a so called "pro" user, who by his own choice, buys windows(or any m$ product), or needs it to do anything, or depends on it for anything, is no pro user, but an rank uninformed idiot. same btw goes for anyone buying, needing, or depending, in any apple product.
I'm sure there are plenty of nations that don't give a shit and would welcome research labs.
i am sure there are plenty of nations that wouldn't "give a shit" to test on adult humans in said research labs too.
- in the end question is what is the limit on scientific testing, that harms text subjects, but benefits other humans?
limits at present are arbitrary and irrational (though imperfectly practical); we don't allow healthy humans and late more developed embryos, but allow early ones, we allow some animals, not others, but feel squeamish and hold protests. at the same time we kill and eat animals(sometimes the same ones) and allow even very late embryos to ripped out and burned, and end their "life" in garbage.
all that uncertainty and irrationality inevitably flow from of moral relativism and utilitarianism, which are main components of dominant secular ideology of modern west. if you buy in to that ideology, accept inevitable ethical chaos and irrationality. deal with it! and live(if it lets you live) with it!
when you are, more or less, a marketing company that manage brands, and through media hype can command a premium price for your branded products, over similar products with same quality and features, then, when lose your name, you end up empty.
good to know you got points. but looking at comment ratings, it is clear not much mod points are being spent in aggregate . may be somebody should do a study comparing mod points spent in older threads and newer ones with similar number of comments.
seems very little moderation (use of points)seems to be taking place here nowadays (as in this post, as of this time). has the overall moderation points awarded gone down? is that deliberate decision on the part of new owners/editors? or have the people earning points gone down? as more people lose interest due to left wing biased political, and other rather idiotic non technology, stories.
actually "harder to crack" is not same as "impossible to crack". maybe op should amend his statement to - harder a government tries, the faster a market for 'hackers' able to crack ever harder-to-crack devices will grow. legal millions for police sanctioned cracks . you bet!
i for one feel no pity whatever for bbc or its employees. its is state owned propaganda. it maybe, or may be not (let british decide that), impartial about news inside uk.
but it is is extremely partial mouthpiece of current, secular, so called 'liberal', western elite, and their ideology of death and looting; ever ready to excuse any crime, coup, invasion, torture, drone child killings, spying, etc etc committed by that establishment.
to demonstrate relative "expensiveness" this plant, by using current cost of production ( using current everyday technology and cheap labor, ) of a new pyramid is nonsense, given ancient cost of great pyramid (with then much scarce labor in then most advanced country with then most advanced technology )
absurdity of this approach can be demonstrated by comparing hypothetical selling prices(if they can be sold) of a newly constructed pyramid, with that of actual great pyramid.
it is the current valuation of the object that should matter not its construction cost when determining its "expensiveness".
"Year-over-year" is just financial jargon and has a specific meaning in that context. it is rather absurd to base an argument by taking alleged literal meaning over jargon meaning.
what next? for example, when you read word 'trojan' here, do you expect to see hector or his ilk? or do you expect the legendary greek wooden horse that tricked the trojans?
btw if you are so confident about apple and think you know better than icahn and other investors, all you have to do is to take a long position( and i don't mean any change in your body length or some such) on the stock. may be you will become a billionaire like him.
ideally, computing hardware running AI should be developed separately ( by many companies ), so many deferent 'AI's can be created by many companies/groups separately, to run on those hardarews to interact with generic prototype vehicles/interfaces, then many different vehicle producers can create many actual models to sell, enhancing those generics with added customized features that can be marketed.
doing all of the creating from start to selling, or at least most of that, by a single company, while other similar companies also do most of that separately, is a bad way to go.
many groups creating each separate part, and competing with each other to get those lower down to accept their creation, will benefit all.
"... closing the traditional route of export-oriented manufacturing economy..." will be replaced by route of export-oriented service economies. they will either provide services from distance using technology, or export labor/people providing the services. just as people who were doing manufacturing in richer countries lost their jobs to countries that can manufacture and export cheaper, now people who are providing services (from totally unskilled to highly professional) in richer countries will start loosing their jobs.
the objection that services cannot be transfered to others is a myth, in most cases. if the service provided create no strong emotional connection between provider and receiver, it can be transfered to others, with aid of modern technology.
actually in an economy like usa, where almost anybody can start a business, and great ideas and new technology can find venture capital money to grow, a truly "smart executives" won't "diversify" an established company , but will focus his company on core competencies.
diverting resources and managing businesses you don't know much about, almost always lose money . market capitalization of (non financial/investment vehicle) conglomerates are always less than sum of their parts ( if parts are listed. )
those who are interested in developing a new technology( even the said executive), that lies outside his competence, can invest, separately, in companies that focus on that particular technology. don't drag a company with a core successful competence in to it.
also, that way people know and probably started the new technology business can continue to grow as needed. a big company buying those people out and binding then with big company executives and targets will only hamper them and potential of new technology.
currently big techs in usa are getting away with throwing money, at all sorts of external projects. only because their core is making lots of money. but if and when cash cow core stalls, there would be trouble for those projects and executives who were throwing away the money.
its great that cisco finds other people's backdoors, but cisco should come clean about backdoors it lets usa government incorporate into its own routers.
since your comment assumes things that cannot be rationally deduced from my comment, i can only hope that you will at least read my comment before replying, if you can read that is. while you are about it, hope you read the main most and article too.
there is blatant bias in main british empire article (or as you say "leans towards the traditional historical views"). those attempt to remove that 'leaning' with well cited factual details (some of which are used without problem in some of other articles you cite) are censored and banned from wikipedia, by entrenched privileged editors. (that is the way to "represent the range of views"? ). even the discussion page is censored. ( for confirmation see history pages, of the article and of discussion page, in date change sequence ).
your attempt to white wash that coerced bias, perpetrated by entrenched editors, by pointing out that other specialized articles contain some of the material that is censored from main article does not work; as i already pointed out above, main articles on other similar regimes do contains fuller accounts of similar well cited actions in their main article, in addition to specialized articles.
it is laughable when privileged persons doing the censoring and banning (or their supporters) accuse unprivileged others who are censored and banned(or their supporters) of presenting a one-sided view !? who in wikipedia have the powers to ban and censor others to present a one sided view? have they used those powers!
it is people who tried to contribute to raise this article to same unbiased standard( after making their case at length in discussion page ) that got banned and censored. they are one-sided? ha!
all without prejudices, who want to confirm the bias in wikipedia's british empire article, go through history pages to, 1/read the material that is censored,(even from discussion page), 2/note who has power, and is using that to censor and ban, to continue to maintain bias, 3/ contrast content of similar articles on other regimes, as well as specialized articles of atrocities, noting the omissions and differences.
entrenched editors at wikimedia have made content there highly biased. for example check the article on british empire; attempts to include the factual cited details about british empire's mass murders and genocides, ethnic cleansings(well in to 1970s) , regime sanctioned slavery and bonded labor, preventable famines that killed millions(in to 1940s), large scale land and resource grabs, destruction and looting of cultural treasures, regular revolts and protests against regime ( both violent and non violent) in almost every colony, and their brutal suppressions, are censored(except for a unavoidable line or two). people who attempt to include any of that are regularly banned from wikipedia . even comment page for british empire article is censored to prevent discussion of sources. see the history page of the article and comments page in date sequence and changes to confirm this.
contrast this to inclusion of such details about equally horrible actions by similarly brutish regimes like on ussr, communist china, nazi germany, etc. .
"Imagine them having this in their backpack, pulling it out and telling it, 'Hey, go scout out there. Check whether it's hot...." yeah imagine terrorist/protester/prankster/etc with backpack drone with fire-making ping-pong balls saying that.
to add to my reply since you include Sam Walton , my point was , as i already spelled out, precisely that there are no longer billionaires who grew up poor like Sam Walton, who is from an earlier generation than other americans
i am referring to usa . all the americans you refer were well off with regard to family that they grew up in . as i said "only children of educated upper middle class seems to get to the top. you start your company in your parents ample garage ". parents as in family one grows up in and pays for ones education.
theory and ideal (and propaganda) about usa government are very different from actual reality. historically as well as now.
its good to have ideals and aspire to them , but nobody should be shocked that ideals are not real and usa government is in effect more or less controlled by wealthy. in fact even in federalist papers, this is foreseen, and a solution (which is not an ideal) is proposed.
how to prevent government from being captured by wealthy? create opportunity to have lots of wealthy people, with conflicting interests, prevent the wealthy from solidifying into a permanent aristocracy and elite through generations, and allow for maximum income, social, and class, mobility, so that there is very high turnover in the people who constitute the wealthy.
this seems to have worked so far , but may not work in future.
economic mobility still happens, but in a very restricted sense. truly poor no longer become billionaires, as once happened, only children of educated upper middle class seems to get to the top. you start your company in your parents ample garage . you no longer start in streets in poorer part of town.
and educated elite in upper middle class seems to be solidifying in to a broad aristocracy with its own ideology, reinforced with high cost of education. without networking and education at elite schools, one cannot get the best paying jobs and have access to capital.
so the real story is not capture of government by google in particular to benefit google, and harm other companies and masses.
real story is capture of government by an elite with its own ideology, and interests, and wants them satisfied vs rest of population . people who work at google, apple, various banks , and other successful companies, tend to think and act alike.
Slashdot Mirror
a so called "pro" user, who by his own choice, buys windows(or any m$ product), or needs it to do anything, or depends on it for anything, is no pro user, but an rank uninformed idiot.
same btw goes for anyone buying, needing, or depending, in any apple product.
I'm sure there are plenty of nations that don't give a shit and would welcome research labs.
i am sure there are plenty of nations that wouldn't "give a shit" to test on adult humans in said research labs too.
-
in the end question is what is the limit on scientific testing, that harms text subjects, but benefits other humans?
limits at present are arbitrary and irrational (though imperfectly practical); we don't allow healthy humans and late more developed embryos, but allow early ones, we allow some animals, not others, but feel squeamish and hold protests.
at the same time we kill and eat animals(sometimes the same ones) and allow even very late embryos to ripped out and burned, and end their "life" in garbage.
all that uncertainty and irrationality inevitably flow from of moral relativism and utilitarianism, which are main components of dominant secular ideology of modern west.
if you buy in to that ideology, accept inevitable ethical chaos and irrationality.
deal with it! and live(if it lets you live) with it!
when you are, more or less, a marketing company that manage brands, and through media hype can command a premium price for your branded products, over similar products with same quality and features, then, when lose your name, you end up empty.
good to know you got points.
but looking at comment ratings, it is clear not much mod points are being spent in aggregate .
may be somebody should do a study comparing mod points spent in older threads and newer ones with similar number of comments.
unfortunately you will voted down here for being factual and rational.
alarmists want only irrational fear-mongering fantasy. oh /.!
seems very little moderation (use of points)seems to be taking place here nowadays (as in this post, as of this time).
has the overall moderation points awarded gone down?
is that deliberate decision on the part of new owners/editors?
or have the people earning points gone down? as more people lose interest due to left wing biased political, and other rather idiotic non technology, stories.
or both?
actually "harder to crack" is not same as "impossible to crack".
maybe op should amend his statement to -
harder a government tries, the faster a market for 'hackers' able to crack ever harder-to-crack devices will grow.
legal millions for police sanctioned cracks . you bet!
i for one feel no pity whatever for bbc or its employees. its is state owned propaganda.
it maybe, or may be not (let british decide that), impartial about news inside uk.
but it is is extremely partial mouthpiece of current, secular, so called 'liberal', western elite, and their ideology of death and looting; ever ready to excuse any crime, coup, invasion, torture, drone child killings, spying, etc etc committed by that establishment.
i don't intend to pity goebbels of modern day.
to demonstrate relative "expensiveness" this plant, by using current cost of production ( using current everyday technology and cheap labor, ) of a new pyramid is nonsense, given ancient cost of great pyramid (with then much scarce labor in then most advanced country with then most advanced technology )
absurdity of this approach can be demonstrated by comparing hypothetical selling prices(if they can be sold) of a newly constructed pyramid, with that of actual great pyramid.
it is the current valuation of the object that should matter not its construction cost when determining its "expensiveness".
usa imposed 266% duty on chinese steel imports in march.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-...
seems that failed to help push overpriced bad products
"Year-over-year" is just financial jargon and has a specific meaning in that context.
it is rather absurd to base an argument by taking alleged literal meaning over jargon meaning.
what next? for example, when you read word 'trojan' here, do you expect to see hector or his ilk? or do you expect the legendary greek wooden horse that tricked the trojans?
btw if you are so confident about apple and think you know better than icahn and other investors, all you have to do is to take a long position( and i don't mean any change in your body length or some such) on the stock. may be you will become a billionaire like him.
gchq is doing, at a cost of billions for taxpayers, what many security researchers are doing for free.
leave it for british to be that stupid.
ideally,
computing hardware running AI should be developed separately ( by many companies ),
so many deferent 'AI's can be created by many companies/groups separately, to run on those hardarews to interact with generic prototype vehicles/interfaces,
then many different vehicle producers can create many actual models to sell, enhancing those generics with added customized features that can be marketed.
doing all of the creating from start to selling, or at least most of that, by a single company, while other similar companies also do most of that separately, is a bad way to go.
many groups creating each separate part, and competing with each other to get those lower down to accept their creation, will benefit all.
"... closing the traditional route of export-oriented manufacturing economy ..."
will be replaced by route of export-oriented service economies. they will either provide services from distance using technology, or export labor/people providing the services.
just as people who were doing manufacturing in richer countries lost their jobs to countries that can manufacture and export cheaper, now people who are providing services (from totally unskilled to highly professional) in richer countries will start loosing their jobs.
the objection that services cannot be transfered to others is a myth, in most cases. if the service provided create no strong emotional connection between provider and receiver, it can be transfered to others, with aid of modern technology.
actually in an economy like usa, where almost anybody can start a business, and great ideas and new technology can find venture capital money to grow, a truly "smart executives" won't "diversify" an established company , but will focus his company on core competencies.
diverting resources and managing businesses you don't know much about, almost always lose money .
market capitalization of (non financial/investment vehicle) conglomerates are always less than sum of their parts ( if parts are listed. )
those who are interested in developing a new technology( even the said executive), that lies outside his competence, can invest, separately, in companies that focus on that particular technology. don't drag a company with a core successful competence in to it.
also, that way people know and probably started the new technology business can continue to grow as needed. a big company buying those people out and binding then with big company executives and targets will only hamper them and potential of new technology.
currently big techs in usa are getting away with throwing money, at all sorts of external projects. only because their core is making lots of money. but if and when cash cow core stalls, there would be trouble for those projects and executives who were throwing away the money.
its great that cisco finds other people's backdoors, but cisco should come clean about backdoors it lets usa government incorporate into its own routers.
since your comment assumes things that cannot be rationally deduced from my comment, i can only hope that you will at least read my comment before replying, if you can read that is.
while you are about it, hope you read the main most and article too.
but i only hope, given your status as an ac.
forget delays, forget budget overruns, forget subsidies, forget failures, forget others, just focus on hype and dreams!
at this rate musk will land on mars using hype alone. and fanboys will take that for the real thing.
there is blatant bias in main british empire article (or as you say "leans towards the traditional historical views").
those attempt to remove that 'leaning' with well cited factual details (some of which are used without problem in some of other articles you cite) are censored and banned from wikipedia, by entrenched privileged editors. (that is the way to "represent the range of views"? ). even the discussion page is censored. ( for confirmation see history pages, of the article and of discussion page, in date change sequence ).
your attempt to white wash that coerced bias, perpetrated by entrenched editors, by pointing out that other specialized articles contain some of the material that is censored from main article does not work; as i already pointed out above, main articles on other similar regimes do contains fuller accounts of similar well cited actions in their main article, in addition to specialized articles.
it is laughable when privileged persons doing the censoring and banning (or their supporters) accuse unprivileged others who are censored and banned(or their supporters) of presenting a one-sided view !?
who in wikipedia have the powers to ban and censor others to present a one sided view? have they used those powers!
it is people who tried to contribute to raise this article to same unbiased standard( after making their case at length in discussion page ) that got banned and censored. they are one-sided? ha!
all without prejudices, who want to confirm the bias in wikipedia's british empire article, go through history pages to,
1/read the material that is censored,(even from discussion page),
2/note who has power, and is using that to censor and ban, to continue to maintain bias,
3/ contrast content of similar articles on other regimes, as well as specialized articles of atrocities, noting the omissions and differences.
facts are the best antidote to whitewash,
entrenched editors at wikimedia have made content there highly biased.
for example check the article on british empire;
attempts to include the factual cited details about british empire's mass murders and genocides, ethnic cleansings(well in to 1970s) , regime sanctioned slavery and bonded labor, preventable famines that killed millions(in to 1940s), large scale land and resource grabs, destruction and looting of cultural treasures, regular revolts and protests against regime ( both violent and non violent) in almost every colony, and their brutal suppressions, are censored(except for a unavoidable line or two). people who attempt to include any of that are regularly banned from wikipedia .
even comment page for british empire article is censored to prevent discussion of sources.
see the history page of the article and comments page in date sequence and changes to confirm this.
contrast this to inclusion of such details about equally horrible actions by similarly brutish regimes like on ussr, communist china, nazi germany, etc. .
"Imagine them having this in their backpack, pulling it out and telling it, 'Hey, go scout out there. Check whether it's hot. ..."
yeah imagine terrorist/protester/prankster/etc with backpack drone with fire-making ping-pong balls saying that.
limited, 'safe', 'just' (as in 'fair' and equal), static, VS unlimited, 'dangerous' , 'just' (as in meritocratic), dynamic.
to add to my reply since you include Sam Walton , my point was , as i already spelled out, precisely that there are no longer billionaires who grew up poor like Sam Walton, who is from an earlier generation than other americans
i am referring to usa .
all the americans you refer were well off with regard to family that they grew up in .
as i said "only children of educated upper middle class seems to get to the top. you start your company in your parents ample garage ". parents as in family one grows up in and pays for ones education.
theory and ideal (and propaganda) about usa government are very different from actual reality. historically as well as now.
its good to have ideals and aspire to them , but nobody should be shocked that ideals are not real and usa government is in effect more or less controlled by wealthy. in fact even in federalist papers, this is foreseen, and a solution (which is not an ideal) is proposed.
how to prevent government from being captured by wealthy? create opportunity to have lots of wealthy people, with conflicting interests, prevent the wealthy from solidifying into a permanent aristocracy and elite through generations, and allow for maximum income, social, and class, mobility, so that there is very high turnover in the people who constitute the wealthy.
this seems to have worked so far , but may not work in future.
economic mobility still happens, but in a very restricted sense.
truly poor no longer become billionaires, as once happened, only children of educated upper middle class seems to get to the top. you start your company in your parents ample garage . you no longer start in streets in poorer part of town.
and educated elite in upper middle class seems to be solidifying in to a broad aristocracy with its own ideology, reinforced with high cost of education. without networking and education at elite schools, one cannot get the best paying jobs and have access to capital.
so the real story is not capture of government by google in particular to benefit google, and harm other companies and masses.
real story is capture of government by an elite with its own ideology, and interests, and wants them satisfied vs rest of population . people who work at google, apple, various banks , and other successful companies, tend to think and act alike.