I feel bad for Microsoft. They have been trying very hard to support all the standards.
Don't because those assholes only implement standard when they have no other choice. Microsoft has a long history of trying to undermine standards with purposely shitty support.
Demanding the man in Washington shake down the rest of the country for your existence is really just a subtle violation of the 14th amendment.
Thanks constitutional scholar! Just ignore the the 16th amendment completely.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Coolidge in the 20s only spent $42 Billion/year in today's dollars. Now we've quadrupled federal spending per capita in the last 40 years. Are the needs per person, inflation adjusted, 4x as much now as they were in the 1980s? Are we getting 4x as much, or 4x better government services? I don't think so. Cut at least 3/4 of it, then see if there is still waste going on.
Congrats on ignoring that we have a much larger population, social security is a thing, we have a huge amount of infrastructure that didn't exist before, we actually maintain the environment now and the human lifespan has increased significantly. The only way that we go back is if we get rid of all those things. Feel free to go be a poor farmer that works the land without a tractor and you won't get taxed a dime even after you die of malnutrition.
If you can't live unless it's at someone else's expense, then throw yourself at the feet of someone else's charity.
Yeah, the problem is that there are other interests like national security. Do we really want to find ourselves at the mercy of another nation because they produce our food? Also, we've seen how that works out for people who actually do throw themselves at the feet of someone else's charity: they die. You can say, "well that's how it goes" like a sociopath but that doesn't make it right.
Since when is giving your money to the federal government considered a good thing?
Since it started being used to pay for federal programs. Do you think the military is a charity? Do you think we shouldn't fund the military at all? That speaks volumes about you.
Fine, but take the rest of the subsidies with them. Whether that's the farmers, the oil companies, the various housing subsidies, or anyone else getting a deal.
Does this include the "red" states that receive more money than they give to the federal government? That's the biggest subsidy of them all. It's also a surefire way to bankrupt most Republican led states.
Practice makes perfect so if you are going to start making improvements over a baseline then I think it would be logical to practice gene editing on something that isn't human and could really be improved. What fits the bill here is dog breeds. For the unaware, pure breed dogs have significant genetic defects because they are inbred which results in the expression of recessive traits. The current trend of buying cute dogs that are a genetic disaster doesn't seem to be receding so they seem like a prime target for genetic editing. When we've learned some important lessons (or succeeded beyond all expectations) then we should use what we learned on humans.
If you think it's a waste then you haven't considered the annual cost of animal surgeries that are a consequence of a small gene pool.
It is very sustainable and only an engineering problem to make more meat.
Everything is only an engineering problem. The question is, when does the cost become too high to continue?
I looked into your past posts because I had a feeling you might be one of the many people worthy of the label "foe" but I found you to be an intelligent and interesting person. You are rough around the edges like rusty razor blades but not the typical "out of your fucking mind" extremism that fails to comport to logic that's become the staple of post-2008 Slashdot. Congratulations, you win nothing.
Why would you insult someone who is trying to improve the world? You may not realize it but the level of animal products per capita in the US is unsustainable and therefore will need to be replaced with something. It's better we figure out how to do so sooner rather than later.
Really? If a paste going through a nozzle counts as "3D printed"
No, it's but everything being made in it's entirety from a robot controlled extruded is pretty much going to be labeled "3d printed". The correct term is additive manufacturing. Feel free to flip a table or two because it's not going away.
1) It takes 30 minutes to print a 100g "steak" which appears to be a little larger than a quarter. 2) No information on it's taste or consistency. Being translucent is not a good sign.
I really want someone to make a replacement for meat, not because I give a shit about the animals but because they are heavily subsidized and damaging to both the environment and our bodies. This isn't going to cut it.
All you gradual maternal-huggers writing code for Linux but are afraid of a few words need to consume soil and depart! I'm tired of inferior code being promoted because some feline cried because his gradual donkey was offended!
It should be noted that RISC-V is an Instruction Set Architecture and not a specific CPU. There are both open and closed implementations of it but they all match a specification. It's like UNIX, there is no single implementation of UNIX but there is a specification of what a UNIX provides.
See you think it's just about wages. Why can it not be about economic advantage.
If any country wants to put a tax on automation, that's their prerogative. It's not logical to do so since automation makes things cheaper while still enabling workers to be paid a fair wage but it's still their prerogative. If you want to argue in favor of it, be my guest.
Why should a worker in a poor country be disadvantaged simply because they can not afford automation. ?
Automation only exist because it's less expensive than paying people. Your premise that they cannot afford it implies they would pay workers less than the cost of automation which is already less than what we pay workers for the same job. Really this brings us right back to the issue of wages. Ensure they must pay the workers a comparable rate and then they will choose automation because it will be the cheaper option.
I agree that poor working conditions should also be taxed the amount that would be needed to raise them to suitable levels. Then we turn around and use the money from the tax to hire Indian workers to improve the conditions.
Living conditions is highly complex and more due to low wages, so boosted wages themselves may solve the problem.
And for countries that lack automation, they could place a tariff on US made goods so the same number of man hours is accounted for.
You have misconstrued the purpose. The purpose is to ensure workers (regardless of country) are paid fair wages. Automation however cannot (and should not) be stopped and will continue to eliminate jobs.
"You" are pulling other countries up though. Salaries in India are expected to grow by 10% next year.
Yes and think of how much faster we'd pull them up if they were paid 95% of what Americans are paid? At the same time, we wouldn't be dragging the US down. It's a win-win. The only people that lose are the cheapskate bosses.
There is no law to say USA wages must be higher. Competition is a double edged sword
This is exactly correct. Instead of pulling other countries up, we're pulling our own country down to their level. A race to the bottom only benefits corporations, not workers. The solution for this is to place taxes on goods made by workers paid less than 95% the average wage in the US. The idea is to effectively make the cost of labor closer to being flat. This will raise the standard of living for workers in other countries significantly while preventing using it as a wage suppression tactic.
Competition only works if the wages are comparable. The current disconnect in wages has allowed rampant exploitation.
"Customer trust, privacy, and security are our top priorities at AWS," Michael Punk
This is a lie. None of those thing are priorities if it does not turn a profit. Only AFTER they can make a profit are any of those things considered a priority.
Just remember kids, global corporations only care about getting your money. The fact that you are involved in the process is entirely secondary.
False reporting can have serious financial consequences so when it happens, companies take their well paid lawyers and sue publishers. I've heard no report of any company suing Bloomberg over this claim (which has been damaging) which leads me to conclude that the claim is legitimate.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel bad for Microsoft. They have been trying very hard to support all the standards.
Don't because those assholes only implement standard when they have no other choice. Microsoft has a long history of trying to undermine standards with purposely shitty support.
Fuck that. DirectX should just die. If you want to play "older" DX based games then there is always WINE and the Vulkan implementation of D3D11/D3D10.
Demanding the man in Washington shake down the rest of the country for your existence is really just a subtle violation of the 14th amendment.
Thanks constitutional scholar! Just ignore the the 16th amendment completely.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Eat shit.
Somehow we managed to fund a US Military prior to the Federal Income tax...
You are suggesting we go back to tariffs and excise taxes? Yeah, good luck getting anyone to agree to that.
Coolidge in the 20s only spent $42 Billion/year in today's dollars. Now we've quadrupled federal spending per capita in the last 40 years. Are the needs per person, inflation adjusted, 4x as much now as they were in the 1980s? Are we getting 4x as much, or 4x better government services? I don't think so. Cut at least 3/4 of it, then see if there is still waste going on.
Congrats on ignoring that we have a much larger population, social security is a thing, we have a huge amount of infrastructure that didn't exist before, we actually maintain the environment now and the human lifespan has increased significantly. The only way that we go back is if we get rid of all those things. Feel free to go be a poor farmer that works the land without a tractor and you won't get taxed a dime even after you die of malnutrition.
If you can't live unless it's at someone else's expense, then throw yourself at the feet of someone else's charity.
Yeah, the problem is that there are other interests like national security. Do we really want to find ourselves at the mercy of another nation because they produce our food? Also, we've seen how that works out for people who actually do throw themselves at the feet of someone else's charity: they die. You can say, "well that's how it goes" like a sociopath but that doesn't make it right.
Since when is giving your money to the federal government considered a good thing?
Since it started being used to pay for federal programs. Do you think the military is a charity? Do you think we shouldn't fund the military at all? That speaks volumes about you.
Fine, but take the rest of the subsidies with them. Whether that's the farmers, the oil companies, the various housing subsidies, or anyone else getting a deal.
Does this include the "red" states that receive more money than they give to the federal government? That's the biggest subsidy of them all. It's also a surefire way to bankrupt most Republican led states.
Practice makes perfect so if you are going to start making improvements over a baseline then I think it would be logical to practice gene editing on something that isn't human and could really be improved. What fits the bill here is dog breeds. For the unaware, pure breed dogs have significant genetic defects because they are inbred which results in the expression of recessive traits. The current trend of buying cute dogs that are a genetic disaster doesn't seem to be receding so they seem like a prime target for genetic editing. When we've learned some important lessons (or succeeded beyond all expectations) then we should use what we learned on humans.
If you think it's a waste then you haven't considered the annual cost of animal surgeries that are a consequence of a small gene pool.
It is very sustainable and only an engineering problem to make more meat.
Everything is only an engineering problem. The question is, when does the cost become too high to continue?
I looked into your past posts because I had a feeling you might be one of the many people worthy of the label "foe" but I found you to be an intelligent and interesting person. You are rough around the edges like rusty razor blades but not the typical "out of your fucking mind" extremism that fails to comport to logic that's become the staple of post-2008 Slashdot. Congratulations, you win nothing.
Why would you insult someone who is trying to improve the world? You may not realize it but the level of animal products per capita in the US is unsustainable and therefore will need to be replaced with something. It's better we figure out how to do so sooner rather than later.
Really? If a paste going through a nozzle counts as "3D printed"
No, it's but everything being made in it's entirety from a robot controlled extruded is pretty much going to be labeled "3d printed". The correct term is additive manufacturing. Feel free to flip a table or two because it's not going away.
1) It takes 30 minutes to print a 100g "steak" which appears to be a little larger than a quarter.
2) No information on it's taste or consistency. Being translucent is not a good sign.
I really want someone to make a replacement for meat, not because I give a shit about the animals but because they are heavily subsidized and damaging to both the environment and our bodies. This isn't going to cut it.
Can't "wait" for the inevitable day when Internet of Things devices get mass hacked.
It's already happened many times over.
Can we start calling them: Insecure of Things or "Insecure on 'Tubes" instead ? :/
Get with it, grandpa! It's called the Internet of Shit. ;)
Wow, they smuggled a drone into a prison up some guys butt?! I'm not even mad because that's impressive, like, goatse impressive. ;)
All you gradual maternal-huggers writing code for Linux but are afraid of a few words need to consume soil and depart! I'm tired of inferior code being promoted because some feline cried because his gradual donkey was offended!
Enough of this soil! ;)
It should be noted that RISC-V is an Instruction Set Architecture and not a specific CPU. There are both open and closed implementations of it but they all match a specification. It's like UNIX, there is no single implementation of UNIX but there is a specification of what a UNIX provides.
See you think it's just about wages. Why can it not be about economic advantage.
If any country wants to put a tax on automation, that's their prerogative. It's not logical to do so since automation makes things cheaper while still enabling workers to be paid a fair wage but it's still their prerogative. If you want to argue in favor of it, be my guest.
Why should a worker in a poor country be disadvantaged simply because they can not afford automation. ?
Automation only exist because it's less expensive than paying people. Your premise that they cannot afford it implies they would pay workers less than the cost of automation which is already less than what we pay workers for the same job. Really this brings us right back to the issue of wages. Ensure they must pay the workers a comparable rate and then they will choose automation because it will be the cheaper option.
I agree that poor working conditions should also be taxed the amount that would be needed to raise them to suitable levels. Then we turn around and use the money from the tax to hire Indian workers to improve the conditions.
Living conditions is highly complex and more due to low wages, so boosted wages themselves may solve the problem.
And for countries that lack automation, they could place a tariff on US made goods so the same number of man hours is accounted for.
You have misconstrued the purpose. The purpose is to ensure workers (regardless of country) are paid fair wages. Automation however cannot (and should not) be stopped and will continue to eliminate jobs.
"You" are pulling other countries up though. Salaries in India are expected to grow by 10% next year.
Yes and think of how much faster we'd pull them up if they were paid 95% of what Americans are paid? At the same time, we wouldn't be dragging the US down. It's a win-win. The only people that lose are the cheapskate bosses.
There is no law to say USA wages must be higher. Competition is a double edged sword
This is exactly correct. Instead of pulling other countries up, we're pulling our own country down to their level. A race to the bottom only benefits corporations, not workers. The solution for this is to place taxes on goods made by workers paid less than 95% the average wage in the US. The idea is to effectively make the cost of labor closer to being flat. This will raise the standard of living for workers in other countries significantly while preventing using it as a wage suppression tactic.
Competition only works if the wages are comparable. The current disconnect in wages has allowed rampant exploitation.
Huh? I don't get it. ALL app submissions and updates have to be reviewed and approved by Apple.
Wrong. This is about out of App Store updates. See also: Apple begins strictly enforcing rule that prohibits iOS app updates outside of App Store
Stop being dense.
"Customer trust, privacy, and security are our top priorities at AWS," Michael Punk
This is a lie. None of those thing are priorities if it does not turn a profit. Only AFTER they can make a profit are any of those things considered a priority.
Just remember kids, global corporations only care about getting your money. The fact that you are involved in the process is entirely secondary.
False reporting can have serious financial consequences so when it happens, companies take their well paid lawyers and sue publishers. I've heard no report of any company suing Bloomberg over this claim (which has been damaging) which leads me to conclude that the claim is legitimate.