The only way I could see this working is if Fox were to continue to pay a salary to the executives after they stopped working for Fox so long as those individuals did not go to work for a competitor. Otherwise, like you suggest the case isn't going to go anywhere.
Some would argue we're already at that stage, so how much worse can it get. Even if most of what they make is utter dreck, at least the viewers won't have to wade through upwards of 10 minutes of commercials just to consume it.
To state that they are not attempting to make a profit is incorrect, it's just that the profit they do make goes to their members (who are considered owners of the credit union) rather than some smaller group of individuals. You could conceivably get the same kind of employee misbehavior if a credit union were to implement that kind of incentive system for its employees, but they're unlikely to since there's no impetus from shareholders to drive up the stock price for the next quarter.
Credit unions are typically organized as a non-profit or treated as such for tax purposes, but to imply that they're against making a profit doesn't make any sense as it would suggest they don't care about how they manage their members money or would just give out a loan to anyone for no interest at all. If my credit union weren't making a profit, it wouldn't be able to pay interest on the money I have on deposit with them.
Maybe it's because they're a simulation as well. If the argument is that we might be in a simulation because we're sufficiently advanced, then clearly any civilization that could create the simulation containing our existence would also be sufficiently advanced so as to be in a simulation itself. It's just simulations all the way up.
Apt Dilbert cartoon illustrating your point nicely. Any metric that's simple enough for management to come up with is simple enough to be gamed heavily by the workers.
Benefit has nothing to do with it. It's a contractual obligation. If someone or some business were contractually obligated to provide you with some service, you would want them sanctioned for breaking that contract. Not doing so only ensures that there's no incentive for anyone to keep to the terms of a contract.
What I don't understand is: only 120 M Euro? That's 20 cents per person so it's easy on taxpayers but is it enough to buy and operate the infrastructure?
You are making the assumption that this is a well thought out and feasible plan, which it very well may not be.
If it were really that cheap and easy to do I would expect that some company would have already done so and charged everyone a few Euro for the service because if it's cost effective at an order of magnitude less cost, the profit margins would be obscene.
I suspect that important details have been overlooked which add significant cost to the project, or the person who initially proposed the idea has no idea what this should actually cost to implement.
The handset makers don't really care either. None of the other Android manufacturers has the privileged position to release updates and from their perspective if you have to buy a new phone to get updated software, all the better for them.
I love No Man's Sky. I haven't played it at all, but it's responsible for this, which is probably more amusement than I've gotten out of some games I've actually bought.
The iBrick. The sexiest hunk of useless plastic you'll ever pay for. Coming this fall starting at $799.99, exclusively available through AT&T.
As if Jony Ive would work with plastic. What a peasant's material.
The iBrick will use a unique platinum alloy, carefully polished to ensure a uniform smoothness down to a micron before receiving a special anodized coating made with unicorn tears.
Blasphemy has been around for ages, and really it's the same concept. You can't say that for it has offended the great spirit. Does it really matter what the reason is for trying to control people's words and minds are when the result is the same?
I don't think most people will care if anyone wants to go off and create their own little space where they set the rules and can exclude those they do not wish to permit entry to and I expect that most people do this to some limited degree. The issue is when these people suddenly insist on their space being all-encompassing and wanting everyone to follow their rules, while not respecting the rules of anyone else. It's happened historically with religions, social groups, political movements, and many other areas.
We're better off teaching people that it's better to face those things which they find disagreeable instead of blocking them out, and that even if something is found to be utterly detestable to tolerate it to the extent that basic civility is maintained.
Obvious troll is obvious, but with Linux if it's really important you can continue maintaining it yourself as the source code is available. I don't think anyone is terribly likely to do this, but with Windows the option isn't even there.
Honest question for you, have you read the actual study? I tried the link and in order to get the full text I a membership or to belong to an organization that has access. A quick Google search on the title didn't turn up full-text access, but I haven't done any looking beyond that. Maybe it's out there, but it might require some digging.
So if you haven't read it either, how do you know it's a "good" study? It seems like you've decided to label it a "good" study because it agrees with your pre-established beliefs. That's not proper reasoning any more than the people who decided that Wakefield's research on autism was a "good" study because it happened to align with their existing beliefs.
I don't know that this isn't a "good" study, but I can't actually read it (a serious problem with scientific research these days) so I can't even begin to answer that question.
I haven't read the study yet as it's behind a paywall and I can't be assed to find a full-text (assuming it's freely available) online yet, but the summary makes it sound as though they controlled for such economic considerations. Basically, even if certain groups are less affluent, if they have markedly less access than members of the affluent group who have a similar income level, it's likely that there's some other factor at play. It doesn't necessarily mean that there's political oppression going on, but it it possible for that to be an explanation for the difference.
Also, not all other countries operate under free market economies, or at least to the extent that Western democracies do. If a country's government forbids building access to a certain area or people, no businesses can legally meet any actual demand regardless of how much or little profit there is to be had in doing so.
Considering Australia is full of all kinds of deadly shit, it's somewhat amazing that the Koala isn't extinct itself. The only reason that I can think that they're still around is that their food source is so nutritionally worthless they don't have any real competition for food. Otherwise it's the retarded cousin of marsupial family (or order or class or wherever that falls into place in the taxonomy).
Reminds me of that AI that Microsoft put on Twitter a few months back that got turned into a Nazi within about 24 hours due to people messing with it. Unless you have a really intelligent algorithm, it won't take too long before a person figures out how to manipulate it. Some do so for their own profit like all the SEO stuff targeted at Google's algorithms and others just do it for their own twisted amusement.
I think that the people who typically held that view point were those who were voting for Sanders and have moved on to vote third party (Green or Libertarian) instead of supporting Clinton. It would be hypocritical for them to complain in this case, but there are a large number of Democrats who had no real problem with this kind of politics so it's unfair to fling this in their faces as well.
That seems especially pointless for a site dedicated to the discussion of news. A lot of the posts are going to be speculative or outright wrong, which could be prevented simply by waiting another 30 minutes until the announcement is finished and all of the details (at least the ones that were part of the presentation) are out.
It's also weird, because Slashdot doesn't seem to do this with any other type of story, at least not that I'm aware of as almost any other event or announcement eventually gets a post, but the Apple posts seem to come out mid-announcement.
People tend to criticize this site for being late with stories, but Apple announcements are one instance where Slashdot seems to trot them out before the paint even dries. They're still talking about features in the presentation right now and even the linked article mentions that there's still more to come. Why not wait for the dust to settle a little before rushing this story out?
We DO NOT have the wisdom, let alone the knowledge, to be editing our own genome! Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.
At this moment we certainly don't, but if you go back far enough the same could be said about flying. Now it's a pretty mundane and routine thing to board an aircraft and arrive safely at some far off destination without much thought. The same is true for many other things that we take for granted because we no longer live in a world where they are though to be impossible or beyond our grasp.
Like everything else in the universe, we'll work to improve our understanding, experiment empirically, and develop tools and techniques to aid us in our endeavor. If the prospect itself is too scary, you can go back to living in trees, or just crawl back into the ocean if the who prospect of life on land was a bit much as well.
A segment of the population is already crippled through some combination of genetics (enjoy your Huntington's), environment, or other factors. With increases in automation, there isn't much value a person can provide to society if they're incapable of doing any labor that a machine can't do more effectively. The only difference that gene editing or other technology makes is that the genetic portion is no longer quite so random.
Like everything new, it's initially a luxury that few can afford, but it's in society's interest to bring the technology to everyone. Anything we can do to ensure that future generations can provide value to society and expand upon the wealth of knowledge already created rather than have no purpose beyond being mindless consumers for the sake of consumption is worth doing. The same goes for curing disease and other maladies that plague humans.
If this were something earth-shattering, I'd be more skeptical, but Apple has been releasing new phones with a fairly standard pattern for years now. It would be bigger news if the new devices weren't going to be branded as iPhone 7, but instead something like iPhone 6X which would signal a departure from the existing pattern.
Even if this were a fabrication, it's a safe bet that it still turns out to be true. It might not be, in which case it's Yet Another Apple Rumor That Turned Out To Be Bullocks, but it would be but a drop in the ocean at this point. The real question is why this particular rumor (out of dozens of others) is particularly newsworthy, especially considering it's not terribly interesting nor does it disclose something unexpected.
Slashdot Mirror
The only way I could see this working is if Fox were to continue to pay a salary to the executives after they stopped working for Fox so long as those individuals did not go to work for a competitor. Otherwise, like you suggest the case isn't going to go anywhere.
Some would argue we're already at that stage, so how much worse can it get. Even if most of what they make is utter dreck, at least the viewers won't have to wade through upwards of 10 minutes of commercials just to consume it.
Doesn't matter. If it's on your computer and doing something you don't want or didn't agree to, it's malware.
Because Android Wear watches tend to look like actual watches people would wear
You should probably tell that to consumers then, because they don't seem to be buying and wearing very many of them, hence this article.
The OP was right, most consumers wanted a fashion accessory that could do some smart things.
To state that they are not attempting to make a profit is incorrect, it's just that the profit they do make goes to their members (who are considered owners of the credit union) rather than some smaller group of individuals. You could conceivably get the same kind of employee misbehavior if a credit union were to implement that kind of incentive system for its employees, but they're unlikely to since there's no impetus from shareholders to drive up the stock price for the next quarter.
Credit unions are typically organized as a non-profit or treated as such for tax purposes, but to imply that they're against making a profit doesn't make any sense as it would suggest they don't care about how they manage their members money or would just give out a loan to anyone for no interest at all. If my credit union weren't making a profit, it wouldn't be able to pay interest on the money I have on deposit with them.
Maybe it's because they're a simulation as well. If the argument is that we might be in a simulation because we're sufficiently advanced, then clearly any civilization that could create the simulation containing our existence would also be sufficiently advanced so as to be in a simulation itself. It's just simulations all the way up.
Apt Dilbert cartoon illustrating your point nicely. Any metric that's simple enough for management to come up with is simple enough to be gamed heavily by the workers.
Benefit has nothing to do with it. It's a contractual obligation. If someone or some business were contractually obligated to provide you with some service, you would want them sanctioned for breaking that contract. Not doing so only ensures that there's no incentive for anyone to keep to the terms of a contract.
What I don't understand is: only 120 M Euro? That's 20 cents per person so it's easy on taxpayers but is it enough to buy and operate the infrastructure?
You are making the assumption that this is a well thought out and feasible plan, which it very well may not be.
If it were really that cheap and easy to do I would expect that some company would have already done so and charged everyone a few Euro for the service because if it's cost effective at an order of magnitude less cost, the profit margins would be obscene.
I suspect that important details have been overlooked which add significant cost to the project, or the person who initially proposed the idea has no idea what this should actually cost to implement.
The handset makers don't really care either. None of the other Android manufacturers has the privileged position to release updates and from their perspective if you have to buy a new phone to get updated software, all the better for them.
I love No Man's Sky. I haven't played it at all, but it's responsible for this, which is probably more amusement than I've gotten out of some games I've actually bought.
The iBrick. The sexiest hunk of useless plastic you'll ever pay for. Coming this fall starting at $799.99, exclusively available through AT&T.
As if Jony Ive would work with plastic. What a peasant's material.
The iBrick will use a unique platinum alloy, carefully polished to ensure a uniform smoothness down to a micron before receiving a special anodized coating made with unicorn tears.
Blasphemy has been around for ages, and really it's the same concept. You can't say that for it has offended the great spirit. Does it really matter what the reason is for trying to control people's words and minds are when the result is the same?
I don't think most people will care if anyone wants to go off and create their own little space where they set the rules and can exclude those they do not wish to permit entry to and I expect that most people do this to some limited degree. The issue is when these people suddenly insist on their space being all-encompassing and wanting everyone to follow their rules, while not respecting the rules of anyone else. It's happened historically with religions, social groups, political movements, and many other areas.
We're better off teaching people that it's better to face those things which they find disagreeable instead of blocking them out, and that even if something is found to be utterly detestable to tolerate it to the extent that basic civility is maintained.
Obvious troll is obvious, but with Linux if it's really important you can continue maintaining it yourself as the source code is available. I don't think anyone is terribly likely to do this, but with Windows the option isn't even there.
Honest question for you, have you read the actual study? I tried the link and in order to get the full text I a membership or to belong to an organization that has access. A quick Google search on the title didn't turn up full-text access, but I haven't done any looking beyond that. Maybe it's out there, but it might require some digging.
So if you haven't read it either, how do you know it's a "good" study? It seems like you've decided to label it a "good" study because it agrees with your pre-established beliefs. That's not proper reasoning any more than the people who decided that Wakefield's research on autism was a "good" study because it happened to align with their existing beliefs.
I don't know that this isn't a "good" study, but I can't actually read it (a serious problem with scientific research these days) so I can't even begin to answer that question.
I haven't read the study yet as it's behind a paywall and I can't be assed to find a full-text (assuming it's freely available) online yet, but the summary makes it sound as though they controlled for such economic considerations. Basically, even if certain groups are less affluent, if they have markedly less access than members of the affluent group who have a similar income level, it's likely that there's some other factor at play. It doesn't necessarily mean that there's political oppression going on, but it it possible for that to be an explanation for the difference.
Also, not all other countries operate under free market economies, or at least to the extent that Western democracies do. If a country's government forbids building access to a certain area or people, no businesses can legally meet any actual demand regardless of how much or little profit there is to be had in doing so.
Koalas are stupid. Really, really stupid. Even though they don't have a particularly small head relative to their body size, they have a small brain (compared to other marsupials) relative to body size. On top of that, the two halves of the brain aren't connected. Researchers have noted that they're so unintelligent that if you try to feed them eucalyptus leaves (their primary diet) on a platter, they won't eat them because they don't understand it as food if they don't pick it from a tree.
Considering Australia is full of all kinds of deadly shit, it's somewhat amazing that the Koala isn't extinct itself. The only reason that I can think that they're still around is that their food source is so nutritionally worthless they don't have any real competition for food. Otherwise it's the retarded cousin of marsupial family (or order or class or wherever that falls into place in the taxonomy).
Reminds me of that AI that Microsoft put on Twitter a few months back that got turned into a Nazi within about 24 hours due to people messing with it. Unless you have a really intelligent algorithm, it won't take too long before a person figures out how to manipulate it. Some do so for their own profit like all the SEO stuff targeted at Google's algorithms and others just do it for their own twisted amusement.
I think that the people who typically held that view point were those who were voting for Sanders and have moved on to vote third party (Green or Libertarian) instead of supporting Clinton. It would be hypocritical for them to complain in this case, but there are a large number of Democrats who had no real problem with this kind of politics so it's unfair to fling this in their faces as well.
That seems especially pointless for a site dedicated to the discussion of news. A lot of the posts are going to be speculative or outright wrong, which could be prevented simply by waiting another 30 minutes until the announcement is finished and all of the details (at least the ones that were part of the presentation) are out.
It's also weird, because Slashdot doesn't seem to do this with any other type of story, at least not that I'm aware of as almost any other event or announcement eventually gets a post, but the Apple posts seem to come out mid-announcement.
People tend to criticize this site for being late with stories, but Apple announcements are one instance where Slashdot seems to trot them out before the paint even dries. They're still talking about features in the presentation right now and even the linked article mentions that there's still more to come. Why not wait for the dust to settle a little before rushing this story out?
We DO NOT have the wisdom, let alone the knowledge, to be editing our own genome! Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.
At this moment we certainly don't, but if you go back far enough the same could be said about flying. Now it's a pretty mundane and routine thing to board an aircraft and arrive safely at some far off destination without much thought. The same is true for many other things that we take for granted because we no longer live in a world where they are though to be impossible or beyond our grasp.
Like everything else in the universe, we'll work to improve our understanding, experiment empirically, and develop tools and techniques to aid us in our endeavor. If the prospect itself is too scary, you can go back to living in trees, or just crawl back into the ocean if the who prospect of life on land was a bit much as well.
A segment of the population is already crippled through some combination of genetics (enjoy your Huntington's), environment, or other factors. With increases in automation, there isn't much value a person can provide to society if they're incapable of doing any labor that a machine can't do more effectively. The only difference that gene editing or other technology makes is that the genetic portion is no longer quite so random.
Like everything new, it's initially a luxury that few can afford, but it's in society's interest to bring the technology to everyone. Anything we can do to ensure that future generations can provide value to society and expand upon the wealth of knowledge already created rather than have no purpose beyond being mindless consumers for the sake of consumption is worth doing. The same goes for curing disease and other maladies that plague humans.
If this were something earth-shattering, I'd be more skeptical, but Apple has been releasing new phones with a fairly standard pattern for years now. It would be bigger news if the new devices weren't going to be branded as iPhone 7, but instead something like iPhone 6X which would signal a departure from the existing pattern.
Even if this were a fabrication, it's a safe bet that it still turns out to be true. It might not be, in which case it's Yet Another Apple Rumor That Turned Out To Be Bullocks, but it would be but a drop in the ocean at this point. The real question is why this particular rumor (out of dozens of others) is particularly newsworthy, especially considering it's not terribly interesting nor does it disclose something unexpected.