Until the country is filled with a larger proportion of people with consciences and sanity installed in their hearts and minds than it is filled with self-serving individuals who, for some mysterious reason, *want* and *enjoy* the thought of others suffering, then we will live in a miserable place which punishes people.
I obviously make more than minimum wage (I think that's true of most, if not all/.ers), but am still in the middle class. The proposals raise the minimum wage without addressing those earning more. My buying power goes down for every dollar per hour more that minimum wage increases, unless my salary also increases. I don't want or enjoy other people suffering, but I must first meet my own needs (and I do mean needs and not wants).
Maybe we should get contracts where are salaries are X times minimum wage (or cost of living) instead of a strict Y dollars.
But the point of the article is that the argument that 'raising the minimum wage will kill jobs' has been disproved.
The article cites data which shows that locally raising taxes doesn't destroy local jobs. The people who argue that higher wages means a loss in employment (or higher cost of living) rely on it happening universally. The locals earning a higher wage can purchase goods produced in an area with a lower wage, thus costs to individuals and companies haven't increased. If all states raised the minimum, there wouldn't be any domestic low-wage alternatives; people and companies would have to pay more or import from other countries.
The way to prevent their resources being used for things they disagree with is to lobby for political change, just like any other individual.
Hobby Lobby's owners find it religiously objectionable to provide health care to its female employees that includes birth control. However, they apparently have no religious objections to investing 401K money in companies that make birth control. Making money off birth control = religiously fine. Providing access to birth control = sinful and must be stopped!
Does Hobby Lobby choose which stocks are included in their 401k, or do they outsource to a financial institution?
Go get all the abortions you want, but private businesses have the option to not pay for it.
Funny, that's been my stance my entire adult life. My sect is fine with contraceptives, but sees most abortions as sinful (obvious exceptions exist, such as terminating a pregnancy caused by rape). I share this view, but recognize that others may disagree. Just don't make me pay for it.
If you have a parking space for renting there, I'm pretty sure that would be illegal. Same if they decided to rent your bedroom to a tourist as a B&B. Your rental agreement provided you with your place (I'm guessing an apartment) and a parking spot. The landlord is not able to then legally rent out to someone else what you are already renting.
ianal, but damn, there are some things that are pretty bloody obvious and well documented to even the public.
We didn't have assigned stalls in the parking lot (indeed, the stalls weren't even numbered). In non-game days it was first-come first-served. Each resident was allowed to register a single vehicle with the office. Temporary passes were available for visitors, and parking stickers were only enforced after hours or on game day.
I lived in a town home in a college town. Our landlord rented our parking lot out during football games. The landlords made big bucks, but residents had to prove they lived there in order to avoid the parking fee.
Not to weigh in on the south china sea thing. But we have been the
"United States OF America" since we were founded.
I have my own theory about the naming of "United States of America": the US of that time wanted to eventually take over the whole continent of America, so the name "United States of America" made complete sense at that point.
For one reason or another, they stopped at the border with the current Mexico, after taking over Texas and California.
I know this sounds overly ambitious now, but it was a different world back then.
Please read up on Manifest Destiny before making such a claim. This idea of expansionism didn't really take off until the 19th century.
Great, Unicode is already a fragmented mess, and now the standards organization justifies its existence by adding characters that do not exist.
An earlier poster asked why anyone thinks Unicode is fragmented. The answer in one word: fonts. Different fonts support different subsets of Unicode, because the whole thing is just too big. If you expect your font to mostly be used in Europe, you are unlikely to bother with Asian characters. if you have an Asian font, it probably has only English characters, not the rest of Europe. huge. If you have a font with complete mathematical symbols, it will include the Greek alphabet, but actual language support is a crapshoot.
You are correct in the reason that most fonts only contain a subset of Unicode code points. There are thousands of code points. Most documents will only use a small subset. Why should I have to have all those Chinese or Arabic characters when I only write in English, Spanish, Portuguese, and Hawaiian? People who read and write Hawaiian have fonts which support the Hawaiian letters `okina and kahako. Chinese have fonts which support the Chinese glyphs.
As for language support, that isn't a font's problem. It's up to the writer to know how to intelligently combine glyphs into words, and words into coherent thoughts.
Even in HTML you only get to set one language for the entire document. Good luck writing a page in Chinese about learning Japanese. The ones I have seen tend to use GIFs to represent the characters that Unicode can't differentiate, but that means you can't copy/paste them and the fonts don't match.
Most elements in HTML accept the lang attribute. Please refer to the W3C
First, that the "natural language" requirement was gamed. It deliberately simulated someone for whom English is not their first language, in order to cover its inability to actually hold a good English conversation. Fail.
That just shows the need of Turing tests in other languages. Intelligence isn't bound to a single language. I speak intelligently in English, but am only conversant in Portuguese, and would have the language skills of a 13-year-old in Spanish. I may pick up words in French or Italian, but I couldn't answer any better than a "I don't speak ___" answer. The bot claimed to be from Ukraine, so why not hold the test in Russian or Ukrainian? Make a new requirement that participants must indicate a natural language enough in advance as to find judges competent in that tongue.
The point of the Turing test is that questions such as "what number rhymes with LIVE" or "in which city did the twin towers stand" are hard for a computer to understand and answer but easy for most humans. Good judges can easily invent hundreds of questions that no current AI (with perhaps the exception of Watson) could answer. What this bot did is answer all those questions with "I'm a 13 year old boy and don't speak English very well, so I don't know the answer to ". That's not a pass, that's a cop-out.
Perhaps they should have Turing Tests in different languages? The human or bot must indicate a test language before hand so that judges well-versed in that language can be assembled. I probably couldn't do any better if I was given a Turing Test in French. Having a judge familiar with a particular region would also make it harder for a bot to pass (Can you imagine trying to get an emotional rise out of a Brazilian-based bot on the topic of futebol?).
Only in some circumstances. Please read up on expectation of privacy and right to privacy. When in public, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy (except in places such as bathrooms). You cannot control who may overhear a conversation, take your picture, or film your actions. Not even your garbage is protected, once it hits the curb.
Actually, as a private organization, it would be up to them to decide whether to disallow openly gay players and / or owners. Perspective owners and players would need to know of such a rule (and fans would want to know about it, too). Those who don't agree with such a stance would be free to not participate in nor support such an organization. No one's legal rights would be trampled.
As per homosexual players, I think their teammates should have the strongest word, considering that most locker rooms don't have private showers. Personally, I choose which teams to support based on performance on the field and moral conduct of its owners and players. I don't take into account sexual orientation, but will note if the owner cheats on a spouse.
That is insane. If you could do that, you could do the same to people of religion (or lack of it).
Look at the Boy Scouts of America. They are a private organization who up until recently denied both boys and leaders who were openly gay. Opening up their organization to openly gay boys (but still denying openly gay leaders) was their own decision and not the result of a lawsuit (or threat thereof). The biggest sponsor of the Boy Scouts of America is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Nearly every congregation of the LDS Church has a scout troop. The scout master of each of these congregation-based troops is LDS, but boys of all religious persuasions are welcome. The oath to be "morally clean" doesn't limit itself to any particular faith.
Now look to both presidential campaigns by Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney's family joined the LDS Church in the 1830s. His adversaries constantly called into question his Mormon faith. Huckabee even said that no true Christian could ever vote for a Mormon President. If people judge a candidate based on religion, why not judge corporations?
The main point I wanted to make is that individuals, and not the state, should be free to judge by whatever standard they want. Support organizations with values with which you agree while withholding support from those with which you disagree.
It's not a state thing. It's not the government that's doing anything. It's a private organization that sets it's own fucking rules, dipshit. Just like some country clubs still won't let Tiger Woods become a member or even play because he's not racially "appropriate", the NBA has it's rules and he ran afoul of them, so they are punishing him. Not the state. Not the government. The club. The collection of rich old white men that he belonged to decided he had gone too far, and it had gotten too public.
This isn't a place for your libertarian tirade, so can it.
If I owned a country club, I wouldn't let Tiger become a member because of his moral misconduct and the possible damage being associated with him could cause.
So I guess you'd be cool with it if the NBA choose to enact a "No Homosexual Players Allowed" policy? After all, they're a private organization and don't have to respect anyone's legal rights, right?
Actually, as a private organization, it would be up to them to decide whether to disallow openly gay players and / or owners. Perspective owners and players would need to know of such a rule (and fans would want to know about it, too). Those who don't agree with such a stance would be free to not participate in nor support such an organization. No one's legal rights would be trampled.
As per homosexual players, I think their teammates should have the strongest word, considering that most locker rooms don't have private showers. Personally, I choose which teams to support based on performance on the field and moral conduct of its owners and players. I don't take into account sexual orientation, but will note if the owner cheats on a spouse.
Even if prices end up increasing by 10% but people's income increases by 20% then those people will be able to afford more items (and useful ones, like food and clothing)
Except only those making less than $15/hr will see that increase. As someone who earns more than minimum wage it won't benefit me, and in fact will take away much of my buying power.
Yo ass munch, he'll go to jail for the rest of his life. But I guess the fact he won't receive a fair trial doesn't bother you.
He knew the law and the proscribed punishment before breaking it. You are free to choose your actions, but you aren't free to choose the consequences thereof.
I don't know if Snowden will get a fair trial or not; I don't even know if that's possible given that he publicly admitted to his crimes. I don't know what a fair trial in his case even means. If he broke a law with a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison, then he should spend at least 10 years in prison. If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime. He used social engineering to hack into a system he didn't have rights to, stole a boatload of confidential data, then released it.
Uncompressed video is almost always stored in YUV420 format. This uses 1.5 words/pixel (1 for luminance for each pixel, 2 for chroma for each 4 pixels).
1920 * 1080 * 1.5 * 8 * 30 = 746 Mbps
We call an architecture 32 bits or 64 bits because that's the size of a word. Eight bits is an octet, which is almost always the same size as a byte.
According to Wikipedia, YUV420 uses 6 bytes per 4 pixel. Your math is correct (746.5 Mbps), but you should be careful with the terms you use.
Our judicial system is to judge based on existing laws. New laws come from the legislative branch (separation of powers and all that). The most a court can legally do is to rule a law unconstitutional. Snowden broke the law. He talks about civil disobedience back in the 1960s, but there's a big difference. Back then participants were willing to accept the consequences of their actions in the hopes of bringing about change. Snowden thinks the consequences of the laws he admittedly broke are too harsh, but would consider turning himself in for "a little jail time". Mr. Snowdern, which is more important: informing the public about the egregious acts of the federal government or saving your own bacon?
You should know that ha`ole means "without the breath of life" (eg. soulless). It arose because Hawaiians (and most Polynesians) greet each other by smelling this breath of life (you'll see us put our heads near the other person's neck and inhale). Ha`ole shake hands instead, so the natives assumed they didn't have souls. Of course, today ha`ole is used for any light-skinned individual - including those whose families have been in the Islands for generations. Eighty percent of the time I heard it, it was more charged than the "n" word in English.
Just integrate DRM directly into the hardware -- more power efficient, and it Creates Jobs, Too! (But of course you shouldn't count the energy used for designing and fabricating those little ASICs -- that would be silly!)
The DRM would have to be on the client side, though, so you can't count that as a net savings.
Slashdot Mirror
How about these? calm half salmon talk balk would should
"We should cut the salmon in half and talk calmy" is pronounced by most English speakers without a single audible L in it.
I grew up in Hawaii and Utah:
calm: pronounce the l
half: haff
salmon: sammon
balk: pronounce the l
would: wood
should: shood
Until the country is filled with a larger proportion of people with consciences and sanity installed in their hearts and minds than it is filled with self-serving individuals who, for some mysterious reason, *want* and *enjoy* the thought of others suffering, then we will live in a miserable place which punishes people.
I obviously make more than minimum wage (I think that's true of most, if not all /.ers), but am still in the middle class. The proposals raise the minimum wage without addressing those earning more. My buying power goes down for every dollar per hour more that minimum wage increases, unless my salary also increases. I don't want or enjoy other people suffering, but I must first meet my own needs (and I do mean needs and not wants).
Maybe we should get contracts where are salaries are X times minimum wage (or cost of living) instead of a strict Y dollars.
But the point of the article is that the argument that 'raising the minimum wage will kill jobs' has been disproved.
The article cites data which shows that locally raising taxes doesn't destroy local jobs. The people who argue that higher wages means a loss in employment (or higher cost of living) rely on it happening universally. The locals earning a higher wage can purchase goods produced in an area with a lower wage, thus costs to individuals and companies haven't increased. If all states raised the minimum, there wouldn't be any domestic low-wage alternatives; people and companies would have to pay more or import from other countries.
Colonies are part of the parent nation now?
Hawaii became a territory of the US in 1889, then a state in 1959. Guiana is an Oversees department of France, and not a colony.
and it still won't help Brazil HUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUE JAJAJAJAJAJAAJAJAAJAJAAJ LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
(for you old farts out there, those are all "lol" in different ... languages ...)
You forgot the all important kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk that Brazilians use
Hobby Lobby's owners find it religiously objectionable to provide health care to its female employees that includes birth control. However, they apparently have no religious objections to investing 401K money in companies that make birth control. Making money off birth control = religiously fine. Providing access to birth control = sinful and must be stopped!
Does Hobby Lobby choose which stocks are included in their 401k, or do they outsource to a financial institution?
Go get all the abortions you want, but private businesses have the option to not pay for it.
Funny, that's been my stance my entire adult life. My sect is fine with contraceptives, but sees most abortions as sinful (obvious exceptions exist, such as terminating a pregnancy caused by rape). I share this view, but recognize that others may disagree. Just don't make me pay for it.
If you have a parking space for renting there, I'm pretty sure that would be illegal. Same if they decided to rent your bedroom to a tourist as a B&B. Your rental agreement provided you with your place (I'm guessing an apartment) and a parking spot. The landlord is not able to then legally rent out to someone else what you are already renting. ianal, but damn, there are some things that are pretty bloody obvious and well documented to even the public.
We didn't have assigned stalls in the parking lot (indeed, the stalls weren't even numbered). In non-game days it was first-come first-served. Each resident was allowed to register a single vehicle with the office. Temporary passes were available for visitors, and parking stickers were only enforced after hours or on game day.
I lived in a town home in a college town. Our landlord rented our parking lot out during football games. The landlords made big bucks, but residents had to prove they lived there in order to avoid the parking fee.
Not to weigh in on the south china sea thing. But we have been the "United States OF America" since we were founded.
I have my own theory about the naming of "United States of America": the US of that time wanted to eventually take over the whole continent of America, so the name "United States of America" made complete sense at that point. For one reason or another, they stopped at the border with the current Mexico, after taking over Texas and California. I know this sounds overly ambitious now, but it was a different world back then.
Please read up on Manifest Destiny before making such a claim. This idea of expansionism didn't really take off until the 19th century.
Great, Unicode is already a fragmented mess, and now the standards organization justifies its existence by adding characters that do not exist.
An earlier poster asked why anyone thinks Unicode is fragmented. The answer in one word: fonts. Different fonts support different subsets of Unicode, because the whole thing is just too big. If you expect your font to mostly be used in Europe, you are unlikely to bother with Asian characters. if you have an Asian font, it probably has only English characters, not the rest of Europe. huge. If you have a font with complete mathematical symbols, it will include the Greek alphabet, but actual language support is a crapshoot.
You are correct in the reason that most fonts only contain a subset of Unicode code points. There are thousands of code points. Most documents will only use a small subset. Why should I have to have all those Chinese or Arabic characters when I only write in English, Spanish, Portuguese, and Hawaiian? People who read and write Hawaiian have fonts which support the Hawaiian letters `okina and kahako. Chinese have fonts which support the Chinese glyphs.
As for language support, that isn't a font's problem. It's up to the writer to know how to intelligently combine glyphs into words, and words into coherent thoughts.
>
Even in HTML you only get to set one language for the entire document. Good luck writing a page in Chinese about learning Japanese. The ones I have seen tend to use GIFs to represent the characters that Unicode can't differentiate, but that means you can't copy/paste them and the fonts don't match.
Most elements in HTML accept the lang attribute. Please refer to the W3C
First, that the "natural language" requirement was gamed. It deliberately simulated someone for whom English is not their first language, in order to cover its inability to actually hold a good English conversation. Fail.
That just shows the need of Turing tests in other languages. Intelligence isn't bound to a single language. I speak intelligently in English, but am only conversant in Portuguese, and would have the language skills of a 13-year-old in Spanish. I may pick up words in French or Italian, but I couldn't answer any better than a "I don't speak ___" answer. The bot claimed to be from Ukraine, so why not hold the test in Russian or Ukrainian? Make a new requirement that participants must indicate a natural language enough in advance as to find judges competent in that tongue.
The point of the Turing test is that questions such as "what number rhymes with LIVE" or "in which city did the twin towers stand" are hard for a computer to understand and answer but easy for most humans. Good judges can easily invent hundreds of questions that no current AI (with perhaps the exception of Watson) could answer. What this bot did is answer all those questions with "I'm a 13 year old boy and don't speak English very well, so I don't know the answer to ". That's not a pass, that's a cop-out.
Perhaps they should have Turing Tests in different languages? The human or bot must indicate a test language before hand so that judges well-versed in that language can be assembled. I probably couldn't do any better if I was given a Turing Test in French. Having a judge familiar with a particular region would also make it harder for a bot to pass (Can you imagine trying to get an emotional rise out of a Brazilian-based bot on the topic of futebol?).
Privacy is federally protected too.
Only in some circumstances. Please read up on expectation of privacy and right to privacy. When in public, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy (except in places such as bathrooms). You cannot control who may overhear a conversation, take your picture, or film your actions. Not even your garbage is protected, once it hits the curb.
Actually, as a private organization, it would be up to them to decide whether to disallow openly gay players and / or owners. Perspective owners and players would need to know of such a rule (and fans would want to know about it, too). Those who don't agree with such a stance would be free to not participate in nor support such an organization. No one's legal rights would be trampled.
As per homosexual players, I think their teammates should have the strongest word, considering that most locker rooms don't have private showers. Personally, I choose which teams to support based on performance on the field and moral conduct of its owners and players. I don't take into account sexual orientation, but will note if the owner cheats on a spouse.
That is insane. If you could do that, you could do the same to people of religion (or lack of it).
Look at the Boy Scouts of America. They are a private organization who up until recently denied both boys and leaders who were openly gay. Opening up their organization to openly gay boys (but still denying openly gay leaders) was their own decision and not the result of a lawsuit (or threat thereof). The biggest sponsor of the Boy Scouts of America is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Nearly every congregation of the LDS Church has a scout troop. The scout master of each of these congregation-based troops is LDS, but boys of all religious persuasions are welcome. The oath to be "morally clean" doesn't limit itself to any particular faith.
Now look to both presidential campaigns by Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney's family joined the LDS Church in the 1830s. His adversaries constantly called into question his Mormon faith. Huckabee even said that no true Christian could ever vote for a Mormon President. If people judge a candidate based on religion, why not judge corporations?
The main point I wanted to make is that individuals, and not the state, should be free to judge by whatever standard they want. Support organizations with values with which you agree while withholding support from those with which you disagree.
It's not a state thing. It's not the government that's doing anything. It's a private organization that sets it's own fucking rules, dipshit. Just like some country clubs still won't let Tiger Woods become a member or even play because he's not racially "appropriate", the NBA has it's rules and he ran afoul of them, so they are punishing him. Not the state. Not the government. The club. The collection of rich old white men that he belonged to decided he had gone too far, and it had gotten too public.
This isn't a place for your libertarian tirade, so can it.
If I owned a country club, I wouldn't let Tiger become a member because of his moral misconduct and the possible damage being associated with him could cause.
So I guess you'd be cool with it if the NBA choose to enact a "No Homosexual Players Allowed" policy? After all, they're a private organization and don't have to respect anyone's legal rights, right?
Actually, as a private organization, it would be up to them to decide whether to disallow openly gay players and / or owners. Perspective owners and players would need to know of such a rule (and fans would want to know about it, too). Those who don't agree with such a stance would be free to not participate in nor support such an organization. No one's legal rights would be trampled.
As per homosexual players, I think their teammates should have the strongest word, considering that most locker rooms don't have private showers. Personally, I choose which teams to support based on performance on the field and moral conduct of its owners and players. I don't take into account sexual orientation, but will note if the owner cheats on a spouse.
Even if prices end up increasing by 10% but people's income increases by 20% then those people will be able to afford more items (and useful ones, like food and clothing)
Except only those making less than $15/hr will see that increase. As someone who earns more than minimum wage it won't benefit me, and in fact will take away much of my buying power.
Yo ass munch, he'll go to jail for the rest of his life. But I guess the fact he won't receive a fair trial doesn't bother you.
He knew the law and the proscribed punishment before breaking it. You are free to choose your actions, but you aren't free to choose the consequences thereof.
I don't know if Snowden will get a fair trial or not; I don't even know if that's possible given that he publicly admitted to his crimes. I don't know what a fair trial in his case even means. If he broke a law with a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison, then he should spend at least 10 years in prison. If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime. He used social engineering to hack into a system he didn't have rights to, stole a boatload of confidential data, then released it.
Uncompressed video is almost always stored in YUV420 format. This uses 1.5 words/pixel (1 for luminance for each pixel, 2 for chroma for each 4 pixels).
1920 * 1080 * 1.5 * 8 * 30 = 746 Mbps
We call an architecture 32 bits or 64 bits because that's the size of a word. Eight bits is an octet, which is almost always the same size as a byte.
According to Wikipedia, YUV420 uses 6 bytes per 4 pixel. Your math is correct (746.5 Mbps), but you should be careful with the terms you use.
DNS is to complex: host files FTW
So, instead of a single place to update, I'd have to update the dozen or so internet devices on my network?
Our judicial system is to judge based on existing laws. New laws come from the legislative branch (separation of powers and all that). The most a court can legally do is to rule a law unconstitutional. Snowden broke the law. He talks about civil disobedience back in the 1960s, but there's a big difference. Back then participants were willing to accept the consequences of their actions in the hopes of bringing about change. Snowden thinks the consequences of the laws he admittedly broke are too harsh, but would consider turning himself in for "a little jail time". Mr. Snowdern, which is more important: informing the public about the egregious acts of the federal government or saving your own bacon?
You should know that ha`ole means "without the breath of life" (eg. soulless). It arose because Hawaiians (and most Polynesians) greet each other by smelling this breath of life (you'll see us put our heads near the other person's neck and inhale). Ha`ole shake hands instead, so the natives assumed they didn't have souls. Of course, today ha`ole is used for any light-skinned individual - including those whose families have been in the Islands for generations. Eighty percent of the time I heard it, it was more charged than the "n" word in English.
Just integrate DRM directly into the hardware -- more power efficient, and it Creates Jobs, Too! (But of course you shouldn't count the energy used for designing and fabricating those little ASICs -- that would be silly!)
The DRM would have to be on the client side, though, so you can't count that as a net savings.