The news agencies backed by Russia and other similar governments aren't dependent on getting views either. Don't be so quick to propose that model as a solution.
The problem isn't that journalism is profit driven. Were that the case, this would have already happened decades ago when the news media was every bit as profit driven. In some ways it already did happen, but we look back at those good old days through a rose colored lens and neglect to remember that there was similar levels of sensationalism and partisanism. Look at something like the National Enquirer and tell me that fake news is a recent phenomena. The term "yellow journalism" dates back over a century. None of this is a new problem.
The real issue is that the internet and a host of other technologies have made it incredibly inexpensive for anyone to do reporting, which means that the traditional news media is being squeezed by independent or small organizations that don't have the added expenses that old outfits have. When something becomes less expensive to produce, you naturally get more of it. Now there's hundreds of people offering hundreds of takes.
If you want a conservative point of view, there are people who will provide that. If you want a liberal point of view, there're plenty of people to provide that as well. There's everything in between and even more extreme. If you're a batshit crazy loon, there's someone out there catering to that as well. They were always there, but it was a lot harder to distribute their little pamphlets or newsletters 30 years ago, whereas today they can broadcast to the entire world and powerful search engines and social media have made it easy for people to find what they're looking for.
When Canadian record companies wanted to put a tax on blank CDs because they claimed that piracy was destroying their business, people here rightly criticized them. I think the same applies here. Find a way to adapt or get the hell out of the way of those that are trying to do so. Journalism will continue to exist even if it looks completely different to the way it does now, just like music would continue to exist without the record companies.
Sure you can pay with your face, unless your social credit score is too low. Then it will probably just signal the authorities to come round you up and send you away. Eventually the camps will be done processing all of the Uyghurs and they'll need some new grist for the mill.
It's frankly none of your or anyone else's business who someone else votes for. You don't have to look much further than the hate mob that social media has devolved into to see why this would be a terrible idea. Never mind all of the little situations like a spouse threatening their partner if they don't vote a certain way and now being able to verify that outcome.
Also:/. is FB's availability page now? What gives?
The editors probably just piss away time on Facebook all day, which explains why the story was so timely. Typically I'm used to stuff taking a day or two to show up here, which isn't necessarily bad, but they had that story up right away. I think there was a previous time within the last year when the reported that Facebook was down. They might have been aware of it before someone managed to get the message to Zuck.
After the spaghetti link in an article summary the other day, it's pretty obvious that there isn't a lot of editing being done, not that this site was every really know for it. This really is stuff that matters, only to myopic nitwits.
I'm assuming that until recently the processors weren't able to handle the processing quickly enough. I wouldn't be surprised to learn if there's some dedicated hardware that's been added to the SoCs in the latest phones that enable doing this on the device itself. Apple put in some dedicated neural network hardware in their latest SoC to help with photography and other workloads. I believe that the Qualcomm SoC in the Pixel has similar hardware that might be useful for doing speech to text.
The data is highly suggestive and methodology flawed to make any decisions.
It makes me feel safer to know that you only sort of see an effect even after cranking up the levels far beyond the maximum legal limits and having constant exposure to the radiation.
I'm beginning to think that cryptocurrency is some of the best value you can get for your money. At least in terms of entertainment for the people who didn't invest in any of it. Maybe it will all eventually settle down and turn into a respectable currency, but right now you can't find a bigger shit show anywhere and it's utterly engrossing. We should at least require that all cryptocurrency algorithms do something useful like protein folding so that at least some good comes out of all of this idiocy.
I think that might be a bit of an oversimplification. The overseas market really doesn't care too much about any political message agenda a film might or might not have unless it targets them in some way. I've seen plenty of foreign films that supposedly have political messages that go completely over my head since I'm not familiar with what was going on in the country, so it doesn't stand out to me.
Also Ghostbusters wasn't shown in China because the government has a thing about showing films that contain ghosts or spirits in them so it didn't get any boost from China that other films would get. I guess there's a new Ghostbusters that's getting made that's supposed to be a sequel to the first two, but unless it gets the original cast back outside of cameos, I don't think it will do much better than the previous reboot attempt. Even then, I don't really know if it will be anything but a shameless cash grab.
I think this goes to show how much everyone overreacted to some idiots trying to bot online numbers. I think it just goes to show that people need to get out more. It only seems like people give a shit about any of this because there's a small group of busy bodies on social media that don't have anything better to do and end up sounding a lot louder than they number in reality.
As always ask yourself this: When, in your lifetime, has the best answer to a complex problem been "leave it alone and hope it sorts itself out"?
As opposed to the government getting involved? I'll take "leave it alone" every time when it comes to the economy. Central planning failed spectacularly under every Soviet-era communist government and those that have tried emulating it more recently (see Venezuela) have met similar results.
TL;DR: raise federal minimum wage and the workers can quit and go elsewhere when a manager pulls this crap.
When you increase the minimum wage, you drive companies to invest in automation. You're going to see the jobs that used to be minimum wage positions eroded more and more. You can see the effects in American Samoa for yourself. Trying to demand something exist by government decree doesn't make it so any more than it clothes the emperor.
This is basic supply and demand. By raising the price of labor, you decrease the demand for it. Workers aren't going to be able to quit and go elsewhere because the effects of this reduce the number of jobs for them to go to, which means that they're going to stay put and deal with the new demands.
Completely wrong. It sets a floor for the minimal legal price you can sell your labor. The reality is that people end up with no job, because their labor isn’t that valuable. Most people increase the value of their labor by improving their skills while working.
You pay yourself on the back because you think your helping. In reality you’re just trapping people in poverty or driving them to the type of work that doesn’t operate within the confines of the law.
I think that would do as much to undermine trust in government as it would to diminish trust in crypto currencies. It also damages the reputation of whomever doesn’t uphold their end of the contract, which is bad for future business.
What's being said is that the part time workers who have had their hours cut were already working fewer than 30 hours so they wouldn't have lost benefits. Someone else claimed in another post that Whole Foods gives benefits to part time works anyway so unless they quit doing that, nothing would change here either.
Companies that were going to slash hours to avoid paying benefits would have already done so years ago.
It could work for something like Apple or Google where they rake in massive profits, but grocery chains have incredibly slim margins. The largest chain, Kroger, did over $120 billion in revenue last year (almost an order of magnitude more than Whole Foods) but ended up making slightly less than $2 billion in profit.
Whole Foods might have better margins since they're a little upscale, but that additional profit tends to attract competition. Unless they're doing something that other companies can't emulate, they'll tend towards the industry average as time goes on. I looked back before the Amazon purchase for their financial statements and in one quarter of 2016 they had a revenue of $3.5 billion and $88 million net income or about 2.5% profit which is inline with the rest of the industry.
It has been obvious for at least a century that market forces are insufficient to promote the general welfare of all citizens, but the answer is not to combat market forces.
I'm not sure that's at all obvious. Market forces have driven the standard of living in those countries that don't mess with them to the highest the world has ever seen. It's the countries that think they know better and can dictate how the market must work that fail to meet the general welfare of their citizenry. Look at Venezuela where almost 10% of the population has fled the country to avoid starvation. Even the Scandinavian countries that are often praised for their strong social safety nets have some of the freest markets in the world.
Centrally directed economies tend to be much less efficient than market economies and as a result mean that less wealth is generated. People get too hung up on the fact that someone has more (while ignoring that they often invest that more in new businesses that provide jobs) and forget that there isn't much sense to being equal if you're equally poor.
The doctor that failed him was his own, on-site doctor.
I'm sure there was absolutely nothing better he or she could be doing with his or her time than telling someone who had none left that same very fact. There's a finite number of doctors with a finite amount of time and that time is probably of more use elsewhere.
In fairytale world, I'm sure the doctor could have come and spent several hours with the man giving him some life affirming realization so that he was able to come to terms with his own mortality and find peace in his final moments. Meanwhile in reality that doctor probably hasn't gotten decent sleep lately and is trying to keep the clock from running out on the other patients. Sometimes life sucks and we don't get the Disney version of the story.
I'll give the doctor the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he was busy trying to save someone else who had a chance of living and didn't have time to sit around trying to comfort someone whose time was up.
you'll probably find that just 7 companies made 80% of the stuff you own. We gave up on enforcing antitrust laws and let companies merge whenever they wanted.
Then why do you keep buying from them? I've got products from scores of different companies and there are several companies I won't buy products from because of their past actions and poor customer support. If you're too weak willed or careless to take that effort, then frankly you deserve what you get.
I'll thank you very much to keep your damned politics away from me. It's the well meaning assholes that always screw it up for everyone else. You think you can build some utopia, but really you just end creating hell.
Seems like a good opportunity for someone in the EU to start a business that will hold these domains for British companies and forward them to the appropriate.uk or.com for the people who don’t update to the new domains.
As far as issues surrounding Brexit go, this is pretty inconsequential.
If you're rich enough you just pay cash to have someone else go buy the thing for you. It's not particularly difficult and some stores will always take cash simply because they get the business of anyone who only carries cash.
Slashdot Mirror
The news agencies backed by Russia and other similar governments aren't dependent on getting views either. Don't be so quick to propose that model as a solution.
The problem isn't that journalism is profit driven. Were that the case, this would have already happened decades ago when the news media was every bit as profit driven. In some ways it already did happen, but we look back at those good old days through a rose colored lens and neglect to remember that there was similar levels of sensationalism and partisanism. Look at something like the National Enquirer and tell me that fake news is a recent phenomena. The term "yellow journalism" dates back over a century. None of this is a new problem.
The real issue is that the internet and a host of other technologies have made it incredibly inexpensive for anyone to do reporting, which means that the traditional news media is being squeezed by independent or small organizations that don't have the added expenses that old outfits have. When something becomes less expensive to produce, you naturally get more of it. Now there's hundreds of people offering hundreds of takes.
If you want a conservative point of view, there are people who will provide that. If you want a liberal point of view, there're plenty of people to provide that as well. There's everything in between and even more extreme. If you're a batshit crazy loon, there's someone out there catering to that as well. They were always there, but it was a lot harder to distribute their little pamphlets or newsletters 30 years ago, whereas today they can broadcast to the entire world and powerful search engines and social media have made it easy for people to find what they're looking for.
When Canadian record companies wanted to put a tax on blank CDs because they claimed that piracy was destroying their business, people here rightly criticized them. I think the same applies here. Find a way to adapt or get the hell out of the way of those that are trying to do so. Journalism will continue to exist even if it looks completely different to the way it does now, just like music would continue to exist without the record companies.
Sure you can pay with your face, unless your social credit score is too low. Then it will probably just signal the authorities to come round you up and send you away. Eventually the camps will be done processing all of the Uyghurs and they'll need some new grist for the mill.
It's frankly none of your or anyone else's business who someone else votes for. You don't have to look much further than the hate mob that social media has devolved into to see why this would be a terrible idea. Never mind all of the little situations like a spouse threatening their partner if they don't vote a certain way and now being able to verify that outcome.
Also: /. is FB's availability page now? What gives?
The editors probably just piss away time on Facebook all day, which explains why the story was so timely. Typically I'm used to stuff taking a day or two to show up here, which isn't necessarily bad, but they had that story up right away. I think there was a previous time within the last year when the reported that Facebook was down. They might have been aware of it before someone managed to get the message to Zuck.
After the spaghetti link in an article summary the other day, it's pretty obvious that there isn't a lot of editing being done, not that this site was every really know for it. This really is stuff that matters, only to myopic nitwits.
I'm assuming that until recently the processors weren't able to handle the processing quickly enough. I wouldn't be surprised to learn if there's some dedicated hardware that's been added to the SoCs in the latest phones that enable doing this on the device itself. Apple put in some dedicated neural network hardware in their latest SoC to help with photography and other workloads. I believe that the Qualcomm SoC in the Pixel has similar hardware that might be useful for doing speech to text.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
The data is highly suggestive and methodology flawed to make any decisions.
It makes me feel safer to know that you only sort of see an effect even after cranking up the levels far beyond the maximum legal limits and having constant exposure to the radiation.
I'm beginning to think that cryptocurrency is some of the best value you can get for your money. At least in terms of entertainment for the people who didn't invest in any of it. Maybe it will all eventually settle down and turn into a respectable currency, but right now you can't find a bigger shit show anywhere and it's utterly engrossing. We should at least require that all cryptocurrency algorithms do something useful like protein folding so that at least some good comes out of all of this idiocy.
Not seafood.
Walleye and trout are freshwater fish, but you'll still find them in the seafood section of the menu.
I think that might be a bit of an oversimplification. The overseas market really doesn't care too much about any political message agenda a film might or might not have unless it targets them in some way. I've seen plenty of foreign films that supposedly have political messages that go completely over my head since I'm not familiar with what was going on in the country, so it doesn't stand out to me.
Also Ghostbusters wasn't shown in China because the government has a thing about showing films that contain ghosts or spirits in them so it didn't get any boost from China that other films would get. I guess there's a new Ghostbusters that's getting made that's supposed to be a sequel to the first two, but unless it gets the original cast back outside of cameos, I don't think it will do much better than the previous reboot attempt. Even then, I don't really know if it will be anything but a shameless cash grab.
I think this goes to show how much everyone overreacted to some idiots trying to bot online numbers. I think it just goes to show that people need to get out more. It only seems like people give a shit about any of this because there's a small group of busy bodies on social media that don't have anything better to do and end up sounding a lot louder than they number in reality.
As always ask yourself this: When, in your lifetime, has the best answer to a complex problem been "leave it alone and hope it sorts itself out"?
As opposed to the government getting involved? I'll take "leave it alone" every time when it comes to the economy. Central planning failed spectacularly under every Soviet-era communist government and those that have tried emulating it more recently (see Venezuela) have met similar results.
TL;DR: raise federal minimum wage and the workers can quit and go elsewhere when a manager pulls this crap.
When you increase the minimum wage, you drive companies to invest in automation. You're going to see the jobs that used to be minimum wage positions eroded more and more. You can see the effects in American Samoa for yourself. Trying to demand something exist by government decree doesn't make it so any more than it clothes the emperor.
This is basic supply and demand. By raising the price of labor, you decrease the demand for it. Workers aren't going to be able to quit and go elsewhere because the effects of this reduce the number of jobs for them to go to, which means that they're going to stay put and deal with the new demands.
Completely wrong. It sets a floor for the minimal legal price you can sell your labor. The reality is that people end up with no job, because their labor isn’t that valuable. Most people increase the value of their labor by improving their skills while working.
You pay yourself on the back because you think your helping. In reality you’re just trapping people in poverty or driving them to the type of work that doesn’t operate within the confines of the law.
I think that would do as much to undermine trust in government as it would to diminish trust in crypto currencies. It also damages the reputation of whomever doesn’t uphold their end of the contract, which is bad for future business.
The real answer: No, but it will get idiots who don’t understand what’s going on to invest money in our scheme.
What's being said is that the part time workers who have had their hours cut were already working fewer than 30 hours so they wouldn't have lost benefits. Someone else claimed in another post that Whole Foods gives benefits to part time works anyway so unless they quit doing that, nothing would change here either.
Companies that were going to slash hours to avoid paying benefits would have already done so years ago.
It could work for something like Apple or Google where they rake in massive profits, but grocery chains have incredibly slim margins. The largest chain, Kroger, did over $120 billion in revenue last year (almost an order of magnitude more than Whole Foods) but ended up making slightly less than $2 billion in profit.
Whole Foods might have better margins since they're a little upscale, but that additional profit tends to attract competition. Unless they're doing something that other companies can't emulate, they'll tend towards the industry average as time goes on. I looked back before the Amazon purchase for their financial statements and in one quarter of 2016 they had a revenue of $3.5 billion and $88 million net income or about 2.5% profit which is inline with the rest of the industry.
It has been obvious for at least a century that market forces are insufficient to promote the general welfare of all citizens, but the answer is not to combat market forces.
I'm not sure that's at all obvious. Market forces have driven the standard of living in those countries that don't mess with them to the highest the world has ever seen. It's the countries that think they know better and can dictate how the market must work that fail to meet the general welfare of their citizenry. Look at Venezuela where almost 10% of the population has fled the country to avoid starvation. Even the Scandinavian countries that are often praised for their strong social safety nets have some of the freest markets in the world.
Centrally directed economies tend to be much less efficient than market economies and as a result mean that less wealth is generated. People get too hung up on the fact that someone has more (while ignoring that they often invest that more in new businesses that provide jobs) and forget that there isn't much sense to being equal if you're equally poor.
The doctor that failed him was his own, on-site doctor.
I'm sure there was absolutely nothing better he or she could be doing with his or her time than telling someone who had none left that same very fact. There's a finite number of doctors with a finite amount of time and that time is probably of more use elsewhere.
In fairytale world, I'm sure the doctor could have come and spent several hours with the man giving him some life affirming realization so that he was able to come to terms with his own mortality and find peace in his final moments. Meanwhile in reality that doctor probably hasn't gotten decent sleep lately and is trying to keep the clock from running out on the other patients. Sometimes life sucks and we don't get the Disney version of the story.
I'll give the doctor the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he was busy trying to save someone else who had a chance of living and didn't have time to sit around trying to comfort someone whose time was up.
you'll probably find that just 7 companies made 80% of the stuff you own. We gave up on enforcing antitrust laws and let companies merge whenever they wanted.
Then why do you keep buying from them? I've got products from scores of different companies and there are several companies I won't buy products from because of their past actions and poor customer support. If you're too weak willed or careless to take that effort, then frankly you deserve what you get.
I'll thank you very much to keep your damned politics away from me. It's the well meaning assholes that always screw it up for everyone else. You think you can build some utopia, but really you just end creating hell.
Seems like a good opportunity for someone in the EU to start a business that will hold these domains for British companies and forward them to the appropriate .uk or .com for the people who don’t update to the new domains.
As far as issues surrounding Brexit go, this is pretty inconsequential.
Officer Obie will get on your case though.
There isn't a fixed pie. The pie has been growing. More people are eating more pie than ever before.
So that's why we're having an obesity problem. Too much pie.
If you're rich enough you just pay cash to have someone else go buy the thing for you. It's not particularly difficult and some stores will always take cash simply because they get the business of anyone who only carries cash.