It's not that hard to believe to start with and after all of the information that came out about Russia's olympic team and the government essentially controlling their anti-doping program so that it became a pro-doping program it doesn't seem unlikely at all that the government has its fingers in places where it shouldn't and doesn't wish them seen.
I don't know whether the Russian government is heavily involved with the company and has them doing anything that can't be admitted publicly, and it's entirely possible that they don't. However, if we're taking bets, my money wouldn't be anywhere near 0% probability of the Russian government having no non-public involvement with Kaspersky.
I'd go with "hate the game, not the player" as Apple, Google, Samsung, Microsoft, and plenty of other major companies get hit with these types of suits far more often than they go after other companies or each other. When there are plenty of other companies (legit or not) that have already picked up swords and are poking you with them, there's little incentive not you arm yourself in kind.
The only thing that will fix it is patent reform, but that isn't something to stir up the base with so neither party really gives two fucks.
We already have that as judges can dismiss cases for a variety of legal reasons. However you don't want them to have too much leeway. It sounds good in theory until you have a judge letting people off because he doesn't think its in the public's interest to prosecute them.
In the particular case you mentioned (link for anyone interested) the proper response would be to sue for legal fees, which given the story shouldn't be too difficult to win. I can understand the man not wanting to spend any more of his life on it though. I'm surprised some court hasn't gone after the person who filed that suit in some fashion for wasting the court's time.
He should have just taken the case to one of those court shows and then both people would get paid for appearances.
I remember once when someone was complaining on developer forums with much the same line of crap until one of the developers or community managers there posted and went into details about the programs the cheater was running and even pointed out another forum where the cheater (using the same username no less) had been posting asking after cheat programs.
I think companies do it this way because they know these little shits will just buy another copy of the game, so more money for them, but I think it would be better to just quarantine all of the cheaters together so they can only play with each other. The only way out of that is to play for as many hours as you were cheating without using any at all to learn why it isn't appropriate to cheat.
That's a poor argument. It's hard to count the value of open source software because in many cases their is no charge. The world wouldn't be anywhere near where it is now if there were no Linux, Apache, or various other open source products that are used the world over if everyone were stuck buying some commercial product that wouldn't necessarily even be as good.
A lot of developers of proprietary software still use open source tools. Both git and SVN are among the most popular version control systems and very little collaborative work could occur on the levels required today without tools like that. That developers can freely use and improve those tools just means that money can be spent elsewhere. How many billions would need to be spent if FOSS like that didn't exist?
Parts of them are cheaper. The engine is certainly more simple and if you don't have an internal combustion engine there are other things you can toss out as well. However, petrol-based cars have the advantage in that the fuel is petrol. You just need to break down the hydrocarbons to release the energy and that's entirely contained in the fuel. Electric cars have a more complex fuel system with regard to the batteries and the need to recharge them. If electric vehicles operated under similar principles where you had to chuck the battery after a single use, they'd never catch on. Part of it is just paying for the improved efficiency up front rather than spreading it out over the life of the vehicle as you need to purchase additional petrol.
Because of this, and a few other reasons that don't have a lot to do with cars specifically, the initial electric vehicles are going to be luxury items. The expense in setting up factories and build the new components needed for electric vehicles and the limited production capacity until they can ramp up over several years practically dictates a need to sell at a high price. You can't make mass market consumer products when you have very limited production capacity. Musk at least realizes the need to get to a mass market point, because he saw how Ford was able to reap the rewards of doing just that roughly a century earlier. Until then, it's necessary to add bells and whistles so you can mark up the price even more and target high-end buyers who can afford to pay above raw value in terms of utility.
Please explain why Walmart doesn't own everything already then since they were the previous unbeatable low-prices outfit that wanted to drive out all of the competition.
There's a bigger problem in that just because a product harps on about being original or offering a lot of utility doesn't mean either of those things are actually true.
I suspect that online crowd funding rewards people who (try to or claim to) provide what other people want. Selling food isn't very innovative, but I reward my grocer for doing so on a regular basis.
That may be true, but you don't hear about many Neanderthal women getting into programming, so clearly we should be talking about the gender gap instead.
Though come to think of it, I'm not seeing any Neanderthal men either, so it must be a full blown racial issue!
Well that settles it then. We'll just have to try to put the genie back in the bottle. As we all know it's basically impossible for people to move to where there are jobs available and we know from American history that such a thing has never previously happened. Besides, the Constitution probably forbids it anyways.
The kicker? They downsized him after about a year... but they still kept me. No idea why.
The main issue is that the management had no idea what they're doing. You can't attract and maintain talent if you have no idea what it looks like to begin with. The second factor is that in absence of an ability to recognize talent, people fall back on other methods and poor Milton here probably wasn't overly personal or the type to make friends with the weasels in middle management.
Given the huge black markets where it remains illegal and the number of countries or states that have voted to legalize marijuana, I would say that you a wrong on both accounts.
I know you're being facetious, but the long term effects of actually doing something like that could be bad. Not everyone there will die, and the people who do survive are going to be the ones who were the most ruthless and capable killers. It's essentially tilting natural selection to pick for low empathy and limited amounts of interest beyond the individual. That's the type of person that's never going to integrate into a larger society well.
I had recently read about the historical roots of the people who settled in the Appalachians in U.S. colonial days. They were from the border regions of England and Scotland and grew up in similarly unstable and warlike conditions. Even back then they were pretty much the embodiment of what people consider southern redneck. Like so many other groups at the time, England sent them packing and they were the primary settlers of the regions in the Appalachian Mountains.
Humans weren't alive and prosperous for most of that time period. I'll assume we could adapt and survive in such weather, especially given our ability to use technology, but the changes that occur over that time are going to suck. There's still a big chunk of the world that's at or barely above subsistence levels and they're going to want to survive. Just look at how bad we are at handling the refugees from Syria and imagine a situation orders of magnitude larger.
It wouldn't matter if the EU did recognize Catalonian independence as Spain would probably not consent to them joining the EU.
Also, isn't part of the reason that all of these companies incorporate in Ireland or have their European branched headquartered there officially so that they can funnel all of the revenue earned in the EU through Ireland for the lower taxes. Ireland leaving the EU removes the reason for those corporations to be there in the first place. It makes no sense for them to want to leave.
Precision doesn't necessarily refer to the size of the units, but can also be a reference to how closely grouped a set of values are. Tightly grouped values are considered precise. For example, if you were to shoot arrows at a target and all of them were a low and to the left and had all of your shots hit the outermost ring of the target, but had them all hit within an almost impossibly small distance of each other, you would not be very accurate, but you would be quite precise. Whereas someone with a wider spread, but closer to the middle on average would be said to be more accurate, but less precise.
I think the reasoning behind giving one to Al Gore (whether you like the reasoning or not is another matter) was that climate change would lead to destruction of environments which would lead to migration and war over territory so preventing it would prevent wars.
Realistically though it was just a "Your Not George Bush" prize, which was much the same for Obama. I imagine that after four (or god forbid eight) years of Trump, another Democrat will get one for much the same reason.
Well with the data leek, I think there are plenty of other people who could now provide the same services. Its just a matter of getting them approved I suppose.
The general problem though is that if the group that does skip breakfast overwhelmingly falls into other categories that are also suspected to contribute to poor heart health. The study even spells out as much:
Participants who skipped breakfast were more likely to have an overall unhealthy lifestyle, including poor overall diet, frequent alcohol consumption and smoking. They were also more likely to be hypertensive and overweight or obese. In the case of obesity, the study authors said reverse causation cannot be ruled out, and the observed results may be explained by obese patients skipping breakfast to lose weight.
In that case it doesn't matter that he's the exception in that group, which already seems to be an exception to most of the study population. It's far more likely that the results are not due to skipping breakfast given everything else we know.
But, until you eliminate the profit motive for credit bureaus everything will end up being re-assembled. Back to square one.
Then you need to come up with a better solution for how borrowers can extend credit and assess risk. Credit bureaus don't collect and maintain this information for no reason, they do so because lenders can make better decisions with that information and they only care about that because people want credit for all manner of things. The information isn't profitable in and of itself, merely as a byproduct of helping lenders make better decisions. It can be used for all kinds of bad things, but that's true of most things.
At best I think you can only impose regulations to protect that data and to use a lot of techniques to make it more difficult for these kinds of breeches to occur, but it will never be completely secure. Personally I think the NSA would be better put to use if it stopped spying on our own citizens an instead worked as white hats that would do penetration testing against the kinds of organizations that need to have valuable data secured, whether its credit bureaus or medical providers.
The only alternative is that you ban the collection of this kind of data, but that just means interest rates go up across the board because lenders will naturally make less intelligent decisions due to having less information and that cost is going to be borne by someone.
This isn't a difficult question, and there are plenty of answers. An easy one is that its a status symbol and mere possession of it sends various signals about being wealthy or affluent, which is true of almost any new high-end device. That isn't the only reason though as there are some people who simply like to have the newest gadgets even if they don't represent a good value proposition because they're just replacing last years newest gadget. There are also some that are likely using a smartphone that is 4 years old at this point and like to use a strategy of buying the latest and greatest so that it will be supported for another 4+ years before buying a new device.
One never knows. This is a big enough fuck-up (regardless of illegal trading) that they may well throw those executives under the bus on this one. Those guys have already made themselves quite hated to the public, so they're pretty much the perfect scapegoat for the entire mess at this point.
Well their religion just got them a lot of money, which is more than I ever remember any of my family getting from theirs. Whoever these guys pray to has better results than God, Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, or most of the other deities people devote their time to.
Itâ(TM)s really hard to fault people for doing what works.
I hope this turns out to be successful as it seems like preventing several types of diseases or conditions from manifesting would be preferable to treatment after the fact, both in terms of patient outcomes as well as cost once the technology becomes more developed.
I also wonder if we'll eventually see this turn into a Gattaca type scenario where we're not just using this for deleterious genetic conditions, but also for intelligence, personality, or other traits. There have been some people that worry about a future where automation and improvements in AI leaves a large part of the population incapable of useful economic contributions, but I wonder if this won't result in a future where no one would be born incapable simply because they can be generically altered to have better outcomes.
The crazy far-leftists that would actually support something like that (as opposed to the limousine liberal types that will just pay it lip service) largely don't own their own motor vehicles. You might think it's a lot of Prius drivers, who upgraded to Teslas behind this, but those people are a small minority. I don't even think Tesla has sold half a million vehicles yet, and I doubt that even half of what they've sold are to California residents. This is the type of thing that a lot of Democrats can support precisely because they know it won't pass, just like Republicans who grandstand for their base about repealing the ACA, but can't get a bill through Congress despite having a majority.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that hard to believe to start with and after all of the information that came out about Russia's olympic team and the government essentially controlling their anti-doping program so that it became a pro-doping program it doesn't seem unlikely at all that the government has its fingers in places where it shouldn't and doesn't wish them seen.
I don't know whether the Russian government is heavily involved with the company and has them doing anything that can't be admitted publicly, and it's entirely possible that they don't. However, if we're taking bets, my money wouldn't be anywhere near 0% probability of the Russian government having no non-public involvement with Kaspersky.
I'd go with "hate the game, not the player" as Apple, Google, Samsung, Microsoft, and plenty of other major companies get hit with these types of suits far more often than they go after other companies or each other. When there are plenty of other companies (legit or not) that have already picked up swords and are poking you with them, there's little incentive not you arm yourself in kind.
The only thing that will fix it is patent reform, but that isn't something to stir up the base with so neither party really gives two fucks.
We already have that as judges can dismiss cases for a variety of legal reasons. However you don't want them to have too much leeway. It sounds good in theory until you have a judge letting people off because he doesn't think its in the public's interest to prosecute them.
In the particular case you mentioned (link for anyone interested) the proper response would be to sue for legal fees, which given the story shouldn't be too difficult to win. I can understand the man not wanting to spend any more of his life on it though. I'm surprised some court hasn't gone after the person who filed that suit in some fashion for wasting the court's time.
He should have just taken the case to one of those court shows and then both people would get paid for appearances.
I remember once when someone was complaining on developer forums with much the same line of crap until one of the developers or community managers there posted and went into details about the programs the cheater was running and even pointed out another forum where the cheater (using the same username no less) had been posting asking after cheat programs.
I think companies do it this way because they know these little shits will just buy another copy of the game, so more money for them, but I think it would be better to just quarantine all of the cheaters together so they can only play with each other. The only way out of that is to play for as many hours as you were cheating without using any at all to learn why it isn't appropriate to cheat.
That's a poor argument. It's hard to count the value of open source software because in many cases their is no charge. The world wouldn't be anywhere near where it is now if there were no Linux, Apache, or various other open source products that are used the world over if everyone were stuck buying some commercial product that wouldn't necessarily even be as good.
A lot of developers of proprietary software still use open source tools. Both git and SVN are among the most popular version control systems and very little collaborative work could occur on the levels required today without tools like that. That developers can freely use and improve those tools just means that money can be spent elsewhere. How many billions would need to be spent if FOSS like that didn't exist?
Parts of them are cheaper. The engine is certainly more simple and if you don't have an internal combustion engine there are other things you can toss out as well. However, petrol-based cars have the advantage in that the fuel is petrol. You just need to break down the hydrocarbons to release the energy and that's entirely contained in the fuel. Electric cars have a more complex fuel system with regard to the batteries and the need to recharge them. If electric vehicles operated under similar principles where you had to chuck the battery after a single use, they'd never catch on. Part of it is just paying for the improved efficiency up front rather than spreading it out over the life of the vehicle as you need to purchase additional petrol.
Because of this, and a few other reasons that don't have a lot to do with cars specifically, the initial electric vehicles are going to be luxury items. The expense in setting up factories and build the new components needed for electric vehicles and the limited production capacity until they can ramp up over several years practically dictates a need to sell at a high price. You can't make mass market consumer products when you have very limited production capacity. Musk at least realizes the need to get to a mass market point, because he saw how Ford was able to reap the rewards of doing just that roughly a century earlier. Until then, it's necessary to add bells and whistles so you can mark up the price even more and target high-end buyers who can afford to pay above raw value in terms of utility.
Please explain why Walmart doesn't own everything already then since they were the previous unbeatable low-prices outfit that wanted to drive out all of the competition.
There's a bigger problem in that just because a product harps on about being original or offering a lot of utility doesn't mean either of those things are actually true.
I suspect that online crowd funding rewards people who (try to or claim to) provide what other people want. Selling food isn't very innovative, but I reward my grocer for doing so on a regular basis.
That may be true, but you don't hear about many Neanderthal women getting into programming, so clearly we should be talking about the gender gap instead.
Though come to think of it, I'm not seeing any Neanderthal men either, so it must be a full blown racial issue!
Not so good if you dont.
Well that settles it then. We'll just have to try to put the genie back in the bottle. As we all know it's basically impossible for people to move to where there are jobs available and we know from American history that such a thing has never previously happened. Besides, the Constitution probably forbids it anyways.
The kicker? They downsized him after about a year... but they still kept me. No idea why.
The main issue is that the management had no idea what they're doing. You can't attract and maintain talent if you have no idea what it looks like to begin with. The second factor is that in absence of an ability to recognize talent, people fall back on other methods and poor Milton here probably wasn't overly personal or the type to make friends with the weasels in middle management.
Given the huge black markets where it remains illegal and the number of countries or states that have voted to legalize marijuana, I would say that you a wrong on both accounts.
I know you're being facetious, but the long term effects of actually doing something like that could be bad. Not everyone there will die, and the people who do survive are going to be the ones who were the most ruthless and capable killers. It's essentially tilting natural selection to pick for low empathy and limited amounts of interest beyond the individual. That's the type of person that's never going to integrate into a larger society well.
I had recently read about the historical roots of the people who settled in the Appalachians in U.S. colonial days. They were from the border regions of England and Scotland and grew up in similarly unstable and warlike conditions. Even back then they were pretty much the embodiment of what people consider southern redneck. Like so many other groups at the time, England sent them packing and they were the primary settlers of the regions in the Appalachian Mountains.
Humans weren't alive and prosperous for most of that time period. I'll assume we could adapt and survive in such weather, especially given our ability to use technology, but the changes that occur over that time are going to suck. There's still a big chunk of the world that's at or barely above subsistence levels and they're going to want to survive. Just look at how bad we are at handling the refugees from Syria and imagine a situation orders of magnitude larger.
It wouldn't matter if the EU did recognize Catalonian independence as Spain would probably not consent to them joining the EU.
Also, isn't part of the reason that all of these companies incorporate in Ireland or have their European branched headquartered there officially so that they can funnel all of the revenue earned in the EU through Ireland for the lower taxes. Ireland leaving the EU removes the reason for those corporations to be there in the first place. It makes no sense for them to want to leave.
Precision doesn't necessarily refer to the size of the units, but can also be a reference to how closely grouped a set of values are. Tightly grouped values are considered precise. For example, if you were to shoot arrows at a target and all of them were a low and to the left and had all of your shots hit the outermost ring of the target, but had them all hit within an almost impossibly small distance of each other, you would not be very accurate, but you would be quite precise. Whereas someone with a wider spread, but closer to the middle on average would be said to be more accurate, but less precise.
I think the reasoning behind giving one to Al Gore (whether you like the reasoning or not is another matter) was that climate change would lead to destruction of environments which would lead to migration and war over territory so preventing it would prevent wars.
Realistically though it was just a "Your Not George Bush" prize, which was much the same for Obama. I imagine that after four (or god forbid eight) years of Trump, another Democrat will get one for much the same reason.
Well with the data leek, I think there are plenty of other people who could now provide the same services. Its just a matter of getting them approved I suppose.
Participants who skipped breakfast were more likely to have an overall unhealthy lifestyle, including poor overall diet, frequent alcohol consumption and smoking. They were also more likely to be hypertensive and overweight or obese. In the case of obesity, the study authors said reverse causation cannot be ruled out, and the observed results may be explained by obese patients skipping breakfast to lose weight.
In that case it doesn't matter that he's the exception in that group, which already seems to be an exception to most of the study population. It's far more likely that the results are not due to skipping breakfast given everything else we know.
But, until you eliminate the profit motive for credit bureaus everything will end up being re-assembled. Back to square one.
Then you need to come up with a better solution for how borrowers can extend credit and assess risk. Credit bureaus don't collect and maintain this information for no reason, they do so because lenders can make better decisions with that information and they only care about that because people want credit for all manner of things. The information isn't profitable in and of itself, merely as a byproduct of helping lenders make better decisions. It can be used for all kinds of bad things, but that's true of most things.
At best I think you can only impose regulations to protect that data and to use a lot of techniques to make it more difficult for these kinds of breeches to occur, but it will never be completely secure. Personally I think the NSA would be better put to use if it stopped spying on our own citizens an instead worked as white hats that would do penetration testing against the kinds of organizations that need to have valuable data secured, whether its credit bureaus or medical providers.
The only alternative is that you ban the collection of this kind of data, but that just means interest rates go up across the board because lenders will naturally make less intelligent decisions due to having less information and that cost is going to be borne by someone.
This isn't a difficult question, and there are plenty of answers. An easy one is that its a status symbol and mere possession of it sends various signals about being wealthy or affluent, which is true of almost any new high-end device. That isn't the only reason though as there are some people who simply like to have the newest gadgets even if they don't represent a good value proposition because they're just replacing last years newest gadget. There are also some that are likely using a smartphone that is 4 years old at this point and like to use a strategy of buying the latest and greatest so that it will be supported for another 4+ years before buying a new device.
One never knows. This is a big enough fuck-up (regardless of illegal trading) that they may well throw those executives under the bus on this one. Those guys have already made themselves quite hated to the public, so they're pretty much the perfect scapegoat for the entire mess at this point.
Well their religion just got them a lot of money, which is more than I ever remember any of my family getting from theirs. Whoever these guys pray to has better results than God, Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, or most of the other deities people devote their time to.
Itâ(TM)s really hard to fault people for doing what works.
I hope this turns out to be successful as it seems like preventing several types of diseases or conditions from manifesting would be preferable to treatment after the fact, both in terms of patient outcomes as well as cost once the technology becomes more developed.
I also wonder if we'll eventually see this turn into a Gattaca type scenario where we're not just using this for deleterious genetic conditions, but also for intelligence, personality, or other traits. There have been some people that worry about a future where automation and improvements in AI leaves a large part of the population incapable of useful economic contributions, but I wonder if this won't result in a future where no one would be born incapable simply because they can be generically altered to have better outcomes.
The crazy far-leftists that would actually support something like that (as opposed to the limousine liberal types that will just pay it lip service) largely don't own their own motor vehicles. You might think it's a lot of Prius drivers, who upgraded to Teslas behind this, but those people are a small minority. I don't even think Tesla has sold half a million vehicles yet, and I doubt that even half of what they've sold are to California residents. This is the type of thing that a lot of Democrats can support precisely because they know it won't pass, just like Republicans who grandstand for their base about repealing the ACA, but can't get a bill through Congress despite having a majority.