This is an area where we are already seeing improvements. Vehicles are being developed and equipped with automatic braking to prevent collisions. They don't always prevent collisions (particularly over rated speeds) but they tremendously reduce the impact velocity, and thus serious injuries/deaths.
Change will occur one way or another. Your philosophy often results in writing new software that can do the new things the way potential customers want it.
Your company doesn't want to maintain two applications that perform similar functions. The old will not receive updates or support and will die. So is it better to softly nudge your customers with minor changes, or force them to learn the entirely new software which is quite different?
As your competitor, I know which one I would have you choose... so be very sure that it is worth losing some customers.
However, you can't make it illegal for competition to exist... without expecting the prices to be high.
Yes we can. We regulate them.
What we can't do is assume the free market will sort out a situation when we can't allow free market conditions.
I love free market competition. It works in the vast majority of economic situations. But it cannot work for markets we must heavily regulate and we shouldn't try to force it.
Head/eye tracking and scenery distances over 50 feet would probably substitute acceptable depth perception cues. Just don't get too close to the screen, and don't use a scene with direct sunlight.
I'm curious if anyone has produced such a set up. I wouldn't be surprised.
What I've found with Trump is an unwillingness in certain organizations to actually research and present the facts relative to any decisions, rather framing everything in an opportunity to bash Trump, in many cases undeserved.
What I've found with Obama is an unwillingness in certain organizations to actually research and present the facts relative to any decisions, rather framing everything in an opportunity to bash Obama, in many cases undeserved.
What I've found with Bush is an unwillingness in certain organizations to actually research and present the facts relative to any decisions, rather framing everything in an opportunity to bash Bush, in many cases undeserved.
What I've found with Clinton is an unwillingness in certain organizations to actually research and present the facts relative to any decisions, rather framing everything in an opportunity to bash Clinton, in many cases undeserved.
Eh, I've said Bush already, I think you get the picture.
And this is an example of how conversations devolve when we absolutely insist on forcing everything into one label or another, even if it means redefining the thing.
There are middle grounds. In fact, there are only middle grounds in the real world. Take the extremist ideas back to philosophy class.
This definition means that all of the democratic socialist spouters are wrong and that no European country is actually socialist in any form.
No, it means that larger portions of their economy utilize socialism, but that portions remain capitalist. Many countries (including the United States) can be considered such a mix.
And communism isn't socialism. Communism believes in effectively abolishing the state and going to pure shared ownership. No country has achieved communism.
Of course we didn't need a white paper to find this out. Are you new here?
But if this white paper convinces one legislator that something needs to change, then great... that's at least a small accomplishment, one that common sense has failed to provide.
A not-insignificant number of people would blow through today's LTE plans in a day or two.
I would definitely prefer LTE, it would be 5x my home service (FTTN) download speed and 16x upload. But I work from home and use about 20x the standard "unlimited" data allowance for LTE, so there's no way it would be an effective replacement.
This sounds like UBI funded via variable rate flat tax (which is described in an earlier thread). It's still UBI, since UBI isn't defined by how it is funded but by how it is distributed.
It doesn't mean somebody can buy Apple for $1T. It doesn't mean that shareholders will get back their investment at this stock price, or that Apple is destined to come up with the next big thing. It also doesn't mean that Apple won't buy every company and rule the world. Fact is, we don't know anything except that they are a really big company, which we knew before.
It's pretty common knowledge that fingerprints are less reliable. That doesn't invalidate the argument that neither are infallible.
care to post those scientific proofs of the extreme unreliability of DNA testing?
Selecting the proper DNA to test can certainly be unreliable.
Facial recognition may not even be as reliable as fingerprints, I don't really know. But if facial recognition provides a likely match, DNA provides a likely match, and fingerprints provide a likely match, all to the same person, then you have a more solid case. Courts always prefer ample evidence. (Though the other edge of this sword is that jurors may believe low-quality matches in 3 factors over a higher quality match in one factor.)
Slashdot Mirror
This is an area where we are already seeing improvements. Vehicles are being developed and equipped with automatic braking to prevent collisions. They don't always prevent collisions (particularly over rated speeds) but they tremendously reduce the impact velocity, and thus serious injuries/deaths.
This must literally be THE FIRST TIME EVER we realized admin privileges can allow the user to execute arbitrary scripts.
Oh noes!
(Slashdot needs an edit function)
What I meant to say is, it costs more to maintain two applications than it costs to maintain one.
Why not? How much does it really cost to maintain an old application?
More than it costs to maintain one.
The old will not receive updates or support and will die.
Why?
Because companies don't exist to waste money.
Change will occur one way or another. Your philosophy often results in writing new software that can do the new things the way potential customers want it.
Your company doesn't want to maintain two applications that perform similar functions. The old will not receive updates or support and will die. So is it better to softly nudge your customers with minor changes, or force them to learn the entirely new software which is quite different?
As your competitor, I know which one I would have you choose... so be very sure that it is worth losing some customers.
No claim was made that the area itself is 80 km.
According to Loon each of its balloons, from 20km (12.4 miles) above earth, can cover an area of about 80km (49.7 miles) in diameter
That is more meaningful than saying "5026.5 km^2".
However, you can't make it illegal for competition to exist ... without expecting the prices to be high.
Yes we can. We regulate them.
What we can't do is assume the free market will sort out a situation when we can't allow free market conditions.
I love free market competition. It works in the vast majority of economic situations. But it cannot work for markets we must heavily regulate and we shouldn't try to force it.
George Washington fought against England. Are you admitting that Trump is fighting against the U.S.?
Trump also believes that people should be required to pledge allegiance to the United States. Which is odd for a traitor.
(Or maybe... *gasp*... Trump just wants you to pledge allegiance to him, screw the country.)
Head/eye tracking and scenery distances over 50 feet would probably substitute acceptable depth perception cues. Just don't get too close to the screen, and don't use a scene with direct sunlight.
I'm curious if anyone has produced such a set up. I wouldn't be surprised.
Or is it that people have become so fucking dumb that they really can't type in {website}.{top_level_domain}?
The point is making it easier to read and verify, not making it easier to type.
What I've found with Trump is an unwillingness in certain organizations to actually research and present the facts relative to any decisions, rather framing everything in an opportunity to bash Trump, in many cases undeserved.
What I've found with Obama is an unwillingness in certain organizations to actually research and present the facts relative to any decisions, rather framing everything in an opportunity to bash Obama, in many cases undeserved.
What I've found with Bush is an unwillingness in certain organizations to actually research and present the facts relative to any decisions, rather framing everything in an opportunity to bash Bush, in many cases undeserved.
What I've found with Clinton is an unwillingness in certain organizations to actually research and present the facts relative to any decisions, rather framing everything in an opportunity to bash Clinton, in many cases undeserved.
Eh, I've said Bush already, I think you get the picture.
I give you authoritarianism.
FTFY. Authoritarian societies tend to screw over the people regardless of other factors.
And this is an example of how conversations devolve when we absolutely insist on forcing everything into one label or another, even if it means redefining the thing.
There are middle grounds. In fact, there are only middle grounds in the real world. Take the extremist ideas back to philosophy class.
This definition means that all of the democratic socialist spouters are wrong and that no European country is actually socialist in any form.
No, it means that larger portions of their economy utilize socialism, but that portions remain capitalist. Many countries (including the United States) can be considered such a mix.
And communism isn't socialism. Communism believes in effectively abolishing the state and going to pure shared ownership. No country has achieved communism.
I didn't say we have to disarm the nation. Try again
Great. Since we aren't going to eliminate the black man, we know where we need to start.
Of course we didn't need a white paper to find this out. Are you new here?
But if this white paper convinces one legislator that something needs to change, then great... that's at least a small accomplishment, one that common sense has failed to provide.
A not-insignificant number of people would blow through today's LTE plans in a day or two.
I would definitely prefer LTE, it would be 5x my home service (FTTN) download speed and 16x upload. But I work from home and use about 20x the standard "unlimited" data allowance for LTE, so there's no way it would be an effective replacement.
This sounds like UBI funded via variable rate flat tax (which is described in an earlier thread). It's still UBI, since UBI isn't defined by how it is funded but by how it is distributed.
You wouldn't.
I want to believe you, but I need you to provide a credible source for the statement that is at the foundation of your argument:
It increased to $18 trillion by 2016 as a direct result of the bailout(s)
Again, vanity.
It doesn't mean somebody can buy Apple for $1T. It doesn't mean that shareholders will get back their investment at this stock price, or that Apple is destined to come up with the next big thing. It also doesn't mean that Apple won't buy every company and rule the world. Fact is, we don't know anything except that they are a really big company, which we knew before.
So come to find out, there is a difference between opening your borders and opening someone else's borders.
Also, turns out that pretty much nobody wants fully open borders.
Who knew, right?
It's pretty common knowledge that fingerprints are less reliable. That doesn't invalidate the argument that neither are infallible.
care to post those scientific proofs of the extreme unreliability of DNA testing?
Selecting the proper DNA to test can certainly be unreliable.
Facial recognition may not even be as reliable as fingerprints, I don't really know. But if facial recognition provides a likely match, DNA provides a likely match, and fingerprints provide a likely match, all to the same person, then you have a more solid case. Courts always prefer ample evidence. (Though the other edge of this sword is that jurors may believe low-quality matches in 3 factors over a higher quality match in one factor.)
If you need a hub, then you've already failed.