True, and not overly relevant as justification for the difference in service or customer expectation. America is rich and it's not like Amazon have to ship everything across 8 states, in the same way that generally what I order doesn't come from a distribution centre in Austria.
There's never been a good way, other than by going to stores with time and cost involved, to order individual relatively low priced items in the UK for next day delivery without paying a premium for it. You can claim that should be people's reasonable expectation but that isn't the reality of online retail in the UK.
Why does free speech include hate speech? Does all speech have to be allowed without consequence to have free speech? If that is true then does freedom mean freedom to do anything you want without consequence? If it does then surely no one who lives in a country where there are laws they aren't free?
Saying that any form of freedom requires absolutely no restriction although perhaps true in a very literal interpretation isn't actually very helpful in practical situations.
Alexa has a combination of first mover and scale going for it which means it gets a lot of press coverage, but I've seen very little that implies it's extraordinary. To be fair to Amazon, if they have found genuinely effective way to have Alexa learn to interpret users "incorrect" commands or commands where it didn't deliver the desired response, and respond to that then this is quite an improvement. People don't want to have to use rigid command structures to interact, and from my limited experience with Alexa it seemed like it relied on exactly that (while Google was better at handling informal commands).
And before you bring up Tianenmen square (which was over 20 years ago) I will just say: yellow vest.
You're right, I couldn't believe it when the French military opened fire with tanks and killed hundreds of peacefully protesting students in yellow vests on the Champs-Élysées...
If only the French loved their government as much as the Chinese love theirs, surely then we'd have hundreds of thousands of French people attending *definitely not prisons* education camps to learn to better express that love.
I'm not sure you can evidence your assertions. There are plenty of other hypothesis that would explain different countries reasons for being more or less secretive. China may simply be aware that it can't keep this secret from western intelligence so it may as well announce it and brag as there's no benefit to keeping quiet. Alternatively, based on China's aggressive geopolitics it is also plausible, and I'd go as far as likely, that they see more value in intimidating its neighbours into accepting China's demands by trying to undermine their confidence that America may be able to assist them if China did make a move against them.
Definitely with you on this, even the biggest iPhones (and its competitors) is not remotely heavy. My battery case probably weighs 2/3rds of the weight of my iPhone 8 and even with it on I never think about the weight.
You're responding to a guy who says making phones thicker is the simplest and most reasonable solution, by saying it isn't then going on for 5 paragraphs about how it is...
I'd happily have a 25% thicker iPhone for better battery life. I think you're missing the point of cases somewhat about cases though as even with a thicker phone I'm going to put it in a case to avoid damaging the device itself even if the device was bigger. I might have risked dropping an old plastic nokia that cost ~£150 but not a modern £500+ phone.
Very narrow competence is extremely common in engineering even where there is strict regulation of the term. I've known engineers who focus on specific technical fields and engineers who are generalists. In both cases they would be very poor at doing the other job, at least without considerable training and experience.
You're also dismissing the complexity and variety within IT by claiming someone really good can do everything really well. Even if they have the base skills to be able to be able to do anything really well they won't have the exposure and experience in all areas. Service desk roles are often seen as 'entry level' or not requiring proper IT skills, however my experience of the best service desk staff is that they share attributes with many other high performers in IT, the ability to effectively define and work through problems for example, but also extensive experience and understanding of user facing systems, user behaviour, endpoint hardware, business requirements etc.
With that said I'll be the first person to agree with the argument that performance can vary considerably between individuals, and that companies often shoot themselves in the foot by restricting wages meaning they end up doing with 8 people what could be done better and cheaper by 5 higher performers.
Two reasons for starters: Because if they don't detect a significant risk at that level of exposure in rats then it makes it relatively safe to assume there wouldn't be a high risk at lower levels in humans. It might also impact on decisions about what level of emissions should be acceptable in future. Are you really struggling that hard to come up with a reason?
How can they sue on behalf of 129,000,000 people if they haven't even got a clue who those people are? Does the average size of settlement not beg the obvious question:
1/ If the net damage was so small that a settlement of less than 1/10th of a cent per person was reasonable, should their even have been a suit to begin with?
2/ Should the lawyers have accepted a settlement that provided no restitution to 99.9999% of the people in the class, and would they if they weren't able to do that while pocketing a few million dollars for their troubles?
99% of the proceeds ought to go to benefit the class members whose right to sue is being exhausted by the settlement.
Why? You'd kill class action suits as a way of suing large companies so I'm sure they'd be all in favour of this change. Personally I think 1,000% of the benefits ought to go to the class members, because if we're going to be ridiculous then why not go balls deep.
Can you back that up by pointing out some examples of where he has done something that someone is in favour of and they've criticised him for it? He gets criticism from people for just about everything he does because they think just about everything he does is incompetent, malicious, or immoral.
I'm not sure why this story is on here. It's not like this is a life changing event and the fact it involves Trump doesn't mean it's suddenly more newsworthy. Repulsive is probably the best word I could use to sum up my view of him, but that doesn't mean everything he does needs coverage or criticism. I'm an unashamed globalist and still see valid reasons why one might challenge this rate system. Does it really make sense to discount postage from some nations to others that much? Do we want to encourage delivery of individual small parcels globally over more efficient bulk distribution to more localised centres which then do local postage? Even if your opinion is that this kind of policy is motivated by Trumps worst attributes it doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered on its own merits.
Why? Plenty of customers like the simplicity of paying a fixed monthly amount, which is why so many different products are commonly sold on that basis.
It's kind of hard to have much sympathy with the people getting butthurt over this. Spotify offer a discounted plan for students, and a discounted plan for households, it's hardly suprising that they would try and limit people from getting these discounts if they aren't eligible for them.
The EU emits less than half as much per capita as America and accounts for about a 1/3rd less emissions than America. It's a convenient dodge to try and point the finger elsewhere but most of the world and plenty of American's won't fall for it. It's especially unhelpful when this exercise in handwaving is being used to distract from US administration attempts to allow more polluting.
Which means that Australia and a bunch of middle eastern countries potentially don't get enough attention for being even more polluting, but given that 5 of the 6 combined add up to 10% of America's total emissions and the other, Australia, produces less than 10% of America's emissions it's hardly suprising that they don't.
China, America, and the EU produce over 54% of CO2 emissions. Hand waving at a few countries that produce fractions of a % can't possibly have a notable impact. The EU produces less CO2 per capita than America or China and also emits least in total out of the 3, they can do their part but they can't make a meaningful difference unless America and China act. China produces the most CO2 but does so while producing less than half as much per capita as the US so expecting China to act while America doesn't is unrealistic. So it all comes back to America. They have the influence that they could if they were willing to restrict their own emissions lead the way on handling this issue, but if they won't then nobody else can.
You might be a sucker but I can't see why anything in this announcement means Facebook suckered you. Your rig will still work, people will still develop for higher end platforms. This could be a really good step for all VR gaming. Companies can only invest so much on developing for VR when it's a tiny market, if standalone devices like this considerably expand the market then the resources spent on providing content for that market will increase. Once a company is well positioned to develop for VR in a limited resource environment they are also in a better position to develop for VR on higher end devices.
Really? Literally all my life apple have seemed focused on form over function; I remember nearly 20 years ago how Mac-zealots would claim that the single button mouse that apple used to ship with all devices was far better than 2+ button mice because having more than 2 buttons encouraged messy and inefficient design; then the same people acting like the release of the "mighty" mouse was the second coming of Jesus.
So what about people who are unable to have children, will they get offended by references to 'parent'?
Have they so far? Have you got anything approaching a credible reason to expect they will? If not, I have no idea what makes this comment insightful rather than redundant.
I don't find the term offensive. I struggle to see why someone whose ancestors were slaves would find it offensive. That doesn't mean that it's a big deal that they do, and that it's a massive issue if someone decides to stop using those terms for that reason. It's not like any person here couldn't come up with 10+ different potential replacement names off the top of their head; and if you're best reason for being against changing is you think you'll actually struggle to remember a new name that's pretty worrying in itself.
The lesson is don't delete stuff you bought from your devices.
Not for me it isn't. You're making the dangerous assumption that something in an TOS doesn't allow them to do something that impacts on downloaded copies (which you wouldn't know as you don't read it). Personally I don't "buy" digital material I'm not completely comfortable losing (pretty much cheap games); but I do pay for a couple of renting services that I feel provide value.
One of my ground rules is when working a problem, I insist on working the problem.
But are you actually working on this problem or just complaining about the actions of others while theorising about an unworkable solution? Because if you're just doing the latter then you're doing even less than someone whose only response so far has been to use less plastic straws; but if saying they're the problem makes you feel better about your own lack of action then there's nothing I can do to stop you.
Have you got any evidence to suggest the IMF is worried about Crypto, beside some half baked conspiracy, rather than genuinely believing that banks might be spooked and that causing problems for the islands? If your a bank and your asked to give someone a loan you make assessments about their ability to pay. If their ability to pay is heavily dependant on a minor crypto-currencies value this is likely to be seen as added risk. Add in the fact banks like keeping crypto at a distance because of all the money laundering etc regulations they are obligated to consider (and the difficulty of doing that with crypto) and I think it's a perfectly reasonable warning.
The likely storm track has been known for days. So why didn't the suppliers run extra overtime shifts to bring in more supplies? Answer: Because they knew they would not be allowed to recoup the extra costs, since NC has price control laws
Where's the evidence to backup the hypothesis you state as though it is fact. The UK doesn't have any anti-gouging laws, but negative publicity when petrol stations or similar increase prices in a way that would be termed "gouging" by some means that companies don't do it. Thus at a minimum you laws aren't always the reason for a shortage.
Personally I'm not a big fan of price controls, and agree that they can lead to non-optimal behaviour but when you start arguments with things like claiming that higher prices ensure things go to those that need them most then it undermines your other more valid points. The person who needs it most doesn't always have the ability to pay inflated prices. There's people starving in the world, do you think if we increased prices enough they'd be able to get food because they "need" it most?
I don't care, let alone have any intention of remembering it; being from somewhere doesn't give you more credibility when discussing historical events, and may actually hamper objectivity (as seen with Japan and the popular perception of history with regards to the occupation of China and Korea).
The Luddites did oppose increased productivity; you're imagining a distinction that doesn't exist. If you increase productivity by 200% without a corresponding increase in demand or decrease in labour then it will inevitably lead to a surplus of labour (leading to unemployment or lower wages).
And can we please stop with the nonsensical "no true scotsman" claims about geeks. Plenty of geeks will misuse their own "craft" let alone no care about abuse by others. Geek isn't some carefully awarded honour given only to ethical people it's a poorly defined term that covers a ridiculous range of interests and/or behaviours.
That assumes there is an additional transport cost to transporting as water vs a group of ships pulling it as an icecube. I'm not saying there isn't, but unless the boats pulling the ice can move more mass per unit cost (after accounting for the loss of mass transporting as ice) then there wouldn't be a cost difference.
Slashdot Mirror
True, and not overly relevant as justification for the difference in service or customer expectation. America is rich and it's not like Amazon have to ship everything across 8 states, in the same way that generally what I order doesn't come from a distribution centre in Austria.
There's never been a good way, other than by going to stores with time and cost involved, to order individual relatively low priced items in the UK for next day delivery without paying a premium for it. You can claim that should be people's reasonable expectation but that isn't the reality of online retail in the UK.
Why does free speech include hate speech? Does all speech have to be allowed without consequence to have free speech? If that is true then does freedom mean freedom to do anything you want without consequence? If it does then surely no one who lives in a country where there are laws they aren't free?
Saying that any form of freedom requires absolutely no restriction although perhaps true in a very literal interpretation isn't actually very helpful in practical situations.
Alexa has a combination of first mover and scale going for it which means it gets a lot of press coverage, but I've seen very little that implies it's extraordinary. To be fair to Amazon, if they have found genuinely effective way to have Alexa learn to interpret users "incorrect" commands or commands where it didn't deliver the desired response, and respond to that then this is quite an improvement. People don't want to have to use rigid command structures to interact, and from my limited experience with Alexa it seemed like it relied on exactly that (while Google was better at handling informal commands).
You're right, I couldn't believe it when the French military opened fire with tanks and killed hundreds of peacefully protesting students in yellow vests on the Champs-Élysées...
If only the French loved their government as much as the Chinese love theirs, surely then we'd have hundreds of thousands of French people attending *definitely not prisons* education camps to learn to better express that love.
I'm not sure you can evidence your assertions. There are plenty of other hypothesis that would explain different countries reasons for being more or less secretive. China may simply be aware that it can't keep this secret from western intelligence so it may as well announce it and brag as there's no benefit to keeping quiet. Alternatively, based on China's aggressive geopolitics it is also plausible, and I'd go as far as likely, that they see more value in intimidating its neighbours into accepting China's demands by trying to undermine their confidence that America may be able to assist them if China did make a move against them.
Definitely with you on this, even the biggest iPhones (and its competitors) is not remotely heavy. My battery case probably weighs 2/3rds of the weight of my iPhone 8 and even with it on I never think about the weight.
You're responding to a guy who says making phones thicker is the simplest and most reasonable solution, by saying it isn't then going on for 5 paragraphs about how it is...
I'd happily have a 25% thicker iPhone for better battery life. I think you're missing the point of cases somewhat about cases though as even with a thicker phone I'm going to put it in a case to avoid damaging the device itself even if the device was bigger. I might have risked dropping an old plastic nokia that cost ~£150 but not a modern £500+ phone.
Very narrow competence is extremely common in engineering even where there is strict regulation of the term. I've known engineers who focus on specific technical fields and engineers who are generalists. In both cases they would be very poor at doing the other job, at least without considerable training and experience.
You're also dismissing the complexity and variety within IT by claiming someone really good can do everything really well. Even if they have the base skills to be able to be able to do anything really well they won't have the exposure and experience in all areas. Service desk roles are often seen as 'entry level' or not requiring proper IT skills, however my experience of the best service desk staff is that they share attributes with many other high performers in IT, the ability to effectively define and work through problems for example, but also extensive experience and understanding of user facing systems, user behaviour, endpoint hardware, business requirements etc.
With that said I'll be the first person to agree with the argument that performance can vary considerably between individuals, and that companies often shoot themselves in the foot by restricting wages meaning they end up doing with 8 people what could be done better and cheaper by 5 higher performers.
Two reasons for starters: Because if they don't detect a significant risk at that level of exposure in rats then it makes it relatively safe to assume there wouldn't be a high risk at lower levels in humans. It might also impact on decisions about what level of emissions should be acceptable in future. Are you really struggling that hard to come up with a reason?
How can they sue on behalf of 129,000,000 people if they haven't even got a clue who those people are? Does the average size of settlement not beg the obvious question: 1/ If the net damage was so small that a settlement of less than 1/10th of a cent per person was reasonable, should their even have been a suit to begin with? 2/ Should the lawyers have accepted a settlement that provided no restitution to 99.9999% of the people in the class, and would they if they weren't able to do that while pocketing a few million dollars for their troubles?
Why? You'd kill class action suits as a way of suing large companies so I'm sure they'd be all in favour of this change. Personally I think 1,000% of the benefits ought to go to the class members, because if we're going to be ridiculous then why not go balls deep.
Can you back that up by pointing out some examples of where he has done something that someone is in favour of and they've criticised him for it? He gets criticism from people for just about everything he does because they think just about everything he does is incompetent, malicious, or immoral.
I'm not sure why this story is on here. It's not like this is a life changing event and the fact it involves Trump doesn't mean it's suddenly more newsworthy. Repulsive is probably the best word I could use to sum up my view of him, but that doesn't mean everything he does needs coverage or criticism. I'm an unashamed globalist and still see valid reasons why one might challenge this rate system. Does it really make sense to discount postage from some nations to others that much? Do we want to encourage delivery of individual small parcels globally over more efficient bulk distribution to more localised centres which then do local postage? Even if your opinion is that this kind of policy is motivated by Trumps worst attributes it doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered on its own merits.
Why? Plenty of customers like the simplicity of paying a fixed monthly amount, which is why so many different products are commonly sold on that basis.
It's kind of hard to have much sympathy with the people getting butthurt over this. Spotify offer a discounted plan for students, and a discounted plan for households, it's hardly suprising that they would try and limit people from getting these discounts if they aren't eligible for them.
The EU emits less than half as much per capita as America and accounts for about a 1/3rd less emissions than America. It's a convenient dodge to try and point the finger elsewhere but most of the world and plenty of American's won't fall for it. It's especially unhelpful when this exercise in handwaving is being used to distract from US administration attempts to allow more polluting.
Which means that Australia and a bunch of middle eastern countries potentially don't get enough attention for being even more polluting, but given that 5 of the 6 combined add up to 10% of America's total emissions and the other, Australia, produces less than 10% of America's emissions it's hardly suprising that they don't.
China, America, and the EU produce over 54% of CO2 emissions. Hand waving at a few countries that produce fractions of a % can't possibly have a notable impact. The EU produces less CO2 per capita than America or China and also emits least in total out of the 3, they can do their part but they can't make a meaningful difference unless America and China act. China produces the most CO2 but does so while producing less than half as much per capita as the US so expecting China to act while America doesn't is unrealistic. So it all comes back to America. They have the influence that they could if they were willing to restrict their own emissions lead the way on handling this issue, but if they won't then nobody else can.
You might be a sucker but I can't see why anything in this announcement means Facebook suckered you. Your rig will still work, people will still develop for higher end platforms. This could be a really good step for all VR gaming. Companies can only invest so much on developing for VR when it's a tiny market, if standalone devices like this considerably expand the market then the resources spent on providing content for that market will increase. Once a company is well positioned to develop for VR in a limited resource environment they are also in a better position to develop for VR on higher end devices.
Really? Literally all my life apple have seemed focused on form over function; I remember nearly 20 years ago how Mac-zealots would claim that the single button mouse that apple used to ship with all devices was far better than 2+ button mice because having more than 2 buttons encouraged messy and inefficient design; then the same people acting like the release of the "mighty" mouse was the second coming of Jesus.
Have they so far? Have you got anything approaching a credible reason to expect they will? If not, I have no idea what makes this comment insightful rather than redundant.
I don't find the term offensive. I struggle to see why someone whose ancestors were slaves would find it offensive. That doesn't mean that it's a big deal that they do, and that it's a massive issue if someone decides to stop using those terms for that reason. It's not like any person here couldn't come up with 10+ different potential replacement names off the top of their head; and if you're best reason for being against changing is you think you'll actually struggle to remember a new name that's pretty worrying in itself.
Not for me it isn't. You're making the dangerous assumption that something in an TOS doesn't allow them to do something that impacts on downloaded copies (which you wouldn't know as you don't read it). Personally I don't "buy" digital material I'm not completely comfortable losing (pretty much cheap games); but I do pay for a couple of renting services that I feel provide value.
But are you actually working on this problem or just complaining about the actions of others while theorising about an unworkable solution? Because if you're just doing the latter then you're doing even less than someone whose only response so far has been to use less plastic straws; but if saying they're the problem makes you feel better about your own lack of action then there's nothing I can do to stop you.
Have you got any evidence to suggest the IMF is worried about Crypto, beside some half baked conspiracy, rather than genuinely believing that banks might be spooked and that causing problems for the islands? If your a bank and your asked to give someone a loan you make assessments about their ability to pay. If their ability to pay is heavily dependant on a minor crypto-currencies value this is likely to be seen as added risk. Add in the fact banks like keeping crypto at a distance because of all the money laundering etc regulations they are obligated to consider (and the difficulty of doing that with crypto) and I think it's a perfectly reasonable warning.
Where's the evidence to backup the hypothesis you state as though it is fact. The UK doesn't have any anti-gouging laws, but negative publicity when petrol stations or similar increase prices in a way that would be termed "gouging" by some means that companies don't do it. Thus at a minimum you laws aren't always the reason for a shortage.
Personally I'm not a big fan of price controls, and agree that they can lead to non-optimal behaviour but when you start arguments with things like claiming that higher prices ensure things go to those that need them most then it undermines your other more valid points. The person who needs it most doesn't always have the ability to pay inflated prices. There's people starving in the world, do you think if we increased prices enough they'd be able to get food because they "need" it most?
I don't care, let alone have any intention of remembering it; being from somewhere doesn't give you more credibility when discussing historical events, and may actually hamper objectivity (as seen with Japan and the popular perception of history with regards to the occupation of China and Korea).
The Luddites did oppose increased productivity; you're imagining a distinction that doesn't exist. If you increase productivity by 200% without a corresponding increase in demand or decrease in labour then it will inevitably lead to a surplus of labour (leading to unemployment or lower wages).
And can we please stop with the nonsensical "no true scotsman" claims about geeks. Plenty of geeks will misuse their own "craft" let alone no care about abuse by others. Geek isn't some carefully awarded honour given only to ethical people it's a poorly defined term that covers a ridiculous range of interests and/or behaviours.
That assumes there is an additional transport cost to transporting as water vs a group of ships pulling it as an icecube. I'm not saying there isn't, but unless the boats pulling the ice can move more mass per unit cost (after accounting for the loss of mass transporting as ice) then there wouldn't be a cost difference.