Apple could just produce for the US market in the US. Therefore, the iPhone would cost 10% more and would be completely automated. Good thing you trade deficit would decrease. Bad thing no new jobs.
Europe is not laughing. We think "Oh shit! Merde! Scheiße!..." and our Trump clowns think "oh lets make [add tiny country here] great again!". I have the feeling that this could become a big disaster for democracy,
With no one to stop them, they will have their tea party. They will axe any climate change counter measure and fuck up our planet. Trump might kill NAFTA and terminate TPP and TTIP (which could be positive). Most likely the US relationship with the EU and China will worsen. It could improve with Russia (in short term), but it will most likely worsen in midterm, because Trump does not want to give up Ukraine. Maybe Trump will also risk a split up of NATO.
Do you really not know what an economic system is? Here is a hint from wikipedia "An economy (From Greek – "household" and o – "manage") is an area of the production, distribution, or trade, and consumption of goods and services by different agents in a given geographical location." Agents are people and organizations. The sole purpose of it is to support people with the necessities of live. If everyone would have already everything they need, there would be no need for an economy. Therefore, if there are people lacking stuff they need, then it is the fault of the economy. By our economic system, I meant the economic system on this planet not just the USA (which is just one country. There are others, you know). Yes economics get influenced by politics. As politics are there to make the rules, this is not that strange isn't it. In some areas of the globe politics is not working in favor of the people there. True, not every bad thing on the world is the fault of the US or the EU, but they are both big in supporting not so democratic regimes and pressure other countries. For example, the EU makes Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) which ease access to the African market. Too bad EU agricultural commodities are highly subsidized (just like in the US) and therefore the Africans cannot compete. So yes we are responsible for there problems, at least in parts. In case you need an US example, have a look at the corn price, the effects it has on Mexican society and how making fuel from corn hurt Mexicans. Or google food trading in general.
Do you mean government debt? I am talking about the US trade deficit which is balanced by the US trade partners by buying dollars. The biggest lender in this context is China, as 40% of the US trade deficit comes from the trade with China (approx $ 29 billion per year). In total the US have around $ 41 billion deficit per year (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade).
Americans you are ridiculous. Ok I get it you have a two party system and therefore you are not accustomed to have different opinions in politics. It is always there team against ours. The truth is, it is you country. The country of all of you. Conservatives, liberals, socialists, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Atheists, Indians, etc. and you all life there. Unfortunately, for the next president you have two choices. They both have a big ego. And I am not sure if you could trust them, but you have to look at the potential outcome of each presidency. Clinton will not demolish your health care system, even if it sucks compared to European systems, Trump will. She will not start a war, but will continue with the drone program. With Trump, you do not know what he will do. Will he terminate NATO? Then many EU countries will try to build their own nuclear weapons. This is not in the interest of the US. Will he break up with China? This could be a disaster, as China has so much dollars in their pockets, they could just ruin the US. And even if he is not doing all of that. He is not the guy who stays cool and on top of things. He is super emotional. This is dangerous (in case you want to be the only super power, a.k.a. Empire).
World hunger is a distribution problem. We have enough food for everyone. Unfortunately, our economic system is not able to solve this distribution problem. Maybe we should fix it. Unfortunately, we are not going to do so, as it is not in the interest of those who have.
This looks like correlation to me. Social active people have also a higher rate to use FB. Also if you are richer you might have time and money to do your FB stuff mobile. Did they release their data? No? Don't believe it. This is most likely p hacked beyond repair.
You get funding to investigate a certain part of reality. For example, to understand and model sea level development. After X years you provide a final report (and a lot of publications in between now and now-X). Then you try to get the next grant, which will be most likely in a similar area. It does not mapper if the sea level rises or not. It for the research it is sufficient that there is something called sea level. In case your models are good, they get adopted by the state or state based organizations which monitor sea level development. As a scientist you move on to understand the next piece of the puzzle.
For example, we have understood the carbon cycle in land-based plants, air and the sea at large. However, we have only limited understanding what the increase of CO2 in the oceans cause. How do they affect algae production? At which concentration does plankton reduce its O2 production? How far is the CO2 concentration propagated downwards in the water column? What does this mean in context of fish population, food security etc? Therefore, when we find out that a certain topic is well understood there is enough left to be researched next. And research funding is usually not based on the need for knowledge, but how much money a state wants to spend on research in general.
Different organizations have different sensors all over the world. Furthermore, people use satellite measurements. Have a look at http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.g...
Have you even compared his NOAA source wit the NASA source? I guess not. Otherwise you would have found out that the NOAA measurements of the past are close to the NASA estimates (of the past).
Really is that your answer to their publication? Have you looked at their contribution and tried to understand it? No. First, NOAA hat not other thoughts. They have measurements from around the globe. Depending on the point of data collection they look at the data from the past (this is the time period which had already happened), e.g., 1915 to 2011 (for Cuxhaven 2 which has an 1.76 mm/y rise). The article claims that rises could be off in some areas by 28% and are 5.5 inches in the last century which are 139.7 mm in 100 years or 1.397 mm per year. And their upper claim 6.7 inches which is 1.708 mm per year.
I know they are there to protect investors from greedy governments. However, in the EU, we already have laws protecting your private property. In case the state requires your house the state must compensate you for that. In Germany, this is part of the constitution. I do not know if this is the case in Belgium, but it is also part of the EU treaties. The problem with such international courts is that they only value investors and they provide them extra protection beyond being treated equally. In case of leaked parts of TTIP and CETA, if a state would forbid carbon fueled engines by 2040/2050 (which we must do), this could become extremely expensive for a state, as any car manufacturer could sue them. Also Austria was sued (based on another such treaty) by an Austrian bank, which owns itself via a company on some island, because Austria trailed and fined them violating the law. The Bank sued, because the trail resulted in a reduced reputation.
The problem with such treaties is. They are all inclusive. Therefore, if some thing should be excluded it must be listed explicitly. It would be much, much better if they would only list those things where these rules apply. Yes this is more work, but it is better in the end. And yes there are positive things in the CETA treaty. You could just separate them from the rest and start with them. Why on earth must be everything in one treaty at one time.
BTW: another issue with this treaty is the inability to quit and it is valid indefinitely. This is rubbish. No one should ever sign such treaty. What if the next generation wants a different treaty or no treaty?
Globalization is neither good nor bad, but CETA is a bad deal. Especially when we want to battle resource limitations and climate change. A key problem with CETA is the so called protection for investors, which sounds like we do not have a proper legal system in Canada and the EU. CETA has also a system which allows to modify the treaty later without parliamental control. So in short it is undemocratic and I want to keep my democracy.
When you where a boy there where batteries in cars. The problem is in English you have not separate nouns for batteries who are rechargeable (akkumulator) and non rechargeable ones. However, they are different kinds if devices.
Typical overconfident US advertising. The best part, the word could implies that it could also be zero. It won't be worse as in that case we would use present designs.
Furthermore, 10 times longer is not precise. It could also indicate more charge discharge cycles. So they should have said, the capacity could be 10 times higher.
The Federal Council only represent the single states in Germany and cannot implement such law. This must be a national law or a EU law. While the move would be logical , it will not happen. The transport minister Dobrindt already ridiculed the intervention.
First, we have to phase out CO2 by 2050 or 2040 (1.5 deg C). Second, we do not need fancy carbon capture tech. We can rely on plant growth and reforestation programs which actually work. We had a few of those. Also we have to help countries to protect their forests. Also helpful would be to reduce meat production.
Poland is hindering the EU in being more effective reducing CO2 emissions because they want to protect their coal. Instead of actively steering the transformation, they try to stop it. Such solar-something toys are only tokenism and has no real effect. Neither do they test new technology nor do they help to proliferate existing technology. It is even worse than that what the Germans do. It is like politicians have not understood that we have to be carbon free be 2040/2050 (depending on the reduction curve). You cannot negotiate a later date with nature, because nature doesn't give a damn.
Systemd is new and, as people wrote it in C without proper software engineering, it has a lot of flaws. However, this is the case in many software components. Unfortunately, this bug has existed for 2 years. Really, do they have no test regiment at all? In case the bug existed without prior knowledge, then this is just unfortunate, if it existed and the systemd developers knew about it, then this is irresponsible. In any case, I expect a fix in days or better in hours.
Like many other "tech" companies, Uber tries to show that they are innovative. However, they are not. Lets illustrate that with flying cars. The topic of flying objects which are heavier than air has been discussed lengthly in engineering. Therefore, it is relatively good understood. First, you need some force to counteract gravity (or disable gravity) and then you need additional forces to move around. In airplanes, this is done with wing which transform kinetic energy of the moving plane in lift. Therefore, either an engine is required to resupply the system with new kinetic energy or you require thermal lift. For vertical lifting, we developed rockets and helicopters which provide a counterforce + some extra to move an object up. All these technologies already exist. Yet they cannot be used to create a flying car which is cheap enough to make is an alternative to a car. Just compare the price and fuel consumption of a small helicopter and a car to see that this is not economical realizable for most people. Therefore, it is not an engineering problem, but a problem of theoretical physics to come up with a way to cancel out gravity. Unfortunately, Uber is not investing in that.
Second, average humans are not capable of flying devices. That is why pilots require a lot of training. Lets assume computer scientists and robot developers are able to create an autonomous flying machine, which is an enormous engineering task, as we are barely able to get it done with cars. Some might say, yes but we have autonomous flying drones and autopilot. The first fail often and military drones need supervision. Autopilots are able to steer a system through the air until something happens which requires human interaction. Also current flight is heavily regulated and controlled by pilots and controllers on the ground. In a "Fifth Element"-like scenario, thousands of cars are flying around. Therefore, you need additional rules, as they are closer together. Just like nowadays on the ground. An autonomous flying machine would have to mange all these rules and understand all other moving objects together which is much more complicated than 2D.
Therefore, such effort is futile, which let me conclude this is just a marketing scam used to show Uber is so great company. While the truth is, they are just a company with a lot of money form venture capitalists which provides an app and enterprise software behind it. Thus, they are just a business model not an engineering company and definitely not a company capable to come up with new physics.
How stupid must you be to think that drilling a hole in a device will result in a headphone jack? Technical education seems to be ineffective. At least with some people.
Web systems are reactive systems. Therefore, you have events which trigger functions/transformations wich modify data and returns an reply. This can best be realized with functional programming style and object types. But, yes, technology stacks go in circles instead forward. And with JavaScript it can cycle back. Using a duck typed language is a nightmare for software evolution. Fortunately, Google advices to use TypeScript which fixes this issue. Again.
Depends in the country. In Germany starting with 14 you can deny your parents to post content on you. It can be different in Austria, the USA, the UK etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple could just produce for the US market in the US. Therefore, the iPhone would cost 10% more and would be completely automated. Good thing you trade deficit would decrease. Bad thing no new jobs.
Bernie was the last real left politicians with the Democrats.
Europe is not laughing. We think "Oh shit! Merde! Scheiße! ..." and our Trump clowns think "oh lets make [add tiny country here] great again!". I have the feeling that this could become a big disaster for democracy,
With no one to stop them, they will have their tea party. They will axe any climate change counter measure and fuck up our planet. Trump might kill NAFTA and terminate TPP and TTIP (which could be positive). Most likely the US relationship with the EU and China will worsen. It could improve with Russia (in short term), but it will most likely worsen in midterm, because Trump does not want to give up Ukraine. Maybe Trump will also risk a split up of NATO.
Do you really not know what an economic system is? Here is a hint from wikipedia "An economy (From Greek – "household" and o – "manage") is an area of the production, distribution, or trade, and consumption of goods and services by different agents in a given geographical location." Agents are people and organizations. The sole purpose of it is to support people with the necessities of live. If everyone would have already everything they need, there would be no need for an economy. Therefore, if there are people lacking stuff they need, then it is the fault of the economy. By our economic system, I meant the economic system on this planet not just the USA (which is just one country. There are others, you know). Yes economics get influenced by politics. As politics are there to make the rules, this is not that strange isn't it. In some areas of the globe politics is not working in favor of the people there. True, not every bad thing on the world is the fault of the US or the EU, but they are both big in supporting not so democratic regimes and pressure other countries. For example, the EU makes Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) which ease access to the African market. Too bad EU agricultural commodities are highly subsidized (just like in the US) and therefore the Africans cannot compete. So yes we are responsible for there problems, at least in parts. In case you need an US example, have a look at the corn price, the effects it has on Mexican society and how making fuel from corn hurt Mexicans. Or google food trading in general.
Do you mean government debt? I am talking about the US trade deficit which is balanced by the US trade partners by buying dollars. The biggest lender in this context is China, as 40% of the US trade deficit comes from the trade with China (approx $ 29 billion per year). In total the US have around $ 41 billion deficit per year (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade).
Americans you are ridiculous. Ok I get it you have a two party system and therefore you are not accustomed to have different opinions in politics. It is always there team against ours. The truth is, it is you country. The country of all of you. Conservatives, liberals, socialists, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Atheists, Indians, etc. and you all life there. Unfortunately, for the next president you have two choices. They both have a big ego. And I am not sure if you could trust them, but you have to look at the potential outcome of each presidency. Clinton will not demolish your health care system, even if it sucks compared to European systems, Trump will. She will not start a war, but will continue with the drone program. With Trump, you do not know what he will do. Will he terminate NATO? Then many EU countries will try to build their own nuclear weapons. This is not in the interest of the US. Will he break up with China? This could be a disaster, as China has so much dollars in their pockets, they could just ruin the US. And even if he is not doing all of that. He is not the guy who stays cool and on top of things. He is super emotional. This is dangerous (in case you want to be the only super power, a.k.a. Empire).
World hunger is a distribution problem. We have enough food for everyone. Unfortunately, our economic system is not able to solve this distribution problem. Maybe we should fix it. Unfortunately, we are not going to do so, as it is not in the interest of those who have.
This looks like correlation to me. Social active people have also a higher rate to use FB. Also if you are richer you might have time and money to do your FB stuff mobile. Did they release their data? No? Don't believe it. This is most likely p hacked beyond repair.
You get funding to investigate a certain part of reality. For example, to understand and model sea level development. After X years you provide a final report (and a lot of publications in between now and now-X). Then you try to get the next grant, which will be most likely in a similar area. It does not mapper if the sea level rises or not. It for the research it is sufficient that there is something called sea level. In case your models are good, they get adopted by the state or state based organizations which monitor sea level development. As a scientist you move on to understand the next piece of the puzzle.
For example, we have understood the carbon cycle in land-based plants, air and the sea at large. However, we have only limited understanding what the increase of CO2 in the oceans cause. How do they affect algae production? At which concentration does plankton reduce its O2 production? How far is the CO2 concentration propagated downwards in the water column? What does this mean in context of fish population, food security etc? Therefore, when we find out that a certain topic is well understood there is enough left to be researched next. And research funding is usually not based on the need for knowledge, but how much money a state wants to spend on research in general.
Different organizations have different sensors all over the world. Furthermore, people use satellite measurements. Have a look at http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.g...
They show similar data to the NASA estimate.
Have you even compared his NOAA source wit the NASA source? I guess not. Otherwise you would have found out that the NOAA measurements of the past are close to the NASA estimates (of the past).
Really is that your answer to their publication? Have you looked at their contribution and tried to understand it? No. First, NOAA hat not other thoughts. They have measurements from around the globe. Depending on the point of data collection they look at the data from the past (this is the time period which had already happened), e.g., 1915 to 2011 (for Cuxhaven 2 which has an 1.76 mm/y rise). The article claims that rises could be off in some areas by 28% and are 5.5 inches in the last century which are 139.7 mm in 100 years or 1.397 mm per year. And their upper claim 6.7 inches which is 1.708 mm per year.
I know they are there to protect investors from greedy governments. However, in the EU, we already have laws protecting your private property. In case the state requires your house the state must compensate you for that. In Germany, this is part of the constitution. I do not know if this is the case in Belgium, but it is also part of the EU treaties. The problem with such international courts is that they only value investors and they provide them extra protection beyond being treated equally. In case of leaked parts of TTIP and CETA, if a state would forbid carbon fueled engines by 2040/2050 (which we must do), this could become extremely expensive for a state, as any car manufacturer could sue them. Also Austria was sued (based on another such treaty) by an Austrian bank, which owns itself via a company on some island, because Austria trailed and fined them violating the law. The Bank sued, because the trail resulted in a reduced reputation.
The problem with such treaties is. They are all inclusive. Therefore, if some thing should be excluded it must be listed explicitly. It would be much, much better if they would only list those things where these rules apply. Yes this is more work, but it is better in the end. And yes there are positive things in the CETA treaty. You could just separate them from the rest and start with them. Why on earth must be everything in one treaty at one time.
BTW: another issue with this treaty is the inability to quit and it is valid indefinitely. This is rubbish. No one should ever sign such treaty. What if the next generation wants a different treaty or no treaty?
Globalization is neither good nor bad, but CETA is a bad deal. Especially when we want to battle resource limitations and climate change. A key problem with CETA is the so called protection for investors, which sounds like we do not have a proper legal system in Canada and the EU. CETA has also a system which allows to modify the treaty later without parliamental control. So in short it is undemocratic and I want to keep my democracy.
When you where a boy there where batteries in cars. The problem is in English you have not separate nouns for batteries who are rechargeable (akkumulator) and non rechargeable ones. However, they are different kinds if devices.
Typical overconfident US advertising. The best part, the word could implies that it could also be zero. It won't be worse as in that case we would use present designs.
Furthermore, 10 times longer is not precise. It could also indicate more charge discharge cycles. So they should have said, the capacity could be 10 times higher.
The Federal Council only represent the single states in Germany and cannot implement such law. This must be a national law or a EU law. While the move would be logical , it will not happen. The transport minister Dobrindt already ridiculed the intervention.
First, we have to phase out CO2 by 2050 or 2040 (1.5 deg C). Second, we do not need fancy carbon capture tech. We can rely on plant growth and reforestation programs which actually work. We had a few of those. Also we have to help countries to protect their forests. Also helpful would be to reduce meat production.
Poland is hindering the EU in being more effective reducing CO2 emissions because they want to protect their coal. Instead of actively steering the transformation, they try to stop it. Such solar-something toys are only tokenism and has no real effect. Neither do they test new technology nor do they help to proliferate existing technology. It is even worse than that what the Germans do. It is like politicians have not understood that we have to be carbon free be 2040/2050 (depending on the reduction curve). You cannot negotiate a later date with nature, because nature doesn't give a damn.
Systemd is new and, as people wrote it in C without proper software engineering, it has a lot of flaws. However, this is the case in many software components. Unfortunately, this bug has existed for 2 years. Really, do they have no test regiment at all? In case the bug existed without prior knowledge, then this is just unfortunate, if it existed and the systemd developers knew about it, then this is irresponsible. In any case, I expect a fix in days or better in hours.
Like many other "tech" companies, Uber tries to show that they are innovative. However, they are not. Lets illustrate that with flying cars. The topic of flying objects which are heavier than air has been discussed lengthly in engineering. Therefore, it is relatively good understood. First, you need some force to counteract gravity (or disable gravity) and then you need additional forces to move around. In airplanes, this is done with wing which transform kinetic energy of the moving plane in lift. Therefore, either an engine is required to resupply the system with new kinetic energy or you require thermal lift. For vertical lifting, we developed rockets and helicopters which provide a counterforce + some extra to move an object up. All these technologies already exist. Yet they cannot be used to create a flying car which is cheap enough to make is an alternative to a car. Just compare the price and fuel consumption of a small helicopter and a car to see that this is not economical realizable for most people. Therefore, it is not an engineering problem, but a problem of theoretical physics to come up with a way to cancel out gravity. Unfortunately, Uber is not investing in that.
Second, average humans are not capable of flying devices. That is why pilots require a lot of training. Lets assume computer scientists and robot developers are able to create an autonomous flying machine, which is an enormous engineering task, as we are barely able to get it done with cars. Some might say, yes but we have autonomous flying drones and autopilot. The first fail often and military drones need supervision. Autopilots are able to steer a system through the air until something happens which requires human interaction. Also current flight is heavily regulated and controlled by pilots and controllers on the ground. In a "Fifth Element"-like scenario, thousands of cars are flying around. Therefore, you need additional rules, as they are closer together. Just like nowadays on the ground. An autonomous flying machine would have to mange all these rules and understand all other moving objects together which is much more complicated than 2D.
Therefore, such effort is futile, which let me conclude this is just a marketing scam used to show Uber is so great company. While the truth is, they are just a company with a lot of money form venture capitalists which provides an app and enterprise software behind it. Thus, they are just a business model not an engineering company and definitely not a company capable to come up with new physics.
How stupid must you be to think that drilling a hole in a device will result in a headphone jack? Technical education seems to be ineffective. At least with some people.
Web systems are reactive systems. Therefore, you have events which trigger functions/transformations wich modify data and returns an reply. This can best be realized with functional programming style and object types. But, yes, technology stacks go in circles instead forward. And with JavaScript it can cycle back. Using a duck typed language is a nightmare for software evolution. Fortunately, Google advices to use TypeScript which fixes this issue. Again.
Depends in the country. In Germany starting with 14 you can deny your parents to post content on you. It can be different in Austria, the USA, the UK etc.