I don't and have *never* used Amazon because I thought they were cheaper. I live in WA state, so I've always had to pay sales tax, unlike the rest of the country until recently. I use them today for the following reasons, in order of importance:
- One-stop convenience. I buy almost everything from Amazon except groceries these days, and it's vastly easier to find exactly what I want or need. - Delivery. It comes to me, and I don't have to futz around in awful Seattle traffic. - Security. Amazon seems to know how to protect my CC info. I don't trust most websites or even local stores with POS machines to have any security. - Customer service. Whenever I've had an issue, Amazon took care of it quickly and completely. Even when I didn't ask for a refund, in some cases.
It's easy to make something "shatterproof" if you make it soft enough. The front screen is apparently plastic, not glass. Thus, it will get scratched all to hell, but probably won't shatter.
"Extinction-level threat" how, exactly? Is someone insane enough to build a self-sustaining robot soldier factory and then give an AI system complete control of it? Or just give an AI complete launch control of our nuclear arsenal? I can't see humanity ever being quite that trusting.
Musk may be a visionary, but he's also a bit loony on some topics. Don't forget he believes it's a near certainty that we're all living inside a massive computer simulation.
Trust me, I already well know it. I tend to think that the conceit of "unbiased journalism" is an untenable goal in practice, even if admirable in theory.
I'd much rather someone tell me up front what their political biases are so I can weigh that appropriately when reading something they're presenting to me. I'm of the opinion that it's virtually impossible for an organization or individual to report on *any* issue in an unbiased fashion. As such, I think it's more honest not to even pretend that's what you're doing, when you're clearly not.
Well, we'll see how it works, right? We absolutely need these sorts of large-scale tests to definitively prove or disprove the viability of alternative energy projects such as these. Although some people still try, it's hard to argue with raw data gathered over five or ten years. Based on a relatively short history, we'll be able to see how much economic sense it makes to move ahead with larger projects. Note that you do have to account for economy of scale and a maturation of technology, of course.
I was initially somewhat doubtful about the economic viability of some of these projects. I'd like nothing more than to be proven absolutely wrong on this.
It's actually a dispute between legal owners, a result from split in co-ownership after a messy divorce. Further details are provided in comments above this.
From what I can see, the "save snopes" summary is being deliberately misleading, as they talk about the company "contracted to provide services", etc. No, they were sold an interest in the company. And frankly, that sort of dishonesty is highly disturbing when coming from the head of a fact-checking site.
We don't need a bad analogy or two to understand this. The kid saw an exploitable flaw, let the company know in a responsible manner, and was punished for it. Other companies would thank him, and perhaps even pay him a bug bounty for his trouble, because he just did them a huge favor. This is not anything unprecedented in the modern world. Only the backwards and punitive reaction is.
This reaction represents the mindset of companies from decades ago, where they thought that security through obscurity was a valid methodology. All it does it discourage white hats from disclosing bugs. The black hats will gleefully exploit the flaws they discover.
I personally would LOVE to see this level of wage transparency in the US-- It would make a great many HR, and management teams break out in cold, bloody sweats.
I dunno. I could just as easily see an HR department using that against you.
"Well, we'd really love to give you a raise, but we'd have problems if everyone saw how much more you're making..."
Any Norwegians here? Would love to hear how this actually affects your relationship with your employer and fellow employees.
Apps or browsers should handle streaming in a sane fashion, not downloading half the video if you're only going to watch the first 20 seconds. We shouldn't be delegating or even allowing the ISPs to be making those decisions for us.
I'm totally fine with general bandwidth-throttling of heavy users after they exceed their caps over time, if that's specified in the contract. This sort of behind-the-scenes thing, IMO, is not okay. The ISPs have a direct financial incentive to throttle bandwidth down to a barely tolerable level, and this comes at the direct cost of users' viewing or browsing experience.
Serious question: what is it about bookmarks that don't fulfill this role for you? Everything you describe, I do in Firefox with bookmarks and folders. Obviously, it takes almost zero extra memory. I tend to keep my tab usage under a dozen or two, since after that things start getting cluttered. So... is it a workflow thing, or a UI issue?
I keep thinking if one of the browser makers could figure out the answer to this question and make a change to their browser to accommodate people who like to collect windows and tabs as "live" bookmarks, they'd add a few percentage points from users like you who work this way.
MP3 certainly isn't a modern, top-tier format. But there's an awful lot of legacy mp3 data out there, so it's good to be able to take advantage of that in a free and open browser.
One nice thing about patents, I suppose, is that we do have time on our side. With the volume of tech that's being patented, the low-hanging fruit has largely been snapped up (for example, I believe Amazon's One-Click patent expires very soon), and in another few decades, most of the formats we now use (like MP4 video) will also be free and clear. It won't be the latest and greatest, but at some point, we're going to run into some hard limits about how far we can compress video as well. Eventually, it won't be worth patenting new formats that can compress video 2% more than the previous well-established format, and ALL formats will be patent free. Eventually.
For decades now, Abrams tanks have been putting physical projectiles from a moving, bouncing vehicle on small targets a long ways away. I'd imagine we have the technology to precisely track, aim, and fire at targets pretty well nailed at this point.
If I want a zero-calorie fizzy drink, I keep my fridge stocked with carbonated bottled water, which has a tiny bit of flavoring added but doesn't add any significant caloric or nutritional impact. Amazon ships Perrier right to my doorstop, but if you can find a source, Talking Rain is good too. I was never a big soda drinker, but I still had cravings for carbonated drinks on occasion.
Some people don't like the unsweetened drinks, as they're probably an acquired taste, but I absolutely love them.
This happened to me as well, although this was at the time of employment, not after two years (which seems a bit odd to me). I was concerned about some boilerplate legalese in my employment contract, because basically it stated I couldn't be hired in my field for like a year or two after I quit, which is ridiculous. The PR person dismissed it as just that - legal boilerplate, and assured me that it would never be enforced. I was younger at the time, and needed the job, and so signed. A slightly older and wiser colleague of mine insisted that part of the contract be struck out before he signed. These days, I would likely do the same. If it would never be enforced, then there's no reason for it to be in the contract.
When I eventually did leave, the "no-compete" clause was not enforced. Legally speaking, it probably would never have held up in court, and it would have been far more damaging for a company to do something like that to a former employee. It's not like I was taking any vital trade secrets, other than a general working knowledge of some of their code and technology.
It's always a little awkward when you make what you think is a rather obvious joke, and someone responds seriously.
That's fine, I'll answer seriously: If this is successful even temporarily, there's nothing to prevent Google or anyone else from applying the same treatment again in the future, if necessary, perhaps even more aggressively, and combined with better quarantine procedures in the future. Then again, it may actually wipe out the viability of the local population to a degree that future treatments are rarely if ever needed.
Honestly, I have no idea which way it will go, but it seems like an experiment worth trying. Even without the laser-firing robots.
The president has the constitutional power of clemency, and you think this minor intervention in an entirely internal bureaucratic affair (in a department which his office administers) heralds the breakdown of the rule of law? That's a hell of a stretch.
Could messing with the mosquito population have some unforeseen disastrous consequences? Not likely. This particular mosquito species entered the area in 2013.
This is very important information, I think. We're just dealing with another invasive species here. Nothing will be harmed by wiping out this local population. It can't possibly be a critical link in the local ecosystem over such a short period of time.
This is what a little bad publicity will do in the face of a typical government bureaucratic snafu. It's the same thing with other giant corporations. Nothing happens to resolve your issue until your issue becomes an embarrassment to them, and someone high enough up the food chain takes action.
Anyhow, best of luck to those young women. I hope their experience visiting the US is a positive one, despite the initial circumstances, and that they can make a positive impact on the future of their country.
Probably not for a different reason. This is clever political posturing designed to generate headlines (hey, mission accomplished!) in the wake of Trump's faux pas. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell this bill is going anywhere except to news aggregators. It won't affect us at all because it will never get passed into law. That's just political reality talking. Republicans control Congress right now, and Trump is the one who would have to sign this into law.
So why "go public" to begin with? That's the whole point. You just assume that this must be done. Why?
No, I don't assume it "must be done". Please don't put words in my mouth.
I haven't been in that situation, so I can't speak as to the mindset of those who do it, but I suspect it's a desire to grow the business and become more successful. Or, if you want to view it negatively, you could call it a combination of greed and ambition. They essentially sell their company to the public for a large infusion of capital, and in return, control is ceded to a managing board of directors and the shareholders at large.
But not all companies go public. The vast majority of small businesses are privately held, of course, and there are even a number of very large privately held companies as well. Some go halfway, and after going public, retain a controlling interest in the company, giving them more control over how its run.
A nice story. I accidentally left my wallet on top of my car (and I can't blame dementia for that). Someone actually spotted it as it fell off, picked it up, chased after me in their car, and returned it. The wallet had a hundred or two in cash at least, I'm sure. I gave them a small cash reward as thanks, and they were even reluctant to take that. Good people do exist in the world. You just don't hear about them, because they go about living their lives quietly, not making headlines.
Generally speaking, I keep a small supply of cash simply for the rare case when electronic systems aren't available at the time of a purchase, but otherwise, consistently use a cash card.
In fact, I would make it a hallmark of my business to NOT be like the others, while also not coming up with nonsense such as donating money to charities in the company's name. I'd simply sell a honest product or service and never cut corners.
I buy my computers from a small, local custom PC builder who operates this way. Super high-quality components (they constantly evaluate reliability and stock the components that perform the best over time) and excellent service, with the ability to precisely customize a PC to my needs. As long as they keep up the excellent performance, I'll never buy a PC from anywhere else. The catch? You pay significantly more for a PC than if you just buy some mass manufactured product from Dell.
What you're describing is certainly possible for small, independently owned businesses. When a company gives up control to go public, they also cede control to the wishes of shareholders, which may not be the same values as its founder. Stay private and you can run a company however you like.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't and have *never* used Amazon because I thought they were cheaper. I live in WA state, so I've always had to pay sales tax, unlike the rest of the country until recently. I use them today for the following reasons, in order of importance:
- One-stop convenience. I buy almost everything from Amazon except groceries these days, and it's vastly easier to find exactly what I want or need.
- Delivery. It comes to me, and I don't have to futz around in awful Seattle traffic.
- Security. Amazon seems to know how to protect my CC info. I don't trust most websites or even local stores with POS machines to have any security.
- Customer service. Whenever I've had an issue, Amazon took care of it quickly and completely. Even when I didn't ask for a refund, in some cases.
It's easy to make something "shatterproof" if you make it soft enough. The front screen is apparently plastic, not glass. Thus, it will get scratched all to hell, but probably won't shatter.
"Extinction-level threat" how, exactly? Is someone insane enough to build a self-sustaining robot soldier factory and then give an AI system complete control of it? Or just give an AI complete launch control of our nuclear arsenal? I can't see humanity ever being quite that trusting.
Musk may be a visionary, but he's also a bit loony on some topics. Don't forget he believes it's a near certainty that we're all living inside a massive computer simulation.
Trust me, I already well know it. I tend to think that the conceit of "unbiased journalism" is an untenable goal in practice, even if admirable in theory.
I'd much rather someone tell me up front what their political biases are so I can weigh that appropriately when reading something they're presenting to me. I'm of the opinion that it's virtually impossible for an organization or individual to report on *any* issue in an unbiased fashion. As such, I think it's more honest not to even pretend that's what you're doing, when you're clearly not.
then sinks
Well, we'll see how it works, right? We absolutely need these sorts of large-scale tests to definitively prove or disprove the viability of alternative energy projects such as these. Although some people still try, it's hard to argue with raw data gathered over five or ten years. Based on a relatively short history, we'll be able to see how much economic sense it makes to move ahead with larger projects. Note that you do have to account for economy of scale and a maturation of technology, of course.
I was initially somewhat doubtful about the economic viability of some of these projects. I'd like nothing more than to be proven absolutely wrong on this.
chord-cutter
Chord-cutter: n. One who decides to stop listening to music.
It's actually a dispute between legal owners, a result from split in co-ownership after a messy divorce. Further details are provided in comments above this.
From what I can see, the "save snopes" summary is being deliberately misleading, as they talk about the company "contracted to provide services", etc. No, they were sold an interest in the company. And frankly, that sort of dishonesty is highly disturbing when coming from the head of a fact-checking site.
It's the exact opposite from a clear-cut case.
We don't need a bad analogy or two to understand this. The kid saw an exploitable flaw, let the company know in a responsible manner, and was punished for it. Other companies would thank him, and perhaps even pay him a bug bounty for his trouble, because he just did them a huge favor. This is not anything unprecedented in the modern world. Only the backwards and punitive reaction is.
This reaction represents the mindset of companies from decades ago, where they thought that security through obscurity was a valid methodology. All it does it discourage white hats from disclosing bugs. The black hats will gleefully exploit the flaws they discover.
I personally would LOVE to see this level of wage transparency in the US-- It would make a great many HR, and management teams break out in cold, bloody sweats.
I dunno. I could just as easily see an HR department using that against you.
"Well, we'd really love to give you a raise, but we'd have problems if everyone saw how much more you're making..."
Any Norwegians here? Would love to hear how this actually affects your relationship with your employer and fellow employees.
No, you multiply by 3 to get its true age in computing-years. Slackware is an old man, yelling at you to get off its lawn.
Apps or browsers should handle streaming in a sane fashion, not downloading half the video if you're only going to watch the first 20 seconds. We shouldn't be delegating or even allowing the ISPs to be making those decisions for us.
I'm totally fine with general bandwidth-throttling of heavy users after they exceed their caps over time, if that's specified in the contract. This sort of behind-the-scenes thing, IMO, is not okay. The ISPs have a direct financial incentive to throttle bandwidth down to a barely tolerable level, and this comes at the direct cost of users' viewing or browsing experience.
Serious question: what is it about bookmarks that don't fulfill this role for you? Everything you describe, I do in Firefox with bookmarks and folders. Obviously, it takes almost zero extra memory. I tend to keep my tab usage under a dozen or two, since after that things start getting cluttered. So... is it a workflow thing, or a UI issue?
I keep thinking if one of the browser makers could figure out the answer to this question and make a change to their browser to accommodate people who like to collect windows and tabs as "live" bookmarks, they'd add a few percentage points from users like you who work this way.
MP3 certainly isn't a modern, top-tier format. But there's an awful lot of legacy mp3 data out there, so it's good to be able to take advantage of that in a free and open browser.
One nice thing about patents, I suppose, is that we do have time on our side. With the volume of tech that's being patented, the low-hanging fruit has largely been snapped up (for example, I believe Amazon's One-Click patent expires very soon), and in another few decades, most of the formats we now use (like MP4 video) will also be free and clear. It won't be the latest and greatest, but at some point, we're going to run into some hard limits about how far we can compress video as well. Eventually, it won't be worth patenting new formats that can compress video 2% more than the previous well-established format, and ALL formats will be patent free. Eventually.
For decades now, Abrams tanks have been putting physical projectiles from a moving, bouncing vehicle on small targets a long ways away. I'd imagine we have the technology to precisely track, aim, and fire at targets pretty well nailed at this point.
If I want a zero-calorie fizzy drink, I keep my fridge stocked with carbonated bottled water, which has a tiny bit of flavoring added but doesn't add any significant caloric or nutritional impact. Amazon ships Perrier right to my doorstop, but if you can find a source, Talking Rain is good too. I was never a big soda drinker, but I still had cravings for carbonated drinks on occasion.
Some people don't like the unsweetened drinks, as they're probably an acquired taste, but I absolutely love them.
This happened to me as well, although this was at the time of employment, not after two years (which seems a bit odd to me). I was concerned about some boilerplate legalese in my employment contract, because basically it stated I couldn't be hired in my field for like a year or two after I quit, which is ridiculous. The PR person dismissed it as just that - legal boilerplate, and assured me that it would never be enforced. I was younger at the time, and needed the job, and so signed. A slightly older and wiser colleague of mine insisted that part of the contract be struck out before he signed. These days, I would likely do the same. If it would never be enforced, then there's no reason for it to be in the contract.
When I eventually did leave, the "no-compete" clause was not enforced. Legally speaking, it probably would never have held up in court, and it would have been far more damaging for a company to do something like that to a former employee. It's not like I was taking any vital trade secrets, other than a general working knowledge of some of their code and technology.
It's always a little awkward when you make what you think is a rather obvious joke, and someone responds seriously.
That's fine, I'll answer seriously: If this is successful even temporarily, there's nothing to prevent Google or anyone else from applying the same treatment again in the future, if necessary, perhaps even more aggressively, and combined with better quarantine procedures in the future. Then again, it may actually wipe out the viability of the local population to a degree that future treatments are rarely if ever needed.
Honestly, I have no idea which way it will go, but it seems like an experiment worth trying. Even without the laser-firing robots.
The president has the constitutional power of clemency, and you think this minor intervention in an entirely internal bureaucratic affair (in a department which his office administers) heralds the breakdown of the rule of law? That's a hell of a stretch.
Surely we'll have deployed mosquito-killing-laser-firing robots by then.
From TFA:
Could messing with the mosquito population have some unforeseen disastrous consequences? Not likely. This particular mosquito species entered the area in 2013.
This is very important information, I think. We're just dealing with another invasive species here. Nothing will be harmed by wiping out this local population. It can't possibly be a critical link in the local ecosystem over such a short period of time.
This is what a little bad publicity will do in the face of a typical government bureaucratic snafu. It's the same thing with other giant corporations. Nothing happens to resolve your issue until your issue becomes an embarrassment to them, and someone high enough up the food chain takes action.
Anyhow, best of luck to those young women. I hope their experience visiting the US is a positive one, despite the initial circumstances, and that they can make a positive impact on the future of their country.
Probably not for a different reason. This is clever political posturing designed to generate headlines (hey, mission accomplished!) in the wake of Trump's faux pas. There's not a snowflake's chance in hell this bill is going anywhere except to news aggregators. It won't affect us at all because it will never get passed into law. That's just political reality talking. Republicans control Congress right now, and Trump is the one who would have to sign this into law.
So why "go public" to begin with? That's the whole point. You just assume that this must be done. Why?
No, I don't assume it "must be done". Please don't put words in my mouth.
I haven't been in that situation, so I can't speak as to the mindset of those who do it, but I suspect it's a desire to grow the business and become more successful. Or, if you want to view it negatively, you could call it a combination of greed and ambition. They essentially sell their company to the public for a large infusion of capital, and in return, control is ceded to a managing board of directors and the shareholders at large.
But not all companies go public. The vast majority of small businesses are privately held, of course, and there are even a number of very large privately held companies as well. Some go halfway, and after going public, retain a controlling interest in the company, giving them more control over how its run.
A nice story. I accidentally left my wallet on top of my car (and I can't blame dementia for that). Someone actually spotted it as it fell off, picked it up, chased after me in their car, and returned it. The wallet had a hundred or two in cash at least, I'm sure. I gave them a small cash reward as thanks, and they were even reluctant to take that. Good people do exist in the world. You just don't hear about them, because they go about living their lives quietly, not making headlines.
Generally speaking, I keep a small supply of cash simply for the rare case when electronic systems aren't available at the time of a purchase, but otherwise, consistently use a cash card.
In fact, I would make it a hallmark of my business to NOT be like the others, while also not coming up with nonsense such as donating money to charities in the company's name. I'd simply sell a honest product or service and never cut corners.
I buy my computers from a small, local custom PC builder who operates this way. Super high-quality components (they constantly evaluate reliability and stock the components that perform the best over time) and excellent service, with the ability to precisely customize a PC to my needs. As long as they keep up the excellent performance, I'll never buy a PC from anywhere else. The catch? You pay significantly more for a PC than if you just buy some mass manufactured product from Dell.
What you're describing is certainly possible for small, independently owned businesses. When a company gives up control to go public, they also cede control to the wishes of shareholders, which may not be the same values as its founder. Stay private and you can run a company however you like.