Technically it's Alphabet which owns Google which purchased Nest and brought it under the Alphabet umbrella. Nest is still an independent company and calling their own shots for the most part.
I doubt a baboon is capable of communicating its thoughts on the matter to the researchers. I'm not sure baboons have been taught sign language, but even if they were it's unlikely that they could understand such a question.
If it's someone who's post-operation and has been on hormone replacement therapy, who's really going to be able to tell?
If it's really a big deal just add a unisex bathroom with a changing station that can be used by families as well because there are plenty of moms and dads who have to take their sons or daughters into the "wrong" bathroom all the damned time.
To some degree yes, but making a physical chip requires working withing the confines of the physical limitations of the fabrication process, so it's never as simple as designing some ideal chip. You can certainly try to do it that way, but the yields will suck. It's also not trivial to design the sub-units either, and there's always new instruction sets or other such things to be supported.
Which seems rather scary in the long run. I recall once reading something where the author speculated that one of the largest reasons for the disproportionate amount of violence in the Middle East was due to the cultural and religious customs allowing men to have multiple wives. Since almost every country has a roughly even infant sex ratio this means that there were a large number of young men who had no prospect of finding a mate which contributed to the willingness to commit violence or engage in suicide bombings.
China might not experience the same problems or those problems in exactly the same way due to other aspects of their culture, but having a large part of the population being potentially unable to satisfy some of their most basic human desires seems like a recipe for problems down the road.
That particular technique is only used because it is effective. If it weren't, people wouldn't use it or would use something else instead. The problem isn't that arguments are being made in that way, it's that all of the different issues you've listed are really complicated and you can hardly expect that average person to have enough understanding of them or the ancillary knowledge necessary to make a reasoned decision. Add in human tendency for confirmation bias and what you've called "frame" becomes the most effective way in a democracy to effect the types of change that you want. We only see it because all of the other tactics or strategies have proven to be less viable and therefor the people who employ them less successful. It's merely natural selection in terms of presenting arguments.
I don't believe it makes it impossible to have a meaningful debate, only that people haven't yet figured out how they should debate against it. Rather than attacking the framing of the opposition, most simply construct one of their own. However, I suspect that if you study a particular frame well enough, the cracks become apparent and it's only a matter of pointing them out and using basic logic to point out the inconsistencies or the contradictions created by a particular frame. In the face of that, a person using a particular frame either has to stop using it, or revise it in such a way that it no longer creates those contradictions, but any frame that continues to be based on subjective beliefs will still continue to have those problems.
Once exposed, it cannot stand on its own. Adherents may continue to hold it up, simply out of stubbornness, but most people will see that the emperor has no clothes. The problem is that people are either too lazy to fully understand a particular issue and to fully explore the nuances and minutiae that are necessary in order to actually solve a problem or they have a vested financial interest in the problem not being solved or their proposed solution (as incorrect as it may be) being used. People are naturally too self-interested to be expected to always and completely cooperate in a way that resolves this problem. Perhaps if we lived in a truly post-scarcity world it might be achievable, but we don't so the discussion is moot.
I don't know if any space faring alien society would necessarily be evil. Consider that for a species to survive long enough on a planet to develop the science to get into space it has to not cause its own destruction first. It's certainly possible that in order to make space travel more possible we'll develop the kinds of technology that make far deadlier weapons than we already have. Any species that is overly xenophobic or uncooperative would probably wipe itself out before developing the kinds of technology needed to cross the vast distances of space, assuming that it's even possible.
If aliens with that kind of capability did find earth, they'd probably leave us the hell alone simply because we haven't evolved enough as a species to avoid destroying ourselves with the kind of advanced technology that any alien species that could reach our planet would have developed. They might study us, much like we do with insects or animals, but even that assumes that doing so provides them with knowledge they don't already have which is again a pretty big assumption.
But it's also an opportunity for you to present good evidence in support of your beliefs that can sway other people who are watching the discussion. Some people are just true believers that will refuse to change their mind no matter how many facts you can present or how many contradictions you find in their arguments, but you can't win over everyone.
If you spend enough time presenting reasoned arguments, eventually most people will come around. It might take years, but it's better than nothing.
I'm still hoping that Sanders can come back and beat Hillary (really long odds, but stranger things have happened) but let's not pretend that some of the political left's supporters aren't the same kind of ignorant, hateful people. They merely spread a different kind of ignorance belief than those individuals on the political right, but beyond that they both act in the same way.
I think there's a very important difference between user freedom (FOSS software) and user privacy (what this is about) that you're missing. Apple puts on more of a show about caring than they actually do, but it's also obvious that they take more steps than just about any other company of their size towards protecting user privacy.
I think that their tendency in this direction arises as much from business goals as is does from any form of altruism. It doesn't take much in the way of mental adeptness to see that Apple's biggest competitor is in the business of learning everything it can about a person in order to target advertisements at users. Apple knows it can't succeed in this business, not without years of incredibly costly work and Google dropping the ball once or twice along the way. It's far better for them to try to deprive Google of what makes them successful by making privacy a feature of their devices, much like they've added other functionality that diminishes the ability to collect information or display ads. I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually offer some kind of proxy service that makes online tracking practically impossible.
Really though, Apple is no different in this regard from any other company. Google didn't release their Google Docs because they care about users. Instead it was an opportunity to strike at an area where one of their main competitors (Microsoft) was heavily entrenched and disrupt their business model. You don't have to compete directly at something you're not good at if you can find a way to interfere with or outright nullify those advantages.
While this is certainly true in many places, if you live in the Southern U.S. it's pretty easy to get access to cheap and fresh produce year round. However that does require people to have the time and disposition to cook their own meals. Too many people would just rather scarf down a burger or toss something in the microwave instead of doing some cooking and make the mistake of thinking that a potato still counts as a vegetable after being thinly sliced and fried in oil. Soda is probably the worst offender for most people. A 20 oz. bottle has somewhere between 200 - 300 calories (pretty much all of it from sugar) and I'm sure everyone has known someone who comes close to the daily recommended calorie intake from soda alone.
Doesn't that also mean that it doesn't suffer inflation as easily as other currencies though? The fact that there's no government that can fire up a printing press and devalue the existing money supply suggests that relative to other currencies it would better retain value over time.
Also, although Moore's law is slowing down, the flip side of doubling transistor density is that you can get the same performance you previously got at about half of the power cost.
Between those two effects, it makes me think that it will still be economically viable to do similar amounts of mining, although by that time we may have moved on to some Bitcoin successor.
Then why are you asking someone else to do something that you wouldn't do yourself? Also, if you read the article the OP linked, the changes result in an additional $80,000 in yearly expenses. If you were in the same position with $25,000 you'd last about 4 months before exhausting that. It's not hard to do a small amount of critical thinking and realize that it made sense for that business owner to employee people at the previous minimum wage, but it doesn't make sense to do so at the new minimum wage. Are you expecting everyone running a business to by psychic and anticipate unforeseeable changes years in advance?
If they thought there was more money to be made this way, they would have already tried it and everyone would be doing it.
My guess is that a few of them already have on some limited basis and found that it doesn't make them more money.
Further, the streaming services themselves might demand exclusivity because if everyone has the exact same content, the only thing they can compete on is price.
Also, I'd guess the content producers want to play the streaming services against each other to prevent any one from becoming too powerful. Apple was able to dictate terms to the music industry for a good stretch of time because iTunes become far and away the most popular place to purchase digital music.
Why don't you hire them at $17 / hour so they can have an even better living? You've probably been around for a while and should have put away some money for something like this.
Most businesses aren't operating at the kind of obscene profit margins that would allow them to do that kind of thing. If they were, someone else would have opened shop and started undercutting prices to take the business. Not everyone who owns a business is some kind of millionaire that could give their employees more money, but chooses not to because they are so miserly.
Never mind that it's a comic shop, which now has to contend with online merchants, digital distribution, etc. The local shop here is probably only open because the owner is big into Warhammer and has a lot of people come in when he has tournaments who buy more miniatures from the store.
Even if all of that was done properly, they don't provide a copy of the poll questions so who knows what they actually asked.
Consider the following question "Do you agree that the dark net, a part of the global internet that houses illegal drugs, child pornography, and other illicit activity should be banned by the world's governments?" along with the usual strong agree, agree, etc. options. Of course you'd naturally expect people to agree it should be banned. You could make up something called the dragon net and people would overwhelmingly be in favor of banning it, even though it doesn't exist.
Of course you could phrase the question another way and paint the dark net as a place where people go to escape government censorship or authoritarian surveillance and I'd bet you'd get people voting that the U.S. should do more to fund it. Without knowing the question which was asked, the answer is almost meaningless.
Then don't talk about it as a mater of global warming. Say that you're doing it to reduce pollution. Is there anyone against reducing pollution? Sell it as reducing pollution, improving efficiency, eliminating our dependence on foreign energy.
The obtuse fools who keep banging their heads against the wall in this way are just as idiotic as the people burying their heads in the sand and ignoring that there's any kind of problem at all.
It doesn't matter if you have people who normally accept science. Odds are there's one or more things that they'll argue against for exactly the same reason. Ask people about GMO food safety, homosexuality and gender identity, vaccines and autism, sex-based intelligence factors, or any number of other topics and you'll likely find at least one instance where a person disagrees with the current scientific consensus and they'll invariably start using the same kinds of excuses you see with people denying climate change and you probably won't get them to budge much either, even though they agree with all of this other science in various other matters. Even really smart people are capable of being pig-headed idiots and trying to pound the table isn't an effective way of changing their minds or getting them to go along with you.
Maybe you could combine this with their other project they recently announced and create a weaponized AI that does its best to subvert their desired outcome.
It could have been worse. I remember when something like this happened at work (for very similar reasons) except whoever was doing it was sending seemingly unlimited jobs that would run through entire reams of paper and eat through toner, so when you'd get to work in the morning there'd be a huge stack of wasted paper. This is pretty damned childish, but he could have done worse by inverting the image so it was mostly printing black and had it spit out thousands of copies.
Got fixed quickly enough and it's not a difficult fix either, but I suspect that a lot of people leave them open because someone has some kind of special set up that they just need to print that for whatever reason won't play nicely with a particular set up and if they happen to be important enough (or complain enough to someone actually important who just wants to stop hearing from them) then IT usually just gets stuck making it work even if it's not following best practices.
Alternatively, this video does a reasonable job at outlining how a quantum computer works. It doesn't go into too much detail, but it's probably enough to give the average person an idea of the differences between quantum and classical computers.
I don't think it really matters. Win or lose, the court battle will go through appeals for years and years. Look how long the SCO trial took before it was finally dead and buried.
Even if Oracle gets every cent they've asked for, by the time it's reached a final settlement and all appeals have been exhausted, the only ones that will see any of that money will be Oracle's lawyers.
Slashdot Mirror
Use that time to make yourself stand out in other ways so that when it comes time to promote someone, you've got a lot more to say for yourself.
Technically it's Alphabet which owns Google which purchased Nest and brought it under the Alphabet umbrella. Nest is still an independent company and calling their own shots for the most part.
I doubt a baboon is capable of communicating its thoughts on the matter to the researchers. I'm not sure baboons have been taught sign language, but even if they were it's unlikely that they could understand such a question.
If it's someone who's post-operation and has been on hormone replacement therapy, who's really going to be able to tell?
If it's really a big deal just add a unisex bathroom with a changing station that can be used by families as well because there are plenty of moms and dads who have to take their sons or daughters into the "wrong" bathroom all the damned time.
To some degree yes, but making a physical chip requires working withing the confines of the physical limitations of the fabrication process, so it's never as simple as designing some ideal chip. You can certainly try to do it that way, but the yields will suck. It's also not trivial to design the sub-units either, and there's always new instruction sets or other such things to be supported.
Which seems rather scary in the long run. I recall once reading something where the author speculated that one of the largest reasons for the disproportionate amount of violence in the Middle East was due to the cultural and religious customs allowing men to have multiple wives. Since almost every country has a roughly even infant sex ratio this means that there were a large number of young men who had no prospect of finding a mate which contributed to the willingness to commit violence or engage in suicide bombings.
China might not experience the same problems or those problems in exactly the same way due to other aspects of their culture, but having a large part of the population being potentially unable to satisfy some of their most basic human desires seems like a recipe for problems down the road.
Your Florida will turn into the sea.
How is this an argument against global warming?
I haven't paid anything for Linux (or various other open source programs) either and I haven't had any problems like this.
Just because something is freely provided at no monetary cost doesn't mean that the people providing it are unscrupulous assholes.
That particular technique is only used because it is effective. If it weren't, people wouldn't use it or would use something else instead. The problem isn't that arguments are being made in that way, it's that all of the different issues you've listed are really complicated and you can hardly expect that average person to have enough understanding of them or the ancillary knowledge necessary to make a reasoned decision. Add in human tendency for confirmation bias and what you've called "frame" becomes the most effective way in a democracy to effect the types of change that you want. We only see it because all of the other tactics or strategies have proven to be less viable and therefor the people who employ them less successful. It's merely natural selection in terms of presenting arguments.
I don't believe it makes it impossible to have a meaningful debate, only that people haven't yet figured out how they should debate against it. Rather than attacking the framing of the opposition, most simply construct one of their own. However, I suspect that if you study a particular frame well enough, the cracks become apparent and it's only a matter of pointing them out and using basic logic to point out the inconsistencies or the contradictions created by a particular frame. In the face of that, a person using a particular frame either has to stop using it, or revise it in such a way that it no longer creates those contradictions, but any frame that continues to be based on subjective beliefs will still continue to have those problems.
Once exposed, it cannot stand on its own. Adherents may continue to hold it up, simply out of stubbornness, but most people will see that the emperor has no clothes. The problem is that people are either too lazy to fully understand a particular issue and to fully explore the nuances and minutiae that are necessary in order to actually solve a problem or they have a vested financial interest in the problem not being solved or their proposed solution (as incorrect as it may be) being used. People are naturally too self-interested to be expected to always and completely cooperate in a way that resolves this problem. Perhaps if we lived in a truly post-scarcity world it might be achievable, but we don't so the discussion is moot.
I don't know if any space faring alien society would necessarily be evil. Consider that for a species to survive long enough on a planet to develop the science to get into space it has to not cause its own destruction first. It's certainly possible that in order to make space travel more possible we'll develop the kinds of technology that make far deadlier weapons than we already have. Any species that is overly xenophobic or uncooperative would probably wipe itself out before developing the kinds of technology needed to cross the vast distances of space, assuming that it's even possible.
If aliens with that kind of capability did find earth, they'd probably leave us the hell alone simply because we haven't evolved enough as a species to avoid destroying ourselves with the kind of advanced technology that any alien species that could reach our planet would have developed. They might study us, much like we do with insects or animals, but even that assumes that doing so provides them with knowledge they don't already have which is again a pretty big assumption.
But it's also an opportunity for you to present good evidence in support of your beliefs that can sway other people who are watching the discussion. Some people are just true believers that will refuse to change their mind no matter how many facts you can present or how many contradictions you find in their arguments, but you can't win over everyone.
If you spend enough time presenting reasoned arguments, eventually most people will come around. It might take years, but it's better than nothing.
Then again when writing someone's name in chalk causes as much of an uproar as it did, it makes me think that Trump doesn't have a monopoly on idiot supporters.
I'm still hoping that Sanders can come back and beat Hillary (really long odds, but stranger things have happened) but let's not pretend that some of the political left's supporters aren't the same kind of ignorant, hateful people. They merely spread a different kind of ignorance belief than those individuals on the political right, but beyond that they both act in the same way.
I think there's a very important difference between user freedom (FOSS software) and user privacy (what this is about) that you're missing. Apple puts on more of a show about caring than they actually do, but it's also obvious that they take more steps than just about any other company of their size towards protecting user privacy.
I think that their tendency in this direction arises as much from business goals as is does from any form of altruism. It doesn't take much in the way of mental adeptness to see that Apple's biggest competitor is in the business of learning everything it can about a person in order to target advertisements at users. Apple knows it can't succeed in this business, not without years of incredibly costly work and Google dropping the ball once or twice along the way. It's far better for them to try to deprive Google of what makes them successful by making privacy a feature of their devices, much like they've added other functionality that diminishes the ability to collect information or display ads. I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually offer some kind of proxy service that makes online tracking practically impossible.
Really though, Apple is no different in this regard from any other company. Google didn't release their Google Docs because they care about users. Instead it was an opportunity to strike at an area where one of their main competitors (Microsoft) was heavily entrenched and disrupt their business model. You don't have to compete directly at something you're not good at if you can find a way to interfere with or outright nullify those advantages.
While this is certainly true in many places, if you live in the Southern U.S. it's pretty easy to get access to cheap and fresh produce year round. However that does require people to have the time and disposition to cook their own meals. Too many people would just rather scarf down a burger or toss something in the microwave instead of doing some cooking and make the mistake of thinking that a potato still counts as a vegetable after being thinly sliced and fried in oil. Soda is probably the worst offender for most people. A 20 oz. bottle has somewhere between 200 - 300 calories (pretty much all of it from sugar) and I'm sure everyone has known someone who comes close to the daily recommended calorie intake from soda alone.
Doesn't that also mean that it doesn't suffer inflation as easily as other currencies though? The fact that there's no government that can fire up a printing press and devalue the existing money supply suggests that relative to other currencies it would better retain value over time.
Also, although Moore's law is slowing down, the flip side of doubling transistor density is that you can get the same performance you previously got at about half of the power cost.
Between those two effects, it makes me think that it will still be economically viable to do similar amounts of mining, although by that time we may have moved on to some Bitcoin successor.
Then why are you asking someone else to do something that you wouldn't do yourself? Also, if you read the article the OP linked, the changes result in an additional $80,000 in yearly expenses. If you were in the same position with $25,000 you'd last about 4 months before exhausting that. It's not hard to do a small amount of critical thinking and realize that it made sense for that business owner to employee people at the previous minimum wage, but it doesn't make sense to do so at the new minimum wage. Are you expecting everyone running a business to by psychic and anticipate unforeseeable changes years in advance?
If they thought there was more money to be made this way, they would have already tried it and everyone would be doing it.
My guess is that a few of them already have on some limited basis and found that it doesn't make them more money.
Further, the streaming services themselves might demand exclusivity because if everyone has the exact same content, the only thing they can compete on is price.
Also, I'd guess the content producers want to play the streaming services against each other to prevent any one from becoming too powerful. Apple was able to dictate terms to the music industry for a good stretch of time because iTunes become far and away the most popular place to purchase digital music.
Why don't you hire them at $17 / hour so they can have an even better living? You've probably been around for a while and should have put away some money for something like this.
Most businesses aren't operating at the kind of obscene profit margins that would allow them to do that kind of thing. If they were, someone else would have opened shop and started undercutting prices to take the business. Not everyone who owns a business is some kind of millionaire that could give their employees more money, but chooses not to because they are so miserly.
Never mind that it's a comic shop, which now has to contend with online merchants, digital distribution, etc. The local shop here is probably only open because the owner is big into Warhammer and has a lot of people come in when he has tournaments who buy more miniatures from the store.
Even if all of that was done properly, they don't provide a copy of the poll questions so who knows what they actually asked.
Consider the following question "Do you agree that the dark net, a part of the global internet that houses illegal drugs, child pornography, and other illicit activity should be banned by the world's governments?" along with the usual strong agree, agree, etc. options. Of course you'd naturally expect people to agree it should be banned. You could make up something called the dragon net and people would overwhelmingly be in favor of banning it, even though it doesn't exist.
Of course you could phrase the question another way and paint the dark net as a place where people go to escape government censorship or authoritarian surveillance and I'd bet you'd get people voting that the U.S. should do more to fund it. Without knowing the question which was asked, the answer is almost meaningless.
Then don't talk about it as a mater of global warming. Say that you're doing it to reduce pollution. Is there anyone against reducing pollution? Sell it as reducing pollution, improving efficiency, eliminating our dependence on foreign energy.
The obtuse fools who keep banging their heads against the wall in this way are just as idiotic as the people burying their heads in the sand and ignoring that there's any kind of problem at all.
It doesn't matter if you have people who normally accept science. Odds are there's one or more things that they'll argue against for exactly the same reason. Ask people about GMO food safety, homosexuality and gender identity, vaccines and autism, sex-based intelligence factors, or any number of other topics and you'll likely find at least one instance where a person disagrees with the current scientific consensus and they'll invariably start using the same kinds of excuses you see with people denying climate change and you probably won't get them to budge much either, even though they agree with all of this other science in various other matters. Even really smart people are capable of being pig-headed idiots and trying to pound the table isn't an effective way of changing their minds or getting them to go along with you.
Maybe you could combine this with their other project they recently announced and create a weaponized AI that does its best to subvert their desired outcome.
It could have been worse. I remember when something like this happened at work (for very similar reasons) except whoever was doing it was sending seemingly unlimited jobs that would run through entire reams of paper and eat through toner, so when you'd get to work in the morning there'd be a huge stack of wasted paper. This is pretty damned childish, but he could have done worse by inverting the image so it was mostly printing black and had it spit out thousands of copies.
Got fixed quickly enough and it's not a difficult fix either, but I suspect that a lot of people leave them open because someone has some kind of special set up that they just need to print that for whatever reason won't play nicely with a particular set up and if they happen to be important enough (or complain enough to someone actually important who just wants to stop hearing from them) then IT usually just gets stuck making it work even if it's not following best practices.
Alternatively, this video does a reasonable job at outlining how a quantum computer works. It doesn't go into too much detail, but it's probably enough to give the average person an idea of the differences between quantum and classical computers.
I don't think it really matters. Win or lose, the court battle will go through appeals for years and years. Look how long the SCO trial took before it was finally dead and buried.
Even if Oracle gets every cent they've asked for, by the time it's reached a final settlement and all appeals have been exhausted, the only ones that will see any of that money will be Oracle's lawyers.
Compared to how most big corporate acquisitions these days turn out, only losing $900 million seems like they actually came out ahead.
Look at how Nokia turned out for Microsoft or Motorola did for Google.