The ones who lose are the ones who let these companies be the gatekeepers and tastemakers of music.
It's hard to get away from them entirely, given that (for example) the majority of radio stations in the country are owned by them, but I do my best. I flip the radio off, plug my phone into my car by 3.5mm cable (no Apple tax either), and listen to whatever MP3s and FLACs I damn well please. Plenty of it's made by people with no industry affiliation I paid directly, or by dead people, or people who have chose of their own accord to release the music at no cost.
Which isn't to say I don't enjoy big-name stuff like, say, the Red Hot Chili Peppers as well. But that stuff I generally pirate. I know the corporate leeches get most of the money from their record sales... Insert boilerplate comment about going to shows and buying merch instead... but more radically than that, I don't really give a damn if the artist gets paid or not.
What gets lost in the whole discussion about money is the purpose music should play in people's lives and in our culture. As a musician myself, I play because it entertains me and if I make something good (which is rarely) that sense of accomplishment and hearing the music is its own reward. I'd certainly accept money and fame for it, but I don't presume to demand it. To continue with the RHCP example, I never spoke to Flea and told him, "Play me some slap bass and I'll buy your record." In the absence of people willing to pay, Flea would still be sitting shirtless in a bathtub somewhere, going crazy on that bass. That's what Flea does, that's what Flea loves. There's no implied social contract where *playing*, providing no concrete material benefit for anyone, means you get paid a living wage.
If there is someone out there who *only* makes music for the paycheck... I've got no interest in hearing it, and they're in the wrong line of work. It's a labor of love.
Taken in isolation, you might be able to make the case that arranging a top-level meeting with foreign agents for exclusive information was just a tonedeaf slip-up, and that he's so incompetent that he probably didn't realize any such information would have probably come from their intelligence service, and he just figured this was typical "opposition research." The problem is, I don't take this in isolation. Neither do our courts, thank God - the standard is reasonable doubt. Neither does anyone else whose primary concerns aren't Dear Leader and avoiding that pounding cognitive dissonance. There is a clear pattern of behavior here, and the longer it goes on, the more ridiculous Trump apologists seem. You can't write two sentences without parroting his "Crooked Hillary" meme. That might get you points in your Facebook filter bubble or 4chan cesspool, but it won't get you taken seriously by anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity.
Maybe you should explain why, because it's not self-evident. Wait, that would require analysis and thinking. Perhaps you're worried the analogy would fall flat on its face? So I'll just respond only what you said: (1) Survival of the state should be but one of a state's goals, and not the sole factor in judging its success, (2) The Catholic church's "citizens" are de facto governed by other states, (3) It no longer "survives" in any politically relevant sense in its homeland of Europe, and is on the way out in its last strongholds in Latin America.
I doubt Russia actually expected to work out a quid pro quo with these meetings. It serves their purpose (paralysis of the US government) just fine to simply leave a paper trail of meetings and messages. You can even then take Trump's stories that they discussed crepes and soymilk, or whatever it was, at face value.
But close does count for something, if what counts is Trump's character. He certainly jumped at the chance to commit treason. If what counts is removing him from office, he's subsequently given plenty of evidence for an obstruction of justice charge, which will probably be what he gets nailed on.
What I believe is that there wasn't even any serious attempt by Russia to collude with the President. Anyone familiar with him recognizes him as a fool, he just serves as their "useful idiot" to paralyze the US government and make it even more useless than it was. They wanted to make sure there was a solid paper trail of meetings and emails - to that exact end. Governmental paralysis.
Of course, if there had been any serious attempt to collude with Trump, it would have happened. He jumped at the chance. That jumping is what the Russians were after, and they got it.
My goalpost has always been effective governance, and I don't think tweaking the election system to that end is something we should shy away from, nor is it something that hasn't been happening continually since the founding of this country. Gerrymandering has been in the news a lot lately, but it's an old, old word. Voter suppression has been in the news a lot lately too, but it also has a storied history in America, see poll taxes.
About the College. As initially conceived, voting was limited to male landowners over 21, measures that were intended to make sure the voters had some kind of wits about them. (Misguided, IMO.) To a similar end, the Electoral College was established. They were intended to be level-headed, educated gatekeepers, a check on the popular vote, so that if by some fluke a disastrously unqualified or malevolent actor wins, there'd be that final hurdle. There were also logistical considerations - the fastest way to relay a message was still wax-sealed parchment on horseback. Each state conducts its own election, sends their representatives to the College, and from there they convene for the vote that actually decides the President.
The logistical considerations no longer exist, and the College has utterly failed to perform its other duty as a sanity check. To me that makes a very strong case to get rid of it, even apart from the ideological consideration that it obscures the will of the people. Nobody knows who represents their vote in the College. Nobody pays attention to who gets put there. It's assumed that they will be a rubber-stamp for the will of the electorate, which it obviously isn't. It's one of the pieces of our government that locks us into the two-party system. Hopefully I don't need to explain the damage that has inflicted on our government and our society.
One example of that damage... Any attempt to revise the system to be more equitable to the people, is going to be painted as partisan whining, ironically by the same people who'd otherwise hate the College if they didn't have the impression it gives an advantage to "their guy".
What's laughable is equating the relationship between France and Spain to, for example, the relationship between Finland and Russia, or Ukraine and Russia. But then I suspect you'll call the bomber flyby penetration testing and annexing of Crimea "fake news".
Applying pressure for more equitable NATO funding would be a positive, but in the meantime, we could unilaterally withdraw from the pissing contest in Afghanistan (great security we're providing there...) and use those resources for actual defense against our bona-fide national adversaries.
The only political movement in the United States who sees the Yeltsin era as anything but a brief pause in Russia's global ambitions is... well, you know which one it is. It's a smooth move trying to keep the internal anti-Communist hysteria of the Cold War alive while downplaying the very real geopolitical chess moves Russia still makes - all while supporting perpetual war in Afghanistan, because I guess "We've always been at war with Eurasia" - but if the American people still have any wits about them, it won't quite be smooth enough.
The Gestapo's not at Disneyland, but they are at the airport. No, it's not normal to be strip searched, have your electronics seized, passwords to your social media accounts demanded - not in a free country, anyway.
As for the attractions, perhaps they wanted to see our nature preserves that were de-protected last year, but they're not sure if they have been paved over yet or not. Or they weren't sure if the national parks and monuments that still exist would be open that week, or if our politicians would pick those dates to have their hissy fit.
But there are mechanisms in the law where the exchanges are, which require the exchange to pay out to people who hold accounts. The exchange doesn't need to perform any criminal activity to gain BTC - they already have it. They just don't want to pay out. When they delete it, they don't have to.
Of course they're a drain, but they can already raise rates whenever they like, without technology like this.
The auto insurance market functions much more closely to a free market than, for example, health insurance. It is viable for most people to switch auto insurers, they aren't stuck with whatever their employer picks. Thats an incentive for auto insurers to offer lower rates where possible, to incite people to switch. Currently they determine who the douches on the road are by proxy - do they drive a Corvette? Is it red? Is their email address @hotmail.com? Much more efficient would be to measure the douche factor directly.
Whether they pass the savings on to society or pocket the difference is a totally separate question. Assuming their attitudes in that regard don't change, this still only hurts shitty drivers.
I've seen the idea of simply disconnecting the car's communications antenna(s), but I don't know what the unintended side-effects of this may be, or how complicated that procedure would actually be.
Ford's employees (or any one company) are a miniscule part of the market. The direct monetary incentive is always going to be to pay the employees less and rely on the aggregate demand from everyone else to sell the product. If Ford had control over *everyone's* wages, then yes they could influence the size of the market by doing that.
Air conditioning decreases humidity, not increases it. So in the absence of other factors, like the camera being non-stationary or being buffeted by gusts of non-air-conditioned air at the right time, you'd be wasting your time.
But even this scenario is grossly oversimplified. Obscuring a camera isn't the type of attack that they are worried about. It's more like causing sensors (or the other physical components of a system) to report false data in such a way that it tricks the software into doing what the attackers want it to. It's less "taping over a camera to break into Burger King" and more Stuxnet. You do know what Stuxnet is right? Read up, specifically the details.
Idiocy has many manifestations. One is spending your entire annual income on a vehicle to let people know you are either a redneck or "big pimpin". Another is swinging your vehicle around without knowing where it's going. These two particular manifestations of idiocy compound themselves resulting in collisions.
The fact is that we are in the middle of a mass extinction event on par with the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. Apex predators (like humans) typically don't do well in these events due to their reliance on the rest of the ecosystem functioning. You've been insulated from the need to directly hunt and farm by modern technology, but that doesn't mean it's not critical to survival. In fact, that softness is what makes your survival less likely when the large-scale commercial farming starts to buckle. Like a domesticated poodle left to fend for itself in Alaska. The fact that some isolated pockets of humanity might survive on some corner of the planet seems like little consolation.
Yeah, it's grandstanding. But you don't need to be a scientist or a "liberal" to see that having the most vain, impulsive President with the least understanding of international affairs in our history is a danger. You do have to be a braindead partisan cheerleader to ignore it. The good thing is, I think the military guys in his cabinet will be able to reign him in from disposing of MAD and launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
Funny that this got modded down, since the headline was copied verbatim from the Vice headline.
FWIW, I don't currently have a huge problem with Vice (unless someone wants to educate me), but they are likely to use profanity, which is, directly, how the profanity ended up on Slashdot.
Regarding wide audience - The percentage of the population with a Twitter account is less than the percentage who own a TV or a radio.
Regarding speed - Even if I did have a Twitter account, do I know what the governor's username is? Do I know that the governor's account is the one that will be used to send the message? Do I know that this kind of emergency alert will be disseminated on Twitter at all?
I'd be expecting it through a more official channel. You know, like TV or radio, where emergency broadcasts have always been and continue to be disseminated. I can guarantee you that in each of your three examples, the standard emergency broadcast system was used, and it was no slower than Twitter.
Sounds like a medical problem. I'd recommend talking to a doctor about that. He may tell you to eat less, and eat different. He probably won't tell you to use a more natural posture (squatting, not sitting) but that helps as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Flash memory battery technology.
The ones who lose are the ones who let these companies be the gatekeepers and tastemakers of music.
It's hard to get away from them entirely, given that (for example) the majority of radio stations in the country are owned by them, but I do my best. I flip the radio off, plug my phone into my car by 3.5mm cable (no Apple tax either), and listen to whatever MP3s and FLACs I damn well please. Plenty of it's made by people with no industry affiliation I paid directly, or by dead people, or people who have chose of their own accord to release the music at no cost.
Which isn't to say I don't enjoy big-name stuff like, say, the Red Hot Chili Peppers as well. But that stuff I generally pirate. I know the corporate leeches get most of the money from their record sales... Insert boilerplate comment about going to shows and buying merch instead... but more radically than that, I don't really give a damn if the artist gets paid or not.
What gets lost in the whole discussion about money is the purpose music should play in people's lives and in our culture. As a musician myself, I play because it entertains me and if I make something good (which is rarely) that sense of accomplishment and hearing the music is its own reward. I'd certainly accept money and fame for it, but I don't presume to demand it. To continue with the RHCP example, I never spoke to Flea and told him, "Play me some slap bass and I'll buy your record." In the absence of people willing to pay, Flea would still be sitting shirtless in a bathtub somewhere, going crazy on that bass. That's what Flea does, that's what Flea loves. There's no implied social contract where *playing*, providing no concrete material benefit for anyone, means you get paid a living wage.
If there is someone out there who *only* makes music for the paycheck... I've got no interest in hearing it, and they're in the wrong line of work. It's a labor of love.
Taken in isolation, you might be able to make the case that arranging a top-level meeting with foreign agents for exclusive information was just a tonedeaf slip-up, and that he's so incompetent that he probably didn't realize any such information would have probably come from their intelligence service, and he just figured this was typical "opposition research." The problem is, I don't take this in isolation. Neither do our courts, thank God - the standard is reasonable doubt. Neither does anyone else whose primary concerns aren't Dear Leader and avoiding that pounding cognitive dissonance. There is a clear pattern of behavior here, and the longer it goes on, the more ridiculous Trump apologists seem.
You can't write two sentences without parroting his "Crooked Hillary" meme. That might get you points in your Facebook filter bubble or 4chan cesspool, but it won't get you taken seriously by anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity.
Maybe you should explain why, because it's not self-evident. Wait, that would require analysis and thinking. Perhaps you're worried the analogy would fall flat on its face? So I'll just respond only what you said: (1) Survival of the state should be but one of a state's goals, and not the sole factor in judging its success, (2) The Catholic church's "citizens" are de facto governed by other states, (3) It no longer "survives" in any politically relevant sense in its homeland of Europe, and is on the way out in its last strongholds in Latin America.
I doubt Russia actually expected to work out a quid pro quo with these meetings. It serves their purpose (paralysis of the US government) just fine to simply leave a paper trail of meetings and messages. You can even then take Trump's stories that they discussed crepes and soymilk, or whatever it was, at face value.
But close does count for something, if what counts is Trump's character. He certainly jumped at the chance to commit treason. If what counts is removing him from office, he's subsequently given plenty of evidence for an obstruction of justice charge, which will probably be what he gets nailed on.
What I believe is that there wasn't even any serious attempt by Russia to collude with the President. Anyone familiar with him recognizes him as a fool, he just serves as their "useful idiot" to paralyze the US government and make it even more useless than it was. They wanted to make sure there was a solid paper trail of meetings and emails - to that exact end. Governmental paralysis.
Of course, if there had been any serious attempt to collude with Trump, it would have happened. He jumped at the chance. That jumping is what the Russians were after, and they got it.
My goalpost has always been effective governance, and I don't think tweaking the election system to that end is something we should shy away from, nor is it something that hasn't been happening continually since the founding of this country. Gerrymandering has been in the news a lot lately, but it's an old, old word. Voter suppression has been in the news a lot lately too, but it also has a storied history in America, see poll taxes.
About the College. As initially conceived, voting was limited to male landowners over 21, measures that were intended to make sure the voters had some kind of wits about them. (Misguided, IMO.) To a similar end, the Electoral College was established. They were intended to be level-headed, educated gatekeepers, a check on the popular vote, so that if by some fluke a disastrously unqualified or malevolent actor wins, there'd be that final hurdle. There were also logistical considerations - the fastest way to relay a message was still wax-sealed parchment on horseback. Each state conducts its own election, sends their representatives to the College, and from there they convene for the vote that actually decides the President.
The logistical considerations no longer exist, and the College has utterly failed to perform its other duty as a sanity check. To me that makes a very strong case to get rid of it, even apart from the ideological consideration that it obscures the will of the people. Nobody knows who represents their vote in the College. Nobody pays attention to who gets put there. It's assumed that they will be a rubber-stamp for the will of the electorate, which it obviously isn't. It's one of the pieces of our government that locks us into the two-party system. Hopefully I don't need to explain the damage that has inflicted on our government and our society.
One example of that damage... Any attempt to revise the system to be more equitable to the people, is going to be painted as partisan whining, ironically by the same people who'd otherwise hate the College if they didn't have the impression it gives an advantage to "their guy".
What's laughable is equating the relationship between France and Spain to, for example, the relationship between Finland and Russia, or Ukraine and Russia. But then I suspect you'll call the bomber flyby penetration testing and annexing of Crimea "fake news".
Applying pressure for more equitable NATO funding would be a positive, but in the meantime, we could unilaterally withdraw from the pissing contest in Afghanistan (great security we're providing there...) and use those resources for actual defense against our bona-fide national adversaries.
The only political movement in the United States who sees the Yeltsin era as anything but a brief pause in Russia's global ambitions is... well, you know which one it is. It's a smooth move trying to keep the internal anti-Communist hysteria of the Cold War alive while downplaying the very real geopolitical chess moves Russia still makes - all while supporting perpetual war in Afghanistan, because I guess "We've always been at war with Eurasia" - but if the American people still have any wits about them, it won't quite be smooth enough.
Jailing activists and free thinkers is what leads to quiet compliance. Jailing the quietly compliant is what leads to revolution.
The Gestapo's not at Disneyland, but they are at the airport. No, it's not normal to be strip searched, have your electronics seized, passwords to your social media accounts demanded - not in a free country, anyway.
As for the attractions, perhaps they wanted to see our nature preserves that were de-protected last year, but they're not sure if they have been paved over yet or not. Or they weren't sure if the national parks and monuments that still exist would be open that week, or if our politicians would pick those dates to have their hissy fit.
But there are mechanisms in the law where the exchanges are, which require the exchange to pay out to people who hold accounts. The exchange doesn't need to perform any criminal activity to gain BTC - they already have it. They just don't want to pay out. When they delete it, they don't have to.
In summary... Nothing new is needed but the will to implement solutions that have always been there.
Of course they're a drain, but they can already raise rates whenever they like, without technology like this.
The auto insurance market functions much more closely to a free market than, for example, health insurance. It is viable for most people to switch auto insurers, they aren't stuck with whatever their employer picks. Thats an incentive for auto insurers to offer lower rates where possible, to incite people to switch. Currently they determine who the douches on the road are by proxy - do they drive a Corvette? Is it red? Is their email address @hotmail.com? Much more efficient would be to measure the douche factor directly.
Whether they pass the savings on to society or pocket the difference is a totally separate question. Assuming their attitudes in that regard don't change, this still only hurts shitty drivers.
Mine would be more like:
127.0.0.1 *
I've seen the idea of simply disconnecting the car's communications antenna(s), but I don't know what the unintended side-effects of this may be, or how complicated that procedure would actually be.
Way to pick one of the ONLY positive outcomes of this technology to bitch about.
It sounds like a circle jerk of a startup backed by 500 startups. That's the most I can put together from this article.
Ford's employees (or any one company) are a miniscule part of the market. The direct monetary incentive is always going to be to pay the employees less and rely on the aggregate demand from everyone else to sell the product. If Ford had control over *everyone's* wages, then yes they could influence the size of the market by doing that.
Air conditioning decreases humidity, not increases it. So in the absence of other factors, like the camera being non-stationary or being buffeted by gusts of non-air-conditioned air at the right time, you'd be wasting your time.
But even this scenario is grossly oversimplified. Obscuring a camera isn't the type of attack that they are worried about. It's more like causing sensors (or the other physical components of a system) to report false data in such a way that it tricks the software into doing what the attackers want it to. It's less "taping over a camera to break into Burger King" and more Stuxnet. You do know what Stuxnet is right? Read up, specifically the details.
Idiocy has many manifestations. One is spending your entire annual income on a vehicle to let people know you are either a redneck or "big pimpin". Another is swinging your vehicle around without knowing where it's going. These two particular manifestations of idiocy compound themselves resulting in collisions.
The fact is that we are in the middle of a mass extinction event on par with the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. Apex predators (like humans) typically don't do well in these events due to their reliance on the rest of the ecosystem functioning. You've been insulated from the need to directly hunt and farm by modern technology, but that doesn't mean it's not critical to survival. In fact, that softness is what makes your survival less likely when the large-scale commercial farming starts to buckle. Like a domesticated poodle left to fend for itself in Alaska. The fact that some isolated pockets of humanity might survive on some corner of the planet seems like little consolation.
Yeah, it's grandstanding. But you don't need to be a scientist or a "liberal" to see that having the most vain, impulsive President with the least understanding of international affairs in our history is a danger. You do have to be a braindead partisan cheerleader to ignore it. The good thing is, I think the military guys in his cabinet will be able to reign him in from disposing of MAD and launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
Funny that this got modded down, since the headline was copied verbatim from the Vice headline.
FWIW, I don't currently have a huge problem with Vice (unless someone wants to educate me), but they are likely to use profanity, which is, directly, how the profanity ended up on Slashdot.
(vice.com) at the end of the headline.
Regarding wide audience - The percentage of the population with a Twitter account is less than the percentage who own a TV or a radio.
Regarding speed - Even if I did have a Twitter account, do I know what the governor's username is? Do I know that the governor's account is the one that will be used to send the message? Do I know that this kind of emergency alert will be disseminated on Twitter at all?
I'd be expecting it through a more official channel. You know, like TV or radio, where emergency broadcasts have always been and continue to be disseminated. I can guarantee you that in each of your three examples, the standard emergency broadcast system was used, and it was no slower than Twitter.
Sounds like a medical problem. I'd recommend talking to a doctor about that. He may tell you to eat less, and eat different. He probably won't tell you to use a more natural posture (squatting, not sitting) but that helps as well.