. There's just no feasible path in today's political climate to get that change. Maybe twenty years down the road we'll cross another bridge, but whatever chance the American public has to have election reform has all but vaporized.
If the point of the EC is to get candidates to go to other places, then it sucks at doing that. The arguments i keep hearing about why we need the EC are exactly where it's failing.
It wouldn't matter Trump or Clinton. The EC needs to be done away with. In Tennessee, Democrats are in the same boat as Californian Republicans, so getting rid of the EC would be liberating for both parties. I basically vote Libertarian, Green, The go fuck yourself party simply because there is next to no point in a Democrat voting in Tennessee.
so some of those jobs would get transformed into supervisory or administrative jobs
The more accurate way of looking at this is. They are automating the hell out of mining in general, not just coal. In about ten years about 50% of those working in mines will be gone. To replace them is about a handful of remote watcher whose positions have already long been filled. Environment or not, regulation or not, those jobs are as obsolete as people who run around town lighting street lamps. One could remove all the environmental restrictions in place, it ain't bringing those jobs back, they're done, they're over. A lot of people in WV need to take a cold hard look in the mirror and start chewing on bitter pills. They don't have a job because they're human and robots do their job now for cheaper and less cost should a cave in happen. I'm not saying that's going to be easy for them to do and I know that it's going to be hard period. However, the thing that a lot of candidate should have been talking about back in 2012 that no one did, is that this is going to happen to more and more industries as we get further on down the road. IT, lawyers, doctors, fast food workers, truck drivers, train operators, farmers, investment bankers, and on and on and on. These jobs are getting automated and more and more people are losing their jobs for the simple reason that they have flesh and blood and we literally have no idea what to do about any of this.
In short, you thinking that people are losing their jobs over environmental issues is pretty much saying that a beach erodes because ants keep carrying off the sand. Yeah, that might be happening, but you're totally missing the waves crashing into the beach that are doing way more.
No.
The details would easily be a multi-page article in of itself, but the short answer is that the legal system is nowhere near a point where any of this could be called "criminal negligence". Just to give you a jumping off point, in the spectrum of culpability there needs to exist a legally defined "reasonable expectation", currently in the realm of your personal information, there's next to nothing in the form of what is legally the minimum a reasonable person would do to protect it. In fact, your personal information isn't really viewed as something that needs protection. Getting on the Internet is basically, expect zero privacy while on it, as far a legality goes.
The why and how to change it, I'm sure someone could write a book on.
And yet, liberals fail to see the actual problem.
Hey, hey, hey there... It's not just limited to liberals. I live in the "deep south" surrounded by some of the biggest conservatives out there, and there's tons of folks around these parts that act like airbnb is some kind of liberator to their "freedom". You just stop and say, "um, you could have totally rented out your place before airbnb was invented WTF?!"
You should seriously watch the three part video Kurzgesast did on nuclear. You need a slightly more balanced view on the issue.
Didn't someone once say something about sealed hoods? Comparison to Microsoft... Something, something... I must not be remembering all the details correctly because Google isn't returning anything on my search queries. If I remember correctly it wasn't someone predicting something but more like a jab at how Microsoft was running their company. For some reason, all that just felt appropriate here. But I could be remembering it all wrong and I'll take the down vote to hell for my lack of recall.
It's not a question of, "if you still need them." You do still need them, just need fewer of them. I can't speak for all the other parts but I can speak for the coding part. There's just too many things to list that's made making programs way easier today. Heck, even some of our engineers will do up BPMN and we'll just take it and run it through a processor to produce a lot of the skeletons.
I know off-topic, but you can do this in Firefox via an about:config setting called media.autoplay.enabled. Setting the value to false kills auto-play for everything.
What would be great is if website's allowed a white list for auto-play and banned everything else from auto-playing. And I mean it in the sense that "by default" or at the very least "built in", yes extensions are great but a browser packing something in indicates that they actually care about whatever it is they are packing in. Mozilla brought us pop-up blocker packed into the browser and eventually pop-ups died off because everyone hated them greatly. I would argue that video auto-play is the modern pop-up. Browsers should have "built in" methods to stop it. Browsers should indicated that they care about their users by listening to one of the biggest pain points about being on the web.
I'm doubtful that "heads will roll". The manufacturing process is a risky one and higher ups usually accept a level of risk. As for the problem itself, last I heard it was a defect in the entire process. The case itself shrinks and expands with usage. The battery wasn't sized properly. The pressure fitting can produce jagged edges from the expanding and contacting. Additionally the positive and negative ends are incredibly close on the battery. So the idea I've heard is that the expanding and contacting case eventually produces jagged edges on the pressure plate which cause shorts in the battery. Again that's just what I've heard, but it sounds like a failure from the ground up.
Okay I'll admit, I've heard this before. However, and this just may be me, I've not had a problem with my pair of bluetooth headphones sitting here on my desk. My Moto X and my laptop both are paired to the headphones, but they usually figure out between the two of them who needs to be in control. So I throw my hands up and say, black magic, but apparently I've got some magical setup that avoids this for some reason.
But from what I've heard and seen with co-workers and what not, I'm apparently the 0.000001% case here of a seamless case.
If anything I think it's the timing of the layoffs. Typically going into October, you should delay massive layoffs till January as you start running into the holidays. If you just have to by Q4, then at least offer some job assistance, letters of recommendation, etc to help them place as quickly as possible. Still though its hard to be mad at how small a cut this is for a merger with companies of this size.
get rid of the drivers and their cars and move to their own self driven vehicles
This is the thing that a lot of people quote as being the thing that will help Uber turn the corner but if anything it'll make turning a profit that much more difficult. As it currently stands Uber is deferring a lot of business costs to drivers. Things like equipment, insurance, fuel, repair, and so on. When they have their own fleet of self driving cars, they take on all of those things that they haven't been paying for. Not only that, depending on the regulation a state/city might have for self driving cars, there might be a very high cost associated with self driving taxis. Yes, Philadelphia is all too happy to jump on, but that's because of the novelty. Years from now when it goes mundane, I'm pretty sure governments will be less affable to companies wanting to have a lot of self driving autos crowding their streets wearing down their roads. Switching over to self driving isn't going to be this panacea that allows them to go crazy insane profitable, there's a lot of costs involved and Uber will have to switch (or pivot since that's the fun word this season) from being just a purely service based company to a more complex company altogether. Pair with that, the ever evolving attitude of governments that will ultimately wane as time marches on, with ever increasing expectations from locals. If they don't have that mental change happen early in the game as they go self driving, they won't last long. I've seen tons of companies try automation and them not fully understanding what they're getting into is a killer (worst case)/hindrance (best case) for most of them.
I'll add this, what Uber wants to do is of a scale that I've never dealt with personally, so something this large might have totally different challenges and I'm just talking out my butt. So that said, take all the above with grains of salt. But I do think that those are rationale challenges that they're going to run into down the road which will prevent them from being insta-profitable the second a robot hits the street.
Define component then.
Scripts might have not been a single monolith, but they sure functionally acted as one. Most admins tossed crap in rc.local because touching the actual init scripts was playing with black magic.
You can make write a single object file to do one thing and do it well. You can then take several other one thing done well object files and compile them into a library of really useful stuff. Does this act of compiling them all into a single thing suddenly break the one thing done well ethos of the objects within? So this whole thing of one thing done well, is just people cutting arbitrary lines in sand.
systemd fails in that department; just look at a few of the thousands of bug reports against it.
That's a ridiculous metric. The project is a very large one and projects of similar size have large amounts of bug reports as well.
Very frequently, if the designer decomposed it well, the nature of the failure will make it pretty obvious which part is failing.
Which is why we dumped scripts, trying to make heads of tails of where a change went wrong took an inordinate amount of time of swimming through script after script to see where the one thing that was supposed to be done, didn't happen. The very arguments that you've used against systemd are the exact same ones leveled against the very thing that everyone seems so damn certain to want to go back to. I'm just fully convinced at this point that haters going to hate and that's all there is to it.
Yes it does have systemd and here's the person who made that call on Reddit saying why he made that call.
Also we have three out of six digits in common in our user IDs, that doesn't happen often for me and I have issues because that's the first thing I noticed about your comment. Cheers!
The greatly depends on who your local service provider is. The Washington state and Oregon providers seem to be more relaxed on the encryption than anyone else. The type of encryption is called 5C and basically your local provider is the one who turns it on or off by show, channel, time slot, etc..
I don't argue your point per se, but I will add that I agree with the person from the Copyright office. Here's my rub on it though. There's those third parties that play nice and we love them, but then there's the others and what-not that are trying to build a company and make massive money with other people's copyright.
I totally agree with the idea of making a backup copy, I disagree with some dude making millions on exploiting that idea to the fullest extent. If third party boxes became a thing, I just imagine that 99% of them would be 1% popular and play nice. 1% would be 99% popular and try to nickel and dime everyone for "features" based around content that's copyrighted. I don't have any kind of problem with the first group, however, it's always the second group that comes and ruins it for everyone and tries to call it capitalism, freedom, fighting the man or whatever...
Based on that, I would say the Copyright office is doing something we're all asking government to actually do and be proactive. The FCC really needs to head back to the drawing board on this, they've got a great idea, it's just massively flawed and they just need to iron those out. And yes, I'm pretty sure that no matter how good the FCC makes the rules, the cable companies will be there to ruin the party.
it's tragic what burning man has to pay for permits now, especially when it takes place on land that supposedly belongs to all of us.
That is because Burning Man treats the land like it is theirs and theirs alone. That event is mostly the "man" and long left whatever it once stood for. Now it's just a way for 20-30 somethings to burn through mad amounts of cash, all while feeling like they're somehow counter cultural. When the event is over the land looks and smells like human waste and takes an insane amount of resources to reclaim, clean, and restore it to some remote resemblance of what state it use to be in. If there's anything tragic about Burning Man, it's what it has become.
Being a Mac and Linux user for sometime, I like working on my Mac but it is not my "go to" system and macOS will ensure that it stays that way. So a disclaimer, I am a programmer, so the majority of my work is not Photoshop or whatever grade A software everyone touts about as working perfectly on Mac. Compilers and mostly command line and IDE tools are what I mostly work with and things like Eclipse, Atom, and so on work pretty well across platforms. So I do get real work done on either platform. I get that's not the majority of users but at the same time I am not going to be able to relate to all the crazies out there that are like, "ZOMG, Linux has no Photoshop, you CAN'T DO ANYTHING!!!11!111one1111!!!!". What kind of work I get done on each platform is not the point I am going to be going for though if you bear with me for a bit.
Mac and its ecosystem are nice, but that is also the catch. A lot of the new features with macOS talk about how seamlessly it works for iPhone, iPad, Apple watch, and so on. In other words, those features don't exist unless you have those things. Additionally, you don't get cloud integration unless you are using their cloud. That's 5GB free and the pricing while reasonable does mean that you need to pay that per month/year to access that feature built into the OS as well. Also, the notes, calendar (to a lesser extent), mail (again to a lesser extent), maps, photo, and on and on applications only work well so long as you use that application. You can transfer your stuff from Evernote to Apple's notes, but you can only use Apple's notes on Apple's stuff. Using Evernote or some other program works across platforms but it's not "optimize" or doesn't integrate well into the OS. And there's several other examples where it's Apple's ecosystem or a less than ideal experience or just some features of the OS just don't happen.
And that's what ultimately puts me off from Apple as the "go to" system, why am I buying (which I only did once and man my Apple has been kicking for quite some years now) this hardware and OS for features I'll never get to use unless I get deeper into the ecosystem? Perhaps if I already had an iPhone (I don't) or an Apple Watch (I'm an old fuddy duddy who likes ticking watches still) some of this would make more sense. But I'm not that person and maybe it is just me but I do not feel like I should have to be that type of person in order to get all the features from my hardware/OS. I get that macOS does "more" in a sense than say my Linux box, but I get 100% of my Linux box and maybe that biases me toward it more often than not for things like gaming, programming, and just randomly looking at cat videos on the Internet. The Mac is nice, but I'm never going to use notes or photos the way Apple wants me to use them because I am just not going to go that deep into their ecosystem.
So all that said, seeing macOS tout more/tighter integration of their ecosystem and hardware into the mix of their OS is just off putting to me, and that may only extend as far as me for all it is worth. I get that this is the way things are moving, until they stop moving in that direction one day. However, I just don't see the justification for the cost of getting everything Apple just to get those features. I have an Android phone and use Dropbox for files, whatever the thing is with Google for photos and what-not, and my music comes from Amazon/Google/Apple depending on whatever I'm signed into at the time I decide to buy something. Netflix and HBO have mostly supplanted my need for videos (maybe I'm just tired of the stuff that comes out now a days). All of that works pretty well across whatever devices I use, so there's even less reason to just drop everything and move to Apple. That brings me to the point, macOS is really built for people who aren't in any ecosystem right now or people who are already Mac deep. It's not bringing anything that says to people Android/Linux/Windows entrenched, "Hey this is something you'd drop who you have now for us!" And t
Shock and surprise, I'm going to try and be helpful. I don't know who I am anymore.
Here you go.
It really is non-US chips no matter how they got the original blueprints. The notion of US intellectual property in China is laughable at best. Additionally, China may not have a lot of folks that can invent, and that pretty much goes for all other countries because Intel is actually that good at being a brain drain but I digress, but they are incredibly good at trial and error/educated guessing on quite remarkable scales. So while they may not invent the process for 5nm chips, once they see one done and get a few pictures of the process, they're pretty good at putting the pieces together to get up and running.
However, it is my opinion that the bigger point here isn't that China is great at stealing technology, it is that China, and more so the world, honestly doesn't need American technology especially if the Americans are so hell bent in making insecure devices and resorting to petty trade restrictions to maintain some sort of faux-superiority position because the American legislative body finds in unstylish to fund actual research to maintain a real superiority position or they feel that real superiority is found in funding some guy digging a tunnel to extract black rocks, pumping dead liquid dinosaur remains from the ground, or ensuring that humans build crap at ineffective rates.
If anything Americans should take this as a sign that their priorities are insanely messed up. Doubtful that they would actually do anything about it, but at least they can know that all their Jerry Springer level bickering will ultimately mean that they need to resort to more and more useless childish games on ensuring that they stay relevant on the global stage. The downside to that is that the rest of the world has to suffer these stupid antics because Americans can't grow up and admit that they're loosing the top spot.