There's a stark difference between outsourcing jobs and importing more foreign workers under a visa program. In one case the government is still getting tax revenue from people with jobs in the country. In the other, it isn't. Whatever your stance on the H1-B visa program, it's obviously preferable to bring in someone to take a job here than it is to export that job there. It would be better still to education and train citizens than either, but with a global economy there's going to be economic osmosis.
Would make a good case to make the display capable of being upgraded then. There aren't that many codecs that mainstream players need to be capable of and it really comes down to the mainstream one (h.264/h.265) and the FOSS competitor at the time. Build the hardware into a module that can be put into the display or otherwise connected to it and it's fine. New codecs don't come around all that often, so it's unlikely to be that much of a hassle for consumers.
Of course this assumes companies design their displays in a sane manner which we know won't happen, because Sony will want you to use their god damned proprietary module which isn't compatible with the LG TV you previously had and want to get rid of because it's old and you want to watch movies in 16K.
Apple developers are probably used to the abuse by this point considering that the Mac itself has undergone three architecture changes as they moved from the Motorola 68000 to IBM PowerPC and then to x86. I wouldn't be surprised if in another five years they've completed abandoned x86 and move to using their own ARM SoC designs for all of their products.
They probably should have kept Swift behind closed doors while tinkering with it to make all of these changes. I realize that you need people using the language to discover ways of making it better, but Apple has loads of their own developers that could used started using the language and helping it evolve before releasing it to the public.
All of those countries will be able to weather the storm. However, it will probably result in Venezuela having a coup of some sort or descending into civil war.
Colorado is an interesting state, a weird amalgamation of red and blue that seems to do alright for itself. You might think its just a case of city and country being two opposites, but there are a lot of small towns there that kicked out Comcast in favor of municipal internet and there are plenty of weed lovers in the state that love their guns just as much.
I would think that Boulder would make a better high tech center, but Denver isn't a bad city either.
Rats are pretty notorious for developing cancer and tumors.
Certain species of rats more so than others sure, but as long as you use a proper control group and a large enough population for the study it's not a problem.
But this study has other issues legitimate and people claiming it as proof that cellphones cause cancer are only seeing what they wish to see.
As long as individuals can learn to solve problems, develop algorithms, and the other skills that are more important to programming than just language acquisition it's not really a big deal. If you're targeting really young children, just give them something like Scratch and let them play around with it after teaching them the basic constructs. Give them a few challenging problems to try out on their own that allow them to apply what they've learned to developing simple algorithms
Not everyone will do it or want to, but those that do find it enjoyable can take more advanced programming classes. Even if they later decide to go into some other field, if you focus the earlier classes on problem solving skills or enhancing abilities that are broadly applicable, it will be beneficial to the students no matter what they do.
Depending on what the Kessel Run actually is, that statement might make sense. If it were something that required a lot of tricky navigation, a shorter total distance traveled could well be an indication of skill as opposed to someone who was less skilled and had to take a longer path.
It's probably not that, but it's salvageable if you try real hard.
There's bugs in their idea. Literal bugs. They're already a pain in the ass to scrape off a vehicle. This conceivably makes the problem worse. I suppose if you live in the valley the homeless are thicker than he insects, but this is worthless outside of the bubble. . . . err valley.
You have it the other way around. The reason Apple is investing this money in China is that if they want to bring any of the money they've made in China (and have already been taxed on in China) back to the U.S. they would need to pay U.S. taxes on it. The U.S. corporate tax rate it one of the highest in the world (yes, even less than those so-called socialist paradise Scandinavian countries) which makes it less desirable to invest money in the U.S. and results in companies finding all manner of clever ways to avoid paying some of those taxes. In the end U.S. companies end up paying about the same as most other global or international companies so the effective tax rate is pointless and just serves to drive investment overseas.
Give companies a tax holiday on all the money they have overseas with the stipulation that within 15 years all of that money needs to have been spent or invested in some way to grow the business. I expect a lot of companies would take them up on that offer and the government would get the benefit of taxing that money as is circulates throughout the economy.
In a free market you can only expect sellers to rise to the level of their competition. Both parties are pushing absolute garbage because the voters don't demand better.
Compared to someone like Cruz, I think we lucked out with Trump.
Also, how is this really that different from probiotics? Just dose yourself with antibiotics to wipe out intestinal microbes and take any of the number of probiotics that supposedly contain the healthy or beneficial bacteria that your body needs.
I don't fully buy that argument though as if Trump can't beat Hillary, then none of the Republican nominees could beat Hillary.
The Republican party hates, hates, hates Hillary Clinton with a passion to the point that you'd think she was a black Muslim illegal immigrant performing abortions with the guns she just got done taking away from everyone. Some Republicans might not like Trump (or whatever other candidate might have been the nominee) but they will still show up to vote against Hillary because their dislike is strong enough.
Some of the earlier candidates might have been able to have better mainstream appeal than Trump to lock up additional independent or undecided votes, but Trump is probably closer to the center on average than any of the other candidates, especially if you look at his historical stances. But neither Cruz or Kasich were going to be able to sway voters on the other side as in my opinion they typically had all of Trump's downsides and none of the upsides.
I don't know if he'll win or not and I'm voting third party as usual, but I wouldn't be surprised if he pulled it off. Hillary is all but officially the nominee, but she hasn't locked it down yet and a lot of Sanders voters despise her. The Politics subreddit looked like some kind of right-wing site from all of the anti-Hillary posts or submissions, but it was almost entirely the Bernie Sanders supporters that were doing it. The longer that drags out, the weaker it makes Hillary in the general election and means she ends up spending money in the primary that she won't have in the general election.
My guess is that even if Trump would generally be okay with a Clinton presidency or even endorse her over the Republican candidate if he weren't running himself, that he's the kind of egotistical person who would throw Clinton under the bus just because he'd rather win himself. It's a weird election cycle for sure though.
I hope they do so that Bernie Sanders would run against Trump. Both are party outsiders and I'd be more satisfied with either of them than anyone else either party put forward this election cycle.
But they're not going to do anything to Hillary. Not because she's not guilty or there isn't a case to be made, but because having that on her gives them control over her. She's just a puppet for the wealthy and powerful.
In the future I suspect that some people will still drive manually for pleasure, but most people will let the vehicle do it otherwise. Driving in long commutes is anything but enjoyable and I can't think of anyone who would subject themselves to that particular form of hell if it was no longer necessary. Hell, I would even work on my way to work if it meant that I could leave work sooner. There's plenty of things that can be done on the way to the office that don't require being there physically.
or get stuck in a rut, low-income job that is convenient to not quit (and make you less likely to actually go to college at all).
There are plenty of people who turn out that way even with their college degree either because their degree is useless for most jobs that don't require low-skill labor or because even though they have a degree in a high-skill profession they treated all four years of their university education like a "gap" year and partied all the time and didn't really learn anything.
If a person wants to just hang out and party after high school, they should just go live near campus, work a low-income job, and party with college kids. On the whole it's cheaper since they aren't racking up loan debt and destroying their GPA and they'll have some actual job experience on a resume which is always far more helpful in landing a next job than a BS B.S. degree that was scraped together so they could graduate with something.
Either the person doing this grows up a bit and decides its time to go to school and get a degree or they just keep doing what they've been doing, only now they don't have tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt that they can't default on or hope to pay back in a reasonable time frame with their low-income job.
I don't even care about killing animals. My immune system has probably killed untold billions of organisms and no one has asked me to shed a tear for them, so some animal doesn't rate much on my scale either, especially when its livestock. However, I expect that artificial meat would be cheaper and have better quality because you can precisely control the environment in which it is created and likely save yourself the cost of having the rest of the critter that does nothing for you around. Give me better taste at a lower cost and I'm all aboard that train and I suspect that most other people would be as well.
Might not be much of a change for some people. We're already moving towards a society where a lot of people will be displaced from their jobs and due to the highly specialized nature of their work as well as a decrease in menial labor, it may not be possible for them to do much of anything for a while. For some people we've already reached that point.
The only positive side is that the automation is more efficient so even as we do replace someone, we theoretically have the resources for them to keep living without doing any additional work, but the reality is it never works out like that.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a stark difference between outsourcing jobs and importing more foreign workers under a visa program. In one case the government is still getting tax revenue from people with jobs in the country. In the other, it isn't. Whatever your stance on the H1-B visa program, it's obviously preferable to bring in someone to take a job here than it is to export that job there. It would be better still to education and train citizens than either, but with a global economy there's going to be economic osmosis.
Would make a good case to make the display capable of being upgraded then. There aren't that many codecs that mainstream players need to be capable of and it really comes down to the mainstream one (h.264/h.265) and the FOSS competitor at the time. Build the hardware into a module that can be put into the display or otherwise connected to it and it's fine. New codecs don't come around all that often, so it's unlikely to be that much of a hassle for consumers.
Of course this assumes companies design their displays in a sane manner which we know won't happen, because Sony will want you to use their god damned proprietary module which isn't compatible with the LG TV you previously had and want to get rid of because it's old and you want to watch movies in 16K.
Apple developers are probably used to the abuse by this point considering that the Mac itself has undergone three architecture changes as they moved from the Motorola 68000 to IBM PowerPC and then to x86. I wouldn't be surprised if in another five years they've completed abandoned x86 and move to using their own ARM SoC designs for all of their products.
They probably should have kept Swift behind closed doors while tinkering with it to make all of these changes. I realize that you need people using the language to discover ways of making it better, but Apple has loads of their own developers that could used started using the language and helping it evolve before releasing it to the public.
All of those countries will be able to weather the storm. However, it will probably result in Venezuela having a coup of some sort or descending into civil war.
Colorado is an interesting state, a weird amalgamation of red and blue that seems to do alright for itself. You might think its just a case of city and country being two opposites, but there are a lot of small towns there that kicked out Comcast in favor of municipal internet and there are plenty of weed lovers in the state that love their guns just as much.
I would think that Boulder would make a better high tech center, but Denver isn't a bad city either.
Rats are pretty notorious for developing cancer and tumors.
Certain species of rats more so than others sure, but as long as you use a proper control group and a large enough population for the study it's not a problem.
But this study has other issues legitimate and people claiming it as proof that cellphones cause cancer are only seeing what they wish to see.
I'll sign for you if you sign for me. Bring some friends and we can all reach the requirement in no time at all.
That might not be a bad thing though. Widespread use was how we got into this problem in the first place
As long as individuals can learn to solve problems, develop algorithms, and the other skills that are more important to programming than just language acquisition it's not really a big deal. If you're targeting really young children, just give them something like Scratch and let them play around with it after teaching them the basic constructs. Give them a few challenging problems to try out on their own that allow them to apply what they've learned to developing simple algorithms
Not everyone will do it or want to, but those that do find it enjoyable can take more advanced programming classes. Even if they later decide to go into some other field, if you focus the earlier classes on problem solving skills or enhancing abilities that are broadly applicable, it will be beneficial to the students no matter what they do.
Depending on what the Kessel Run actually is, that statement might make sense. If it were something that required a lot of tricky navigation, a shorter total distance traveled could well be an indication of skill as opposed to someone who was less skilled and had to take a longer path.
It's probably not that, but it's salvageable if you try real hard.
It turned out better because George Lucas is no longer part of the process.
Which happened because Disney bought the rights from him. Therefore it turned out better because of Disney.
There's bugs in their idea. Literal bugs. They're already a pain in the ass to scrape off a vehicle. This conceivably makes the problem worse. I suppose if you live in the valley the homeless are thicker than he insects, but this is worthless outside of the bubble. . . . err valley.
You probably never will.
Unless you happen to live in the same basement.
You have it the other way around. The reason Apple is investing this money in China is that if they want to bring any of the money they've made in China (and have already been taxed on in China) back to the U.S. they would need to pay U.S. taxes on it. The U.S. corporate tax rate it one of the highest in the world (yes, even less than those so-called socialist paradise Scandinavian countries) which makes it less desirable to invest money in the U.S. and results in companies finding all manner of clever ways to avoid paying some of those taxes. In the end U.S. companies end up paying about the same as most other global or international companies so the effective tax rate is pointless and just serves to drive investment overseas.
Give companies a tax holiday on all the money they have overseas with the stipulation that within 15 years all of that money needs to have been spent or invested in some way to grow the business. I expect a lot of companies would take them up on that offer and the government would get the benefit of taxing that money as is circulates throughout the economy.
In a free market you can only expect sellers to rise to the level of their competition. Both parties are pushing absolute garbage because the voters don't demand better.
Compared to someone like Cruz, I think we lucked out with Trump.
That and if books are that valuable, many would never reach their intended recipients. I suppose you'd still get more books into the country though.
Also, how is this really that different from probiotics? Just dose yourself with antibiotics to wipe out intestinal microbes and take any of the number of probiotics that supposedly contain the healthy or beneficial bacteria that your body needs.
I don't fully buy that argument though as if Trump can't beat Hillary, then none of the Republican nominees could beat Hillary.
The Republican party hates, hates, hates Hillary Clinton with a passion to the point that you'd think she was a black Muslim illegal immigrant performing abortions with the guns she just got done taking away from everyone. Some Republicans might not like Trump (or whatever other candidate might have been the nominee) but they will still show up to vote against Hillary because their dislike is strong enough.
Some of the earlier candidates might have been able to have better mainstream appeal than Trump to lock up additional independent or undecided votes, but Trump is probably closer to the center on average than any of the other candidates, especially if you look at his historical stances. But neither Cruz or Kasich were going to be able to sway voters on the other side as in my opinion they typically had all of Trump's downsides and none of the upsides.
I don't know if he'll win or not and I'm voting third party as usual, but I wouldn't be surprised if he pulled it off. Hillary is all but officially the nominee, but she hasn't locked it down yet and a lot of Sanders voters despise her. The Politics subreddit looked like some kind of right-wing site from all of the anti-Hillary posts or submissions, but it was almost entirely the Bernie Sanders supporters that were doing it. The longer that drags out, the weaker it makes Hillary in the general election and means she ends up spending money in the primary that she won't have in the general election.
My guess is that even if Trump would generally be okay with a Clinton presidency or even endorse her over the Republican candidate if he weren't running himself, that he's the kind of egotistical person who would throw Clinton under the bus just because he'd rather win himself. It's a weird election cycle for sure though.
I hope they do so that Bernie Sanders would run against Trump. Both are party outsiders and I'd be more satisfied with either of them than anyone else either party put forward this election cycle.
But they're not going to do anything to Hillary. Not because she's not guilty or there isn't a case to be made, but because having that on her gives them control over her. She's just a puppet for the wealthy and powerful.
More than that I just saw that he dropped out of the race altogether.
In the future I suspect that some people will still drive manually for pleasure, but most people will let the vehicle do it otherwise. Driving in long commutes is anything but enjoyable and I can't think of anyone who would subject themselves to that particular form of hell if it was no longer necessary. Hell, I would even work on my way to work if it meant that I could leave work sooner. There's plenty of things that can be done on the way to the office that don't require being there physically.
Nothing sits well with the Anonymous Cowards on Slashdot. Why do you expect this to be any different?
or get stuck in a rut, low-income job that is convenient to not quit (and make you less likely to actually go to college at all).
There are plenty of people who turn out that way even with their college degree either because their degree is useless for most jobs that don't require low-skill labor or because even though they have a degree in a high-skill profession they treated all four years of their university education like a "gap" year and partied all the time and didn't really learn anything.
If a person wants to just hang out and party after high school, they should just go live near campus, work a low-income job, and party with college kids. On the whole it's cheaper since they aren't racking up loan debt and destroying their GPA and they'll have some actual job experience on a resume which is always far more helpful in landing a next job than a BS B.S. degree that was scraped together so they could graduate with something.
Either the person doing this grows up a bit and decides its time to go to school and get a degree or they just keep doing what they've been doing, only now they don't have tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt that they can't default on or hope to pay back in a reasonable time frame with their low-income job.
I don't even care about killing animals. My immune system has probably killed untold billions of organisms and no one has asked me to shed a tear for them, so some animal doesn't rate much on my scale either, especially when its livestock. However, I expect that artificial meat would be cheaper and have better quality because you can precisely control the environment in which it is created and likely save yourself the cost of having the rest of the critter that does nothing for you around. Give me better taste at a lower cost and I'm all aboard that train and I suspect that most other people would be as well.
Might not be much of a change for some people. We're already moving towards a society where a lot of people will be displaced from their jobs and due to the highly specialized nature of their work as well as a decrease in menial labor, it may not be possible for them to do much of anything for a while. For some people we've already reached that point.
The only positive side is that the automation is more efficient so even as we do replace someone, we theoretically have the resources for them to keep living without doing any additional work, but the reality is it never works out like that.