7 million sounds scary but it is not that much, only about 11 Olympic sized pools.
I would be far more worried about the treated water they return not being treated well enough. Also, why not reuse your own treated water instead of pumping more out?
They probably could fix those issues. The main hold up with the chips is that they've had no end of problems with their 10 nm process and it sounds as though there are still some substantial bugs to be worked out before they can go into full production. If they don't use this as an opportunity to fix the Meltdown/Spectre vulnerabilities, it would be a terrible mismove on their part.
Unless they get robots to run their factories, they need to pay people to do those jobs. Labor fallows the laws of supply and demand as assuredly as everything else. Why you think this would be otherwise is beyond me.
Personally I think the immigration is great, precisely because it does drive down the cost of labor and makes many goods and services less expensive for me. What I think is idiotic is bemoaning the poor wages for unskilled labor while thinking it's okay to let anyone who wants to come in to the U.S. in. Most Republicans are just as hypocritical for the reverse reason because they'll whine about the expenses of labor but actively want to restrict immigration, some of them even going so far as to stop any immigration. I'd prefer people come here legally, but if I'm being honest I really don't care if a bunch of Mexicans who came here illegally re-shingle my roof if they're willing to do a quality job at a lower price. When it comes down to it, the only color most people really care about is green.
The problem is that Amazon would have no problem replacing any of those employees, so why should they pay any more than they currently do? People who purchase any good or service purchase at the least expensive price available to them when all else is equal or they don't possess sufficient information to discriminate otherwise, so is it any great leap to assume Amazon would behave otherwise?
If you think that's some morally repugnant statement or line of reasoning, ask yourself how you feel about illegal immigration. It generally turns out that same people who complain about poor wages for low skill workers are often the same ones that have no problem with illegal immigration. What do they expect to happen to price of unskilled labor when the available supply is increased?
That sounds well and good until you realize that being "anti-social" won't stop society from taking from the people it deems anti-social. I think you'll also find that anti-social is quite open to interpretation and that the worst people will gladly shape it into some awful tyranny. Imagine what the white nationalists might deem as anti-social, and hopefully that gives you enough pause to rethink your idea.
I have a Netflix subscription, but I probably consume at least three times as much content through podcasts. There's far more variety in terms of content and while I don't think they'll replace all of television, I no longer see any point to late night television type shows where guest interviews only last a few minutes or there's 20 minutes of commercials in my 60 minutes program. There are even plenty of news focused podcasts that I think are vastly superior to what you find on Fox or CNN.
Adaptive sync for consoles is kind of cool and all, but are there any TVs that actually have it right now? I don't think there would be much reason outside of gaming consoles. I suppose you could hook your console up to a Freesync monitor, but that kind of defeats the point of a console.
Why the hell would anyone allow a 4 year old to open a line of credit? They can't possibly consent to such a thing and there's no good reason to allow it. Any financial institution foolish enough to give out credit without doing proper due diligence deserves to get stuck with the bad debt, not the unwitting child. If a bank wants to go after that parents or whoever was responsible, that's on them.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. The summary states:
The overall numbers are likely even higher, said Al Pascual, research director at Javelin said, since their study relied on parents and guardians reporting cases of identity theft. In many cases, the parent or another relative may be the one using a child's identity to start a new account.
That indicates to me that the exact numbers are hard to arrive at because of confounding factors. One is that it relies on self-reporting which may not accurately allow researchers to determine the real extent of the issue. The other is that the parents in their capacity as legal guardians may be creating the accounts for the child in which case it may be difficult to classify as identity theft. In some circumstances this is a legal requirement since children under a certain age are prohibited from having an account without some kind of parental permission or oversight.
What I was getting at is trying to understand for what purpose anyone would steal a child's identity, which I don't believe the summary explains. The article provides some clarification to this point, that in 33% of cases a family friend is signing someone up for an account that they don't want, but doesn't indicate what the other 66% of cases are for. If lines of credit are being opened under a child's name, there's a bigger problem than just identity theft. Maybe that's possible and I'm simply under the misinformed impression that financial institutions were doing any kind of due diligence.
Is there any particular reason to go after a child's identity? It's not as though it's useful for opening a line of credit or anything like that. About the only reasons I can think of is to serve as chaff or a distraction for more targeted activities, because it's an automated process that doesn't know any better and is only doing so for some kind of click fraud to make the clicks seem more legitimate, or because the competition for private grade schools has grown much more fierce and if one person steal the other parent's children's identities they can sign those children up for gay vegan white nationalist hate groups or some such thing that will guarantee that their own spawn has a better chance of getting into the school.
Most of those are just arbitrary rules, on top of being horribly ambiguous or needlessly punitive. The second is a good idea and it would be useful to use those bad patents as training for clerks to help them spot similarly bad patents and nip them in the bud.
You give up money in exchange for an application. There's no guarantee that it is accepted as is or at all no matter what revisions or amendments are made during the approval process. As it is the government itself that enforces the market restrictions that a patent entails, I believe that if they decide an error has been made that they can rescind that patent freely. No one has a government guarantee to a patent racket based on mistakes made by an overworked or incompetent patent clerk.
If you've tried to patent something obvious or that already exists as prior art, you're hardly giving up trade secrets. You might labor under the delusion that no one else is aware of your supposedly clever idea, but that does not make it worthy of a patent or even useful information. Perhaps you're telling the world you're a plonker that things they've invented something new that's been around for decades, and I can see why you might be remiss to let everyone know that, but much like the application fee, it should serve as a reason to do one's homework before filing.
DNA itself may be naturally occurring, but if someone were to invent a novel arrangement that does not exist in nature (rather than taking genes present in some organism and inserting them into another) I don't have any objections to allowing a patent on something like that. If you look at the purpose of patents as allowing a limited duration monopoly on something in order to encourage and reward innovation, then it's hard to see why you'd disallow patents for something like that. If we're going to have patents at all, it should be consistent and not provide special treatment for some domains as opposed to others.
Perhaps by "quietly" they meant that there wasn't a huge fight over it, massive amounts of shit spouting on Twitter, or the usual circus act that goes along with most of American politics in this day and age.
There could well be something nefarious about this as when both the Democrats and Republics agree on something (see the Patriot Act for example), it usually does a really good job of completely fucking over the electorate.
Is it that hard to imagine? Coca Cola cares about selling more bottles of Coke and not at all about going into outer space (unless we find some aliens out there they can sling Cokes to). They'll pay anyone who can help them accomplish the former and don't want to spend a dime on the latter. Unless you have the good fortune (or perhaps misfortune depending on how you look at it) of already have enough wealth to live comfortably on for the remainder of your days, the job opportunities for those lofty aims of yours are rather limited and most of us have bills to pay which means finding someone willing to pay for our skills and talents.
I don't think that's necessarily true. An authoritarian state can have just about any kind of party line it wants to and I don't believe there is anything that prevents an authoritarian state from enshrining social justice values as the law of the land and persecuting anyone who goes against them. You can look at North Korea, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Chile under Pinochet as examples of highly authoritarian states that had some very different value sets.
What you probably meant is that those authoritarian states tend to prohibit counter cultures from emerging and taking hold because they're so good at crushing them before they gain any momentum.
What this point demonstrates that it is Liberalism, Freedom of Speech, and strong protections of Personal Rights that allow SJWs to exist.
You seem to imply that this is a bad thing. Those vary same things allow for all manner of other ideologies, advocacy groups, or people with other points of view to exist as well, many of which have little or no overlap with SJWs in terms of belifs. It's those same protections that allow you to post about it on the internet without anyone from the government kicking down your door and dragging you off to one of those reeducation camps. I would think that having to listen to some idiots whinge on the internet (where you're just as free to dispute them) is a tiny price to pay for those freedoms.
It runs the other way too though. Once you've created some videos that can't be detected, you can use those as training data for the detection algorithm to make improvements to it until it's able to accurately detect those at which point you can train the creation algorithm to make better fakes.
I think you got most of them, but you probably could have dedicated a paragraph or two towards hate for Elon Musk personally. I don't think you can really drive home how terrible Tesla is without pointing out that Elon Musk is a massive failure that can't run a business.
My guess is they don't bother to apply because those elite colleges are expensive as hell and the sticker shock turns people off even if they could receive financial aid that doesn't involve debt hell afterwards. I suspect another reason is that those colleges tend to attract a lot of students from the upper class part of society and they don't feel as though they'll fit in with someone who spends winter break at their uncle's place in the Hamptons or going on a European ski trip.
The fact is that you don't really need to get an undergraduate degree at an elite university. Most students will do just as well by a state school at a much lower cost. If they're really good they'll have the grades to prove it and I believe that the graduate programs at those elite universities offer a lot more value.
I also wouldn't be surprised if those elite colleges are under-recruiting from this segment because they've been trying to push a more culturally diverse recruitment policy for a while now. If you're recruiting goals call for for more students from some category, you'll wind up with fewer from some other category by definition.
While smart phones and cellular (or wireless) connectivity have brought computing and the wealth of knowledge that is the internet to people who previously did not have access to it, they don't provide a way for those people to develop for those platforms. Trying to create an Android app on an Android phone is a non-starter for most people. Although OLPC wasn't successful, I believe that the idea behind the project is still important.
I think they need to go even further than that. The CO2 produced from the constant bloviation and pontificating of politicians produces a not insignificant amount of carbon dioxide as well. Perhaps something could be done to eliminate those emissions as well.
Slashdot Mirror
7 million sounds scary but it is not that much, only about 11 Olympic sized pools.
I would be far more worried about the treated water they return not being treated well enough. Also, why not reuse your own treated water instead of pumping more out?
They probably could fix those issues. The main hold up with the chips is that they've had no end of problems with their 10 nm process and it sounds as though there are still some substantial bugs to be worked out before they can go into full production. If they don't use this as an opportunity to fix the Meltdown/Spectre vulnerabilities, it would be a terrible mismove on their part.
Ask anyone with and stuck with Comcast if they believe they're getting the best service at cost.
Unless they get robots to run their factories, they need to pay people to do those jobs. Labor fallows the laws of supply and demand as assuredly as everything else. Why you think this would be otherwise is beyond me.
Personally I think the immigration is great, precisely because it does drive down the cost of labor and makes many goods and services less expensive for me. What I think is idiotic is bemoaning the poor wages for unskilled labor while thinking it's okay to let anyone who wants to come in to the U.S. in. Most Republicans are just as hypocritical for the reverse reason because they'll whine about the expenses of labor but actively want to restrict immigration, some of them even going so far as to stop any immigration. I'd prefer people come here legally, but if I'm being honest I really don't care if a bunch of Mexicans who came here illegally re-shingle my roof if they're willing to do a quality job at a lower price. When it comes down to it, the only color most people really care about is green.
Let me help you answer your own question:
Do you (or would you, assuming this isn't the case for you) like only having the option to buy internet service from a single ISP?
The problem is that Amazon would have no problem replacing any of those employees, so why should they pay any more than they currently do? People who purchase any good or service purchase at the least expensive price available to them when all else is equal or they don't possess sufficient information to discriminate otherwise, so is it any great leap to assume Amazon would behave otherwise?
If you think that's some morally repugnant statement or line of reasoning, ask yourself how you feel about illegal immigration. It generally turns out that same people who complain about poor wages for low skill workers are often the same ones that have no problem with illegal immigration. What do they expect to happen to price of unskilled labor when the available supply is increased?
That sounds well and good until you realize that being "anti-social" won't stop society from taking from the people it deems anti-social. I think you'll also find that anti-social is quite open to interpretation and that the worst people will gladly shape it into some awful tyranny. Imagine what the white nationalists might deem as anti-social, and hopefully that gives you enough pause to rethink your idea.
I have a Netflix subscription, but I probably consume at least three times as much content through podcasts. There's far more variety in terms of content and while I don't think they'll replace all of television, I no longer see any point to late night television type shows where guest interviews only last a few minutes or there's 20 minutes of commercials in my 60 minutes program. There are even plenty of news focused podcasts that I think are vastly superior to what you find on Fox or CNN.
Adaptive sync for consoles is kind of cool and all, but are there any TVs that actually have it right now? I don't think there would be much reason outside of gaming consoles. I suppose you could hook your console up to a Freesync monitor, but that kind of defeats the point of a console.
Why the hell would anyone allow a 4 year old to open a line of credit? They can't possibly consent to such a thing and there's no good reason to allow it. Any financial institution foolish enough to give out credit without doing proper due diligence deserves to get stuck with the bad debt, not the unwitting child. If a bank wants to go after that parents or whoever was responsible, that's on them.
The overall numbers are likely even higher, said Al Pascual, research director at Javelin said, since their study relied on parents and guardians reporting cases of identity theft. In many cases, the parent or another relative may be the one using a child's identity to start a new account.
That indicates to me that the exact numbers are hard to arrive at because of confounding factors. One is that it relies on self-reporting which may not accurately allow researchers to determine the real extent of the issue. The other is that the parents in their capacity as legal guardians may be creating the accounts for the child in which case it may be difficult to classify as identity theft. In some circumstances this is a legal requirement since children under a certain age are prohibited from having an account without some kind of parental permission or oversight.
What I was getting at is trying to understand for what purpose anyone would steal a child's identity, which I don't believe the summary explains. The article provides some clarification to this point, that in 33% of cases a family friend is signing someone up for an account that they don't want, but doesn't indicate what the other 66% of cases are for. If lines of credit are being opened under a child's name, there's a bigger problem than just identity theft. Maybe that's possible and I'm simply under the misinformed impression that financial institutions were doing any kind of due diligence.
Is there any particular reason to go after a child's identity? It's not as though it's useful for opening a line of credit or anything like that. About the only reasons I can think of is to serve as chaff or a distraction for more targeted activities, because it's an automated process that doesn't know any better and is only doing so for some kind of click fraud to make the clicks seem more legitimate, or because the competition for private grade schools has grown much more fierce and if one person steal the other parent's children's identities they can sign those children up for gay vegan white nationalist hate groups or some such thing that will guarantee that their own spawn has a better chance of getting into the school.
Most of those are just arbitrary rules, on top of being horribly ambiguous or needlessly punitive. The second is a good idea and it would be useful to use those bad patents as training for clerks to help them spot similarly bad patents and nip them in the bud.
You give up money in exchange for an application. There's no guarantee that it is accepted as is or at all no matter what revisions or amendments are made during the approval process. As it is the government itself that enforces the market restrictions that a patent entails, I believe that if they decide an error has been made that they can rescind that patent freely. No one has a government guarantee to a patent racket based on mistakes made by an overworked or incompetent patent clerk.
If you've tried to patent something obvious or that already exists as prior art, you're hardly giving up trade secrets. You might labor under the delusion that no one else is aware of your supposedly clever idea, but that does not make it worthy of a patent or even useful information. Perhaps you're telling the world you're a plonker that things they've invented something new that's been around for decades, and I can see why you might be remiss to let everyone know that, but much like the application fee, it should serve as a reason to do one's homework before filing.
DNA itself may be naturally occurring, but if someone were to invent a novel arrangement that does not exist in nature (rather than taking genes present in some organism and inserting them into another) I don't have any objections to allowing a patent on something like that. If you look at the purpose of patents as allowing a limited duration monopoly on something in order to encourage and reward innovation, then it's hard to see why you'd disallow patents for something like that. If we're going to have patents at all, it should be consistent and not provide special treatment for some domains as opposed to others.
Perhaps by "quietly" they meant that there wasn't a huge fight over it, massive amounts of shit spouting on Twitter, or the usual circus act that goes along with most of American politics in this day and age.
There could well be something nefarious about this as when both the Democrats and Republics agree on something (see the Patriot Act for example), it usually does a really good job of completely fucking over the electorate.
Is it that hard to imagine? Coca Cola cares about selling more bottles of Coke and not at all about going into outer space (unless we find some aliens out there they can sling Cokes to). They'll pay anyone who can help them accomplish the former and don't want to spend a dime on the latter. Unless you have the good fortune (or perhaps misfortune depending on how you look at it) of already have enough wealth to live comfortably on for the remainder of your days, the job opportunities for those lofty aims of yours are rather limited and most of us have bills to pay which means finding someone willing to pay for our skills and talents.
I don't think that's necessarily true. An authoritarian state can have just about any kind of party line it wants to and I don't believe there is anything that prevents an authoritarian state from enshrining social justice values as the law of the land and persecuting anyone who goes against them. You can look at North Korea, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Chile under Pinochet as examples of highly authoritarian states that had some very different value sets.
What you probably meant is that those authoritarian states tend to prohibit counter cultures from emerging and taking hold because they're so good at crushing them before they gain any momentum.
I would assume they have your IP, a cookie, or some unique device identifier and that they've built a profile around it.
What this point demonstrates that it is Liberalism, Freedom of Speech, and strong protections of Personal Rights that allow SJWs to exist.
You seem to imply that this is a bad thing. Those vary same things allow for all manner of other ideologies, advocacy groups, or people with other points of view to exist as well, many of which have little or no overlap with SJWs in terms of belifs. It's those same protections that allow you to post about it on the internet without anyone from the government kicking down your door and dragging you off to one of those reeducation camps. I would think that having to listen to some idiots whinge on the internet (where you're just as free to dispute them) is a tiny price to pay for those freedoms.
It runs the other way too though. Once you've created some videos that can't be detected, you can use those as training data for the detection algorithm to make improvements to it until it's able to accurately detect those at which point you can train the creation algorithm to make better fakes.
I think you got most of them, but you probably could have dedicated a paragraph or two towards hate for Elon Musk personally. I don't think you can really drive home how terrible Tesla is without pointing out that Elon Musk is a massive failure that can't run a business.
My guess is they don't bother to apply because those elite colleges are expensive as hell and the sticker shock turns people off even if they could receive financial aid that doesn't involve debt hell afterwards. I suspect another reason is that those colleges tend to attract a lot of students from the upper class part of society and they don't feel as though they'll fit in with someone who spends winter break at their uncle's place in the Hamptons or going on a European ski trip.
The fact is that you don't really need to get an undergraduate degree at an elite university. Most students will do just as well by a state school at a much lower cost. If they're really good they'll have the grades to prove it and I believe that the graduate programs at those elite universities offer a lot more value.
I also wouldn't be surprised if those elite colleges are under-recruiting from this segment because they've been trying to push a more culturally diverse recruitment policy for a while now. If you're recruiting goals call for for more students from some category, you'll wind up with fewer from some other category by definition.
While smart phones and cellular (or wireless) connectivity have brought computing and the wealth of knowledge that is the internet to people who previously did not have access to it, they don't provide a way for those people to develop for those platforms. Trying to create an Android app on an Android phone is a non-starter for most people. Although OLPC wasn't successful, I believe that the idea behind the project is still important.
I think they need to go even further than that. The CO2 produced from the constant bloviation and pontificating of politicians produces a not insignificant amount of carbon dioxide as well. Perhaps something could be done to eliminate those emissions as well.