I know that it's difficult to discuss some stories without mentioning companies and products, but this just reads like regurgitated product marketing. It's definitely advertising on Engadget's part, though Slashdot seems to be happy to be enough of a useful idiot to play party to it as well. The summary contains a whole lot of information about this particular movie, but very little about what should be the real focus of the story, YouTube and other new media content platforms starting to get into the production business. The summary even points out how useless this is a story by stating "details on YouTube's plans to actually get the movie into theaters are scarce." Isn't it a journalists job to dig for that kind of information instead of just pushing thinly veiled ads on their readers?
I don't see what's so hard about it. Everything at the grocery store has a price. If you don't like yours you're free to go and find a better one, just as you can choose to shop at a different store. The price is always what someone else is willing to pay, which is a product of demand and availability. Human labor is as much a commodity as anything else in a market economy.
One also needs to consider that regulations also do a good deal to keep new competitors out of a market just as they curtail existing players. Social media may look like a juicy target for disruption or the incumbents ripe for toppling, but if a new entrant need jump through all manner of hoops to do so, they may turn their sites elsewhere.
In some ways what you're saying is true, but I'm not old enough to have grown up listening to music from the 60's as it was fresh and new, but I do honestly think that it's better as a whole than music from any other decade since. I think there are certain time periods when you can somewhat objectively claim as being better at something than others without being blinded by nostalgia.
For example I think the Sci-Fi novels when Asimov, Heinlein, et al. were in their prime are among some of the best and there have been other stretches that just aren't as good. However, I think the 90's were a reasonably good time for Fantasy novels with both the Wheel of Time and A Song of Ice and Fire series being better than most other series that I've enjoyed.
I think one other factor that might make the past seem more exiting that you touch on somewhat without naming is that there's just so much more today that any one thing is a little less memorable than the big events in the past which stood out quite a lot more. All of the amazing innovations from the 70s, 80s, and 90s have been built upon and in turn led to all manner of new and exciting technologies and changes. However, it just feels harder to be really blown away by any one thing when there's so many cool things happening on a regular basis.
It's even a little bit more constrained than that. It's about a set of bugs that require admin rights to exploit in a specific range of ASMedia chipsets that AMD uses in their products.
For these to be a problem for you, you've probably already got a bigger set of problems. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be patched, but that a far bigger deal has been made over this than necessary.
That seems unusually heavy. I know that it isn't going to be light, but are you giving the weight with fuel? Seems like it would be much easier, and no doubt safer, to ship it empty regardless of how it's being moved.
I think that more people are becoming aware of how its almost essentially impossible to discharge student loan debt and that even if you're getting a discount, paying back $80,000 in loans when you have a degree that isn't going to guarantee an ability to pay that back anytime soon is a losing proposition.
I think they could also use them as a showroom for some of their products or popular items. There was an old joke about stores like Best Buy being showrooms for Amazon as you could find a particular television that you thought looked good and then just order it from Amazon.
There was more than one factor leading to this tragedy, and if the end result is change in how these vehicles monitor their surroundings to have more time to analyze and react, excellent, and if the result is a recognition that even self-driving vehicles are unable to avoid such accidents, just as even skilled and careful human drivers are, well, then we've learned that self-driving does not equal infallible. That's important, and useful information.
Who is expecting self-driven vehicles to be infallible in all conditions? No matter how quickly they can react to sensor data indicating an emergency, they're still bound by the laws of physics and may not be capable of avoiding collision with something that suddenly enters their field of observation. I suspect that this incident will help engineers to design a better autonomous vehicle, but as with any new safety feature we create nature has a way of designing better idiots as well. If someone were to jump out (or be pushed in front of) a vehicle traveling at some speed, there's always a limitation to how much that vehicle is going to be able to deviate from its current trajectory and anyone who falls inside of that window is going to be hit. The only thing that can be done about that is to engineer vehicles that can come to a stop within a shorter window.
I don't think everything neatly falls into a conservative/liberal dichotomy. It's also difficult to place subjects squarely into those categories as there's a lot of baggage being carried by both terms. I would generally phrase them both as "seeking to disrupt/maintain the status quo of the past without concern for other factors". In that context religion is obviously conservative as it is studying and enforcing a series of beliefs from a distant past. On the other hand, many fields that get lumped into liberal arts are more concerned with doing something new or shaking up the field for its own sake. Logic doesn't really fit into either as it's not concerned with preventing the production of new types of logic or logical expressions so long as they remain consistent with the existing logic.
There's a great deal of overlap between the two (at least in academia), but it isn't fair to just make that assumption. Sharon Zukin has authored books such as "Beyond Marx and Tito : Theory and Practice in Yugoslav Socialism" and "Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places". Given that I'd probably guess she's a Marxist of some sort. The other author is apparently her PhD student so he doesn't have much in the way of publications.
I can't find a PDF copy or free access to the full text of the publication so I can't speak to its quality, but with quotes like "romance of digital innovation by appealing to the hackers' aspiration to be multi-dimensional agents of change" I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same kind of flowery shit that Sokal made fun of over two decades ago.
Should we allow biased and deceptive stories from news sources that millions of people consider trustworthy journalists, but go ballistic on fringe sites that are untrustworthy?
I'm not sure how you could say that either is disallowed without trampling on free speech, which is far more dangerous than any amount of fake or biased news could ever hope to be. If you think it's such a large problem in need of a solution, I believe that you should try to offer a better, competing product instead of attempting to legislate what people are allowed to consume.
The real issue is that most people have already arrived at their conclusions and will seek out sources to affirm those beliefs regardless of how true or false they might be. There's little incentive to give people objective facts when there are so few people who want them.
I don't believe that's completely true. If we weren't so intent on consuming what the news media put before us, they'd have all gone out of business years ago. You can chide them as much as you care to or claim that as professionals have a responsibility towards acting ethically within their profession, but consumer demand is what ultimately drives business.
I'd give you biased, and occasionally quite dishonest, but they're not going out of their way to invent things that did not happen. Trump has been incredibly successful in watering down the meaning of fake news to the point where it gets applied to anything. You could argue that the news media have made it easy for this to occur because they have such a strong focus on editorializing the news, but during the election fake news was originally applied to stories that were the kind of outright fabrications you might see in a grocery store checkout aisle tabloid.
Every country that industrializes does it at some point. Even the U.S. went through a period where it was thought of as making cheap, inferior goods compared to what European manufacturers could produce.
It's a natural consequence of beginning with little expertise or experience meaning that the only way to compete is on price. As a country does that over several decades they start to build up skill and competency that allows them to command higher prices for their higher quality goods. Meanwhile some other country that's just starting to industrialize realizes that they can only compete on price.
If that were true, I think we'd have seen a massive increase in violent crime by now. Doom came out in the early 90's and by the early 00's we had games like GTA being sold in the millions. Crime rates have been declining all that while and if I had to make a guess part of that may be do to kids staying home and playing these violent video games instead of joining gangs and committing violent crimes in their neighborhoods.
While it's not a substitute for an actual study to understand precisely what type of effect (if any) childhood exposure to violent video games has, a statistical analysis at the population level should be sufficient to tell us that either it doesn't exist, or that it's very minimal.
I'd have to guess demonetization or that YouTube's ability for advertisers to pick which channels they want to target are severely lacking. Otherwise you're basically telling me that there aren't any companies that want to advertise to gun owners, which given the number of NRA ads I've seen on YouTube recently seems patently absurd.
They're really screwing themselves over with it as well as channels are going to start reading some ad copy before videos similar to how many podcasts support themselves financially. Why bother with a YouTube middle man that takes a cut when they'll continue to give away that platform at no cost to the people who upload videos when you can get sponsors to pay your directly? If they wanted to be serious about making money with YouTube they'd be finding a way to get advertisers on every channel, even the idiot neo-nazi ones. Presumably those people are going to need to buy their tiki torches somewhere, so YouTube may as well make a buck. Make it so easy for everyone to get paid just a little bit that no one thinks about skipping out on the YouTube ads and contacting advertisers directly.
That's true, but technology's efficiencies are potentially (I would say "especially") capable of making mass control more efficient.
You can probably argue that incrementally back all the way to the first cave paintings as well though. There's always going to be some new danger on the horizon, but I don't think this presents a long term concern. If something is detrimental towards human survival, those traits which enable it or succumb to it will be selected against in the long run. That may seem painful right now, but it's no less so than the mound of corpses it took to develop an immune response to all of our past threats.
It's always in someone's best interest to let the next genie out of the bottle and even though it will leave another mound of corpses on the landscapes of history, it will move the species as a whole forward. I suppose modern society has afforded people the freedom and ability to go live off in the woods and away from it all, but I think that's just burying one's head in the sand.
Unfortunately, until we can find perfect technology, developed by the Platonic ideal perfectly moral race of beings, technology is going to be used by bad people as a method of control and as a tool for tyrants.
But you can make that very same argument about anything used by humans. The very paper ballots you seem to think are a solution were developed by the same immoral race of beings that have created everything since. Is that technology less susceptible to being used by bad people as a method of control or a tool for tyrants? Given the sham elections done with paper ballots in the various peoples' republics of the world, I don't think they're any more of a safeguard against political corruption than anything else.
If you have a scientifically or mathematically verified model but refuse to use it, the fault isn't with the model. The important part about paper ballots is that anyone and everyone can count them. That paper is used is immaterial, and that people can participate in the verification is the salient aspect of the system. So if you want to have an electronic voting machine, the important part is that everyone can look at the code and verify for themselves that it isn't doing anything untoward.
That's fair. I've heard that meth labs can create powerful explosions if things go wrong and I've heard that many of the chemicals are not safe to be around and can cause serious damage to humans who are exposed to them. No idea if that's the case here (if it were exactly that you'd think they'd have said it was a meth lab, but I suppose it could be some other kind of drug) but there may be other explanations beyond bomb-making.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah but that's the beauty of it though. You can just us a moderation service that filters out whining and spam.
I know that it's difficult to discuss some stories without mentioning companies and products, but this just reads like regurgitated product marketing. It's definitely advertising on Engadget's part, though Slashdot seems to be happy to be enough of a useful idiot to play party to it as well. The summary contains a whole lot of information about this particular movie, but very little about what should be the real focus of the story, YouTube and other new media content platforms starting to get into the production business. The summary even points out how useless this is a story by stating "details on YouTube's plans to actually get the movie into theaters are scarce." Isn't it a journalists job to dig for that kind of information instead of just pushing thinly veiled ads on their readers?
I don't see what's so hard about it. Everything at the grocery store has a price. If you don't like yours you're free to go and find a better one, just as you can choose to shop at a different store. The price is always what someone else is willing to pay, which is a product of demand and availability. Human labor is as much a commodity as anything else in a market economy.
One also needs to consider that regulations also do a good deal to keep new competitors out of a market just as they curtail existing players. Social media may look like a juicy target for disruption or the incumbents ripe for toppling, but if a new entrant need jump through all manner of hoops to do so, they may turn their sites elsewhere.
In some ways what you're saying is true, but I'm not old enough to have grown up listening to music from the 60's as it was fresh and new, but I do honestly think that it's better as a whole than music from any other decade since. I think there are certain time periods when you can somewhat objectively claim as being better at something than others without being blinded by nostalgia.
For example I think the Sci-Fi novels when Asimov, Heinlein, et al. were in their prime are among some of the best and there have been other stretches that just aren't as good. However, I think the 90's were a reasonably good time for Fantasy novels with both the Wheel of Time and A Song of Ice and Fire series being better than most other series that I've enjoyed.
I think one other factor that might make the past seem more exiting that you touch on somewhat without naming is that there's just so much more today that any one thing is a little less memorable than the big events in the past which stood out quite a lot more. All of the amazing innovations from the 70s, 80s, and 90s have been built upon and in turn led to all manner of new and exciting technologies and changes. However, it just feels harder to be really blown away by any one thing when there's so many cool things happening on a regular basis.
It's even a little bit more constrained than that. It's about a set of bugs that require admin rights to exploit in a specific range of ASMedia chipsets that AMD uses in their products.
For these to be a problem for you, you've probably already got a bigger set of problems. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be patched, but that a far bigger deal has been made over this than necessary.
That seems unusually heavy. I know that it isn't going to be light, but are you giving the weight with fuel? Seems like it would be much easier, and no doubt safer, to ship it empty regardless of how it's being moved.
I think that more people are becoming aware of how its almost essentially impossible to discharge student loan debt and that even if you're getting a discount, paying back $80,000 in loans when you have a degree that isn't going to guarantee an ability to pay that back anytime soon is a losing proposition.
I think they could also use them as a showroom for some of their products or popular items. There was an old joke about stores like Best Buy being showrooms for Amazon as you could find a particular television that you thought looked good and then just order it from Amazon.
There was more than one factor leading to this tragedy, and if the end result is change in how these vehicles monitor their surroundings to have more time to analyze and react, excellent, and if the result is a recognition that even self-driving vehicles are unable to avoid such accidents, just as even skilled and careful human drivers are, well, then we've learned that self-driving does not equal infallible. That's important, and useful information.
Who is expecting self-driven vehicles to be infallible in all conditions? No matter how quickly they can react to sensor data indicating an emergency, they're still bound by the laws of physics and may not be capable of avoiding collision with something that suddenly enters their field of observation. I suspect that this incident will help engineers to design a better autonomous vehicle, but as with any new safety feature we create nature has a way of designing better idiots as well. If someone were to jump out (or be pushed in front of) a vehicle traveling at some speed, there's always a limitation to how much that vehicle is going to be able to deviate from its current trajectory and anyone who falls inside of that window is going to be hit. The only thing that can be done about that is to engineer vehicles that can come to a stop within a shorter window.
I don't think everything neatly falls into a conservative/liberal dichotomy. It's also difficult to place subjects squarely into those categories as there's a lot of baggage being carried by both terms. I would generally phrase them both as "seeking to disrupt/maintain the status quo of the past without concern for other factors". In that context religion is obviously conservative as it is studying and enforcing a series of beliefs from a distant past. On the other hand, many fields that get lumped into liberal arts are more concerned with doing something new or shaking up the field for its own sake. Logic doesn't really fit into either as it's not concerned with preventing the production of new types of logic or logical expressions so long as they remain consistent with the existing logic.
And some people wonder why there's no conservative arts being taught in college.
Isn't that what seminaries are for?
Thousand year old religious texts are about as conservative as it gets.
There's a great deal of overlap between the two (at least in academia), but it isn't fair to just make that assumption. Sharon Zukin has authored books such as "Beyond Marx and Tito : Theory and Practice in Yugoslav Socialism" and "Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places". Given that I'd probably guess she's a Marxist of some sort. The other author is apparently her PhD student so he doesn't have much in the way of publications.
I can't find a PDF copy or free access to the full text of the publication so I can't speak to its quality, but with quotes like "romance of digital innovation by appealing to the hackers' aspiration to be multi-dimensional agents of change" I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same kind of flowery shit that Sokal made fun of over two decades ago.
Should we allow biased and deceptive stories from news sources that millions of people consider trustworthy journalists, but go ballistic on fringe sites that are untrustworthy?
I'm not sure how you could say that either is disallowed without trampling on free speech, which is far more dangerous than any amount of fake or biased news could ever hope to be. If you think it's such a large problem in need of a solution, I believe that you should try to offer a better, competing product instead of attempting to legislate what people are allowed to consume.
The real issue is that most people have already arrived at their conclusions and will seek out sources to affirm those beliefs regardless of how true or false they might be. There's little incentive to give people objective facts when there are so few people who want them.
I don't believe that's completely true. If we weren't so intent on consuming what the news media put before us, they'd have all gone out of business years ago. You can chide them as much as you care to or claim that as professionals have a responsibility towards acting ethically within their profession, but consumer demand is what ultimately drives business.
I'd give you biased, and occasionally quite dishonest, but they're not going out of their way to invent things that did not happen. Trump has been incredibly successful in watering down the meaning of fake news to the point where it gets applied to anything. You could argue that the news media have made it easy for this to occur because they have such a strong focus on editorializing the news, but during the election fake news was originally applied to stories that were the kind of outright fabrications you might see in a grocery store checkout aisle tabloid.
They watch it constantly eroding.
Every country that industrializes does it at some point. Even the U.S. went through a period where it was thought of as making cheap, inferior goods compared to what European manufacturers could produce.
It's a natural consequence of beginning with little expertise or experience meaning that the only way to compete is on price. As a country does that over several decades they start to build up skill and competency that allows them to command higher prices for their higher quality goods. Meanwhile some other country that's just starting to industrialize realizes that they can only compete on price.
I recall reading one such paper about this problem, but I don't know if anyone has been able to reproduce the results it had.
If that were true, I think we'd have seen a massive increase in violent crime by now. Doom came out in the early 90's and by the early 00's we had games like GTA being sold in the millions. Crime rates have been declining all that while and if I had to make a guess part of that may be do to kids staying home and playing these violent video games instead of joining gangs and committing violent crimes in their neighborhoods.
While it's not a substitute for an actual study to understand precisely what type of effect (if any) childhood exposure to violent video games has, a statistical analysis at the population level should be sufficient to tell us that either it doesn't exist, or that it's very minimal.
I'd have to guess demonetization or that YouTube's ability for advertisers to pick which channels they want to target are severely lacking. Otherwise you're basically telling me that there aren't any companies that want to advertise to gun owners, which given the number of NRA ads I've seen on YouTube recently seems patently absurd.
They're really screwing themselves over with it as well as channels are going to start reading some ad copy before videos similar to how many podcasts support themselves financially. Why bother with a YouTube middle man that takes a cut when they'll continue to give away that platform at no cost to the people who upload videos when you can get sponsors to pay your directly? If they wanted to be serious about making money with YouTube they'd be finding a way to get advertisers on every channel, even the idiot neo-nazi ones. Presumably those people are going to need to buy their tiki torches somewhere, so YouTube may as well make a buck. Make it so easy for everyone to get paid just a little bit that no one thinks about skipping out on the YouTube ads and contacting advertisers directly.
That's true, but technology's efficiencies are potentially (I would say "especially") capable of making mass control more efficient.
You can probably argue that incrementally back all the way to the first cave paintings as well though. There's always going to be some new danger on the horizon, but I don't think this presents a long term concern. If something is detrimental towards human survival, those traits which enable it or succumb to it will be selected against in the long run. That may seem painful right now, but it's no less so than the mound of corpses it took to develop an immune response to all of our past threats.
It's always in someone's best interest to let the next genie out of the bottle and even though it will leave another mound of corpses on the landscapes of history, it will move the species as a whole forward. I suppose modern society has afforded people the freedom and ability to go live off in the woods and away from it all, but I think that's just burying one's head in the sand.
Unfortunately, until we can find perfect technology, developed by the Platonic ideal perfectly moral race of beings, technology is going to be used by bad people as a method of control and as a tool for tyrants.
But you can make that very same argument about anything used by humans. The very paper ballots you seem to think are a solution were developed by the same immoral race of beings that have created everything since. Is that technology less susceptible to being used by bad people as a method of control or a tool for tyrants? Given the sham elections done with paper ballots in the various peoples' republics of the world, I don't think they're any more of a safeguard against political corruption than anything else.
If you have a scientifically or mathematically verified model but refuse to use it, the fault isn't with the model. The important part about paper ballots is that anyone and everyone can count them. That paper is used is immaterial, and that people can participate in the verification is the salient aspect of the system. So if you want to have an electronic voting machine, the important part is that everyone can look at the code and verify for themselves that it isn't doing anything untoward.
However this was merely coincidence.
Or a quality troll.
Nothing gets the pedants wound up quite like a obvious grammatical mistake.
That's fair. I've heard that meth labs can create powerful explosions if things go wrong and I've heard that many of the chemicals are not safe to be around and can cause serious damage to humans who are exposed to them. No idea if that's the case here (if it were exactly that you'd think they'd have said it was a meth lab, but I suppose it could be some other kind of drug) but there may be other explanations beyond bomb-making.