It's even worse than that. Many of the individuals who have tried to sue the government have had their cases dismissed because they can't actually prove that the government spy programs that we've become aware of were actually spying on them even though they've been collecting data on almost everyone. Basically a giant catch-22 where you can't actually bring a case to court until you have the information you could only get from successfully bringing a case to court.
We need another Snowden who'll dump enough data to clearly give at least a few individuals legal standing. Or just release it all so we can have a massive class action suit involving the entire country against its own government.
Which the OS will automatically free up as necessary by killing off suspended processes. Why waste your own time doing it when it offers no real benefit and the OS will free up the memory as soon as it needs it anyhow?
Because, just like with most everything else we do, there's a potential future benefit that is worth more than the cost. Otherwise we'd still be living in small tribes and gathering nuts and berries while following herds of animals around.
Friendly means that the AI will realize that just because you contain Carbon, it shouldn't break you down for material as part of its goal to optimize the production of carbon fiber hoods for the new 2043 'Murica Mobile, now with passenger side turret hardpoint.
I'd be happier with an AI that didn't do all that shit. Too many webpages have spent far more effort on their style than their substance. Give me something small profile that's quick to load and easy on the bandwidth. Based on what I see, 90% of the job seems to be figuring out how to cram even more shitty ads onto an already overcrowded space.
Which is why it makes a certain amount of sense to just put healthcare completely on the government. Companies don't have to care about it or assume that risk so they can hire the candidate they want regardless of potential health issues as it doesn't cost them anything extra. It especially makes sense for small businesses who don't have the employment numbers to negotiate for less costly premiums. If employers really want to compete on health care they can always offer additional coverage or benefits beyond what the government does.
There are arguments to be made againts government-run health care, but from an employer's perspective there aren't as many. Let someone else handle it so your company doesn't have to and it then removes the reason for the employer to want any access to health data.
Also, there are some jobs where you probably wouldn't want a person who's at risk for certain conditions, but there are tests for those. I suppose if you really wanted to be racist you could try to do something like you've suggested, but most companies wouldn't.
I would imagine that they've tried it internally and it's not too bad or they've found ways of reducing potential disorientation, perhaps by only allowing your head position to change the camera view via the headset instead of using a mouse or analog stick as typical with most games. There's still going to be a disconnect between what you're seeing and your body's sense of motion, but to some degree you'll get that with any VR game.
It doesn't make sense for Valve (who while not as involved in the VR-craze as other companies has been pushing for it) to release a bad product that puts people off VR entirely.
So it would never quick charge again or it just wouldn't in the short amount of time the user tested it within, which really isn't stated. For all we know this could have been solved by turning if off and on again and it's something a software/firmware patch can fix.
There is one just today about Ray Tomlinson but considering this has been out for less time and already has more comments/views shows exactly why this got posted.
The real problem with the US is that local governments grant monopoly rights for those services to single companies. There is no one to negotiate with because you either get your cable from Company X or you put up with DSL assuming there's a provider in your area. The towns that have kicked out the cable companies are the ones that are seeing better service for lower prices. If you want to have an open market, the city itself needs to own the infrastructure and allow anyone to provide service on top of it.
That's expected to happen if you have a currency not tied to a precious metal (not saying it's a good idea, merely an observation) as you can create money without respect to the amount of any other resource. In these systems excess money is usually created (either by design in order to encourage inflation or due to reckless government action) which means that as time goes by its value naturally decreases with respect to the material of which the physical currency is made. A U.S. penny costs the government more than it's face value to mint because it has lost sufficient purchasing power that the metal it is composed of and the labor expended to min the coin has more value than the coin itself. Over a long enough period of time (about 150 years assuming annual inflation remains at around 3% on average), it will be useless to have anything less than whole dollars.
Also, this ignores the fact that in a real crisis, a gold coin isn't worth any more than a quarter for most people. You'd probably be more able to get someone to take it, but you can't eat it. Also, really old coins are worth far more than the gold or other metal it is made from simply because it is old and heavily supply constrained. Melting it down would destroy most of its value to other people who are interested in old coins. Even some of the older coins from the U.S. are worth more as collectibles than either their face value or the metal they contain. For example, a US half penny (we used to have one before the government decided it was useless to keep making because it had lost its value) can fetch thousands of dollars depending on year and condition.
Being dirt poor or having a limited education does not mean a person is unintelligent, no more than being rich or having every educational opportunity in the world means a person is intelligent. If it were that easy, we could just give stupid people additional schooling and everyone could be a rocket scientists or a doctor.
It's very likely your grandfather was an intelligent man, but did not have much opportunity in his life for any number of reasons. For instance, if he or his own parents were immigrants, they likely had to uproot and start with very little. My own grandfather only had a high school education, but worked hard and had children who attained more academically than he had, but he was by no means unintelligent. He was always quite skilled with machines, even though he had no formal education or training. He just figured out how they worked by tinkering or reading through the manual and did his own work on them rather than paying someone else for repairs.
Although I do agree that the person you're responding to should have posted a citation for his claim.
On the other hand it allows other companies to poach top talent because they know exactly what a talented individual is making and can make a better offer. It does require some other company to be proactive in seeking out talent, but a good company should be looking for better employees. Having more information is always better as it allows for more intelligent and informed decision making, but when the information is asymmetrical it naturally disadvantages some players, which is why companies generally don't share that information as it means they can possibly get away paying their own employees less while shielding them from other companies attempting to poach the good employees.
If what this company is doing is non-optimal, then they'll eventually go out of business. If they want to try playing the game by a different strategy that's their own business. I don't think this is the first time this company has been mentioned here, so I suspect that they're getting a lot of free advertising by virtue of doing things a little differently. Their choices may have value outside of their most direct consequences.
Not necessarily. I could run a business and start salaries at $200,000 and reject any candidates I didn't think were worth that much. I'd probably be inundated with applications from delusional idiots that think they're worth that much, but I could get a set of highly skilled and exceptional employees if I'm willing to pay them what they're worth.
It really depends on how their entry rate compares to the rest of the market. If the base salary is in the upper range of what a starting developer can expect to make, they'll naturally be able to attract better talent just because they advertise a higher base salary. If they are competent judges of ability then their system will ensure that they do actually hire reasonably skilled developers. They probably won't get the best of the best (and maybe their company doesn't require that either), but they'll still get pretty good results.
Unless you've got an extensive work history, you probably don't have much ammunition to negotiate with anyways or its the kind of stuff that puts the onus of judging correctly completely on the company. I would imagine they're another one of those hip young companies that don't want graybeards anyways so most of the people applying don't have enough of a track record to have a good negotiation position. It makes more sense if they allowed employees to negotiate for personal raises after the fact, which I think should be allowed as it does give both sides better information to make that kind of judgement.
It gives you more information. If you see other employees making a certain amount and you know you are more productive or can add more value than they do, you have a much more compelling argument for getting a raise. I suspect that for most people, it's easier to argue over relative worth as it's pretty easy to make the case that you are better than employees B and C, but they make more money rather than to discuss value in a vacuum. It's also an easier argument for a boss to look at and agree with as well.
You can vote for me as I've decided to throw my hat into the ring and I have a great plan to solve the debt crisis. Since I'm just a nobody the odds of me being elected are at least a trillion to one, which means a few wagers on my self should cover a lot of the current US debt.
But here's where my brilliant strategy comes into play. Since it looks to be Trump vs Clinton at this point, it's a battle of which candidate do you hate less. I will legally change my name to Neither (just Neither, no first name) which means I'll likely get a majority of votes in any state where I'm on the ballot. I secure a win and pay off the debt in one fell swoop.
And for my encore, peace in the Middle East. I'm already working on a news letter you can subscribe to.
Yeah, it's about as useful as measuring the performance of an engine in terms of how many people named Barry worked on the team that developed it. Our new engine has over 5 times the HP/Barry as our previous model!
While it's nice to know that potentially coating a product with these won't add to the overall weight in a meaningful way, it doesn't mean that they'll be able to generate enough power to keep the device running. There's also the matter of how expensive are these to manufacture. The article makes the process sound radically different from current methods which likely means doing this at scale is going to require an entirely new manufacturing setup, which may itself be incredibly expensive.
Sure it could be the breakthrough that changes things, or it could just be another piece of technology that we've developed but can't produce commercially because the manufacturing process is either expensive, slow, or troublesome for other reasons.
I'd need a citation on that. Everything I've read has found a link between obesity and depression, although most of it is merely a correlation without further examining the causal relationship.
If you have market competition, then prices are naturally driven down and profit is eroded because no one is going to buy from the company that keeps the same prices when every other company lowers their prices to reflect the decrease in costs.
At one point in time it probably cost in excess of $5,000 (in today's currency) to be able to travel from the east coast to the west coast. Increases in automation mean that we can do far more cheaply, but by your logic it should cost even more because the companies would keep trying to get more and more profit. It doesn't matter what system of commerce you have if there's no market competition. Even capitalistic systems in the west still charge corporate taxes.
I don't think it's a race to the bottom or that automated labor will ever decrease. Keeping a fixed population but increasing the labor capacity means more stuff for each person. Just because we have fewer people doesn't mean they'll also stop wanting new stuff. Also, we could still have a population of several billion, only that all of them are capable of Ph.D. level physics or something just as advanced. If one single company ends up owning everything, how is it really that much different than a communistic government that owns everything for its people, or technically just manages it because it's really the people that own, even if they can't use it.
For all we know we eventually do create something like the replicator for Star Trek and it doesn't matter how many people there are or what they do as it's essentially free to feed and clothe them.
If it comes to that, it's easier to just let corporations be as efficient as possible while increasing tax rates to support the people who can't work, which shouldn't be terribly expensive if you've got cheap robot labor doing most of the work required to support people.
At some point we'll probably end up with a Gattaca or Brave New World style approach where future humans are only created such that they will be capable of the kind of work that robots cannot yet do as there isn't much point in keeping around large groups of people that can't really add much to society. Whether that occurs peacefully or violently remains to be seen.
Slashdot Mirror
It's even worse than that. Many of the individuals who have tried to sue the government have had their cases dismissed because they can't actually prove that the government spy programs that we've become aware of were actually spying on them even though they've been collecting data on almost everyone. Basically a giant catch-22 where you can't actually bring a case to court until you have the information you could only get from successfully bringing a case to court.
We need another Snowden who'll dump enough data to clearly give at least a few individuals legal standing. Or just release it all so we can have a massive class action suit involving the entire country against its own government.
Which the OS will automatically free up as necessary by killing off suspended processes. Why waste your own time doing it when it offers no real benefit and the OS will free up the memory as soon as it needs it anyhow?
Because, just like with most everything else we do, there's a potential future benefit that is worth more than the cost. Otherwise we'd still be living in small tribes and gathering nuts and berries while following herds of animals around.
Friendly means that the AI will realize that just because you contain Carbon, it shouldn't break you down for material as part of its goal to optimize the production of carbon fiber hoods for the new 2043 'Murica Mobile, now with passenger side turret hardpoint.
I'd be happier with an AI that didn't do all that shit. Too many webpages have spent far more effort on their style than their substance. Give me something small profile that's quick to load and easy on the bandwidth. Based on what I see, 90% of the job seems to be figuring out how to cram even more shitty ads onto an already overcrowded space.
Just out of curiosity, do you believe the same should be applied to unions as well? There are plenty of jobs where union membership is mandatory.
What you're suggesting would have a rather large effect on a lot of unions and they way the currently operate.
Which is why it makes a certain amount of sense to just put healthcare completely on the government. Companies don't have to care about it or assume that risk so they can hire the candidate they want regardless of potential health issues as it doesn't cost them anything extra. It especially makes sense for small businesses who don't have the employment numbers to negotiate for less costly premiums. If employers really want to compete on health care they can always offer additional coverage or benefits beyond what the government does.
There are arguments to be made againts government-run health care, but from an employer's perspective there aren't as many. Let someone else handle it so your company doesn't have to and it then removes the reason for the employer to want any access to health data.
Also, there are some jobs where you probably wouldn't want a person who's at risk for certain conditions, but there are tests for those. I suppose if you really wanted to be racist you could try to do something like you've suggested, but most companies wouldn't.
I would imagine that they've tried it internally and it's not too bad or they've found ways of reducing potential disorientation, perhaps by only allowing your head position to change the camera view via the headset instead of using a mouse or analog stick as typical with most games. There's still going to be a disconnect between what you're seeing and your body's sense of motion, but to some degree you'll get that with any VR game.
It doesn't make sense for Valve (who while not as involved in the VR-craze as other companies has been pushing for it) to release a bad product that puts people off VR entirely.
Yes, but do you really want to know what Internet Explorer users are looking at on the web?
Feature, not a bug.
She'd probably be a bit bothered thought because they already used that one at Thatcher's funeral.
It was foretold by her astrologers.
So it would never quick charge again or it just wouldn't in the short amount of time the user tested it within, which really isn't stated. For all we know this could have been solved by turning if off and on again and it's something a software/firmware patch can fix.
There is one just today about Ray Tomlinson but considering this has been out for less time and already has more comments/views shows exactly why this got posted.
The real problem with the US is that local governments grant monopoly rights for those services to single companies. There is no one to negotiate with because you either get your cable from Company X or you put up with DSL assuming there's a provider in your area. The towns that have kicked out the cable companies are the ones that are seeing better service for lower prices. If you want to have an open market, the city itself needs to own the infrastructure and allow anyone to provide service on top of it.
That's expected to happen if you have a currency not tied to a precious metal (not saying it's a good idea, merely an observation) as you can create money without respect to the amount of any other resource. In these systems excess money is usually created (either by design in order to encourage inflation or due to reckless government action) which means that as time goes by its value naturally decreases with respect to the material of which the physical currency is made. A U.S. penny costs the government more than it's face value to mint because it has lost sufficient purchasing power that the metal it is composed of and the labor expended to min the coin has more value than the coin itself. Over a long enough period of time (about 150 years assuming annual inflation remains at around 3% on average), it will be useless to have anything less than whole dollars.
Also, this ignores the fact that in a real crisis, a gold coin isn't worth any more than a quarter for most people. You'd probably be more able to get someone to take it, but you can't eat it. Also, really old coins are worth far more than the gold or other metal it is made from simply because it is old and heavily supply constrained. Melting it down would destroy most of its value to other people who are interested in old coins. Even some of the older coins from the U.S. are worth more as collectibles than either their face value or the metal they contain. For example, a US half penny (we used to have one before the government decided it was useless to keep making because it had lost its value) can fetch thousands of dollars depending on year and condition.
Being dirt poor or having a limited education does not mean a person is unintelligent, no more than being rich or having every educational opportunity in the world means a person is intelligent. If it were that easy, we could just give stupid people additional schooling and everyone could be a rocket scientists or a doctor.
It's very likely your grandfather was an intelligent man, but did not have much opportunity in his life for any number of reasons. For instance, if he or his own parents were immigrants, they likely had to uproot and start with very little. My own grandfather only had a high school education, but worked hard and had children who attained more academically than he had, but he was by no means unintelligent. He was always quite skilled with machines, even though he had no formal education or training. He just figured out how they worked by tinkering or reading through the manual and did his own work on them rather than paying someone else for repairs.
Although I do agree that the person you're responding to should have posted a citation for his claim.
On the other hand it allows other companies to poach top talent because they know exactly what a talented individual is making and can make a better offer. It does require some other company to be proactive in seeking out talent, but a good company should be looking for better employees. Having more information is always better as it allows for more intelligent and informed decision making, but when the information is asymmetrical it naturally disadvantages some players, which is why companies generally don't share that information as it means they can possibly get away paying their own employees less while shielding them from other companies attempting to poach the good employees.
If what this company is doing is non-optimal, then they'll eventually go out of business. If they want to try playing the game by a different strategy that's their own business. I don't think this is the first time this company has been mentioned here, so I suspect that they're getting a lot of free advertising by virtue of doing things a little differently. Their choices may have value outside of their most direct consequences.
Not necessarily. I could run a business and start salaries at $200,000 and reject any candidates I didn't think were worth that much. I'd probably be inundated with applications from delusional idiots that think they're worth that much, but I could get a set of highly skilled and exceptional employees if I'm willing to pay them what they're worth.
It really depends on how their entry rate compares to the rest of the market. If the base salary is in the upper range of what a starting developer can expect to make, they'll naturally be able to attract better talent just because they advertise a higher base salary. If they are competent judges of ability then their system will ensure that they do actually hire reasonably skilled developers. They probably won't get the best of the best (and maybe their company doesn't require that either), but they'll still get pretty good results.
Unless you've got an extensive work history, you probably don't have much ammunition to negotiate with anyways or its the kind of stuff that puts the onus of judging correctly completely on the company. I would imagine they're another one of those hip young companies that don't want graybeards anyways so most of the people applying don't have enough of a track record to have a good negotiation position. It makes more sense if they allowed employees to negotiate for personal raises after the fact, which I think should be allowed as it does give both sides better information to make that kind of judgement.
It gives you more information. If you see other employees making a certain amount and you know you are more productive or can add more value than they do, you have a much more compelling argument for getting a raise. I suspect that for most people, it's easier to argue over relative worth as it's pretty easy to make the case that you are better than employees B and C, but they make more money rather than to discuss value in a vacuum. It's also an easier argument for a boss to look at and agree with as well.
You can vote for me as I've decided to throw my hat into the ring and I have a great plan to solve the debt crisis. Since I'm just a nobody the odds of me being elected are at least a trillion to one, which means a few wagers on my self should cover a lot of the current US debt.
But here's where my brilliant strategy comes into play. Since it looks to be Trump vs Clinton at this point, it's a battle of which candidate do you hate less. I will legally change my name to Neither (just Neither, no first name) which means I'll likely get a majority of votes in any state where I'm on the ballot. I secure a win and pay off the debt in one fell swoop.
And for my encore, peace in the Middle East. I'm already working on a news letter you can subscribe to.
Yeah, it's about as useful as measuring the performance of an engine in terms of how many people named Barry worked on the team that developed it. Our new engine has over 5 times the HP/Barry as our previous model!
While it's nice to know that potentially coating a product with these won't add to the overall weight in a meaningful way, it doesn't mean that they'll be able to generate enough power to keep the device running. There's also the matter of how expensive are these to manufacture. The article makes the process sound radically different from current methods which likely means doing this at scale is going to require an entirely new manufacturing setup, which may itself be incredibly expensive.
Sure it could be the breakthrough that changes things, or it could just be another piece of technology that we've developed but can't produce commercially because the manufacturing process is either expensive, slow, or troublesome for other reasons.
I'd need a citation on that. Everything I've read has found a link between obesity and depression, although most of it is merely a correlation without further examining the causal relationship.
If you have market competition, then prices are naturally driven down and profit is eroded because no one is going to buy from the company that keeps the same prices when every other company lowers their prices to reflect the decrease in costs.
At one point in time it probably cost in excess of $5,000 (in today's currency) to be able to travel from the east coast to the west coast. Increases in automation mean that we can do far more cheaply, but by your logic it should cost even more because the companies would keep trying to get more and more profit. It doesn't matter what system of commerce you have if there's no market competition. Even capitalistic systems in the west still charge corporate taxes.
I don't think it's a race to the bottom or that automated labor will ever decrease. Keeping a fixed population but increasing the labor capacity means more stuff for each person. Just because we have fewer people doesn't mean they'll also stop wanting new stuff. Also, we could still have a population of several billion, only that all of them are capable of Ph.D. level physics or something just as advanced. If one single company ends up owning everything, how is it really that much different than a communistic government that owns everything for its people, or technically just manages it because it's really the people that own, even if they can't use it.
For all we know we eventually do create something like the replicator for Star Trek and it doesn't matter how many people there are or what they do as it's essentially free to feed and clothe them.
If it comes to that, it's easier to just let corporations be as efficient as possible while increasing tax rates to support the people who can't work, which shouldn't be terribly expensive if you've got cheap robot labor doing most of the work required to support people.
At some point we'll probably end up with a Gattaca or Brave New World style approach where future humans are only created such that they will be capable of the kind of work that robots cannot yet do as there isn't much point in keeping around large groups of people that can't really add much to society. Whether that occurs peacefully or violently remains to be seen.