If they're so intent on finding money in everything, why not start charging people for a version of it?
Simple, people won't pay for it. There is a lot of interesting psychology that goes on and at the present, people are unwilling to pay for simple online software based services. The basic problem is that people aren't being paid nearly enough for the jobs they are doing for corporations and are therefore much more conservative in their spending.
Intel doesn't want to compete in low-margin product areas where it can only make a few dollars off each sale. Intel wants to sell expensive desktop and laptop processors where it is the only supplier, and rake in the profits.
Actually, the real money is in the server market. Low-end desktops don't rake in much cash either but the high-end ones are far more profitable.
Intel is really killing everything that isn't a real money maker because they are losing money on them due to that fact that there is real competition in these sectors from non-x86 chips. Intel is suffering mostly because of their (relatively) high prices and fierce NDA policies which drive people to competitors.
Intel's real innovation has always been in anti-competitive behavior so when they are unable to rig the game, they fold.
1. You get what you pay for. The entire point of each service is to see if they can monetize it. When the monetization fails to cover the expense of providing the service then they cut their losses. If you fail to recognize that you are the product when it comes to free web services then you're going to have a bad time.
2. Services, like everything on the web, are short-lived. So if you haven't recognized that "the cloud" is composed of computers you don't own and if you don't mirror your data elsewhere then you're going to have a bad time.
3. FOSS never dies. If you get a FOSS computer program that (doesn't rely on outside information and) you like then it will never abandon you. It might not be perfect, it's might be unsupported but at no point will someone take it away from you because it's on your computer and it runs on your computer.
It may surprise you to learn that after things get cold in an area that they then get warmer which causes all that snow to melt. The increasingly extreme weather and weather fluctuations are indicative of Climate Change.
It's not a coincidence that all these "rare weather events" are becoming increasingly common because they are part of the larger pattern that is Climate Change.
There a numerous studies on the more tech you add the more frequent failures become and the more frequent and costly servicing becomes (simply more stuff to fail and more stuff to service and more stuff to repair).
It also depends on the type of technology that is being added. If it has moving parts then it's far more likely to breakdown. This is part of the reason why EVs are cheaper to maintain, it's mostly solid state. This particular sensor could also be a highly reliable part if it's a solid state component, especially MEMS sensors. You never hear people talk about the microphone on their cellphone failing because it's an ultra-reliable MEMS sensor.
Now, the real dilemma is that while many people may want to recycle in theory, they don't want to pay the true cost of recycling. There is significant processing to be done if we want it to actually work, but we seem to think it should be no more expensive than just tossing stuff into the landfill
If you don't want to pay to recycle then the solution is simple: include the cost of recycling something in the price. Simply put, the originator of the product should be charged the amount it costs to recycle their product.
As much as self-proclaimed Libertarians may hate this, this is actually a Libertarian solution because you are only paying for the damage you have done. Likewise, hardcore capitalists will complain this is government interference but we've seen how things go when the government doesn't regulate the environment. Furthermore, this is a market friendly opportunity as it will create recycling jobs as well as incentives to make low pollution and easily recyclable products.
[Twitter has] got to be broken up along with Google and Facebook.
I would be OK with breaking up Alphabet (since they are so diverse) but don't break up Facebook/Twitter. Instead, force their sites to support a cross-site API that allows people to migrate away while still being able to interface with people on Facebook/Twitter. It's a proven tactic that worked quite well with AOL Instant Messenger.
The fact that you want the FTC to bust up social media platforms but don't seem to give a rat's ass about banks is very telling. You only really seem to care about being able to act like asshole online.
How can you call any use of an API that you published as abuse?
By violating the intention of the publication of the API. The intention here was to enable to user applications to post to and read Twitter. Abuse would be harvesting all of the information posted to Twitter.
If you do, you're doing it wrong.
Poppycock! Anyone can abuse an interface. Take for a second to consider HTTP. With HTTP if you have millions of computers request pages repeatedly from a single server while discarding the result you can deny other people the ability to access the page as well as drive up the cost of hosting the page.
What is the proper solution in the case of HTTP? Only serve content to known and trusted computers that request it? That solution subverts the entire purpose of the Internet.
Nothing worse than an endless parade of bills that are voted on just to virtue signal, with no chance of accomplishing anything.
It's not virtue signalling if they really do want to pass it into legislation. It indicates to voters who is preventing legislation from being enacted that is widely supported by the public.
Would be nice if everyone would try to work together to solve real problems.
Alternatively, the public can be shown who should be voted out because they are not acting in the interests of the public.
Honestly, who actually pays for Photoshop? I'll tell you who: professionals. If you aren't paying for it but you are still using it then you are pirating the software. Honestly, there are enough applications out there for every platform to do image manipulation that anyone crying over Adobe is unlikely to even be entitled to use the software in the first place.
these image editors are not designed to handle animated GIFs
Sure... but last I checked either was Photoshop. Also, who is paying for Photoshop to make animated GIFs? Nobody. Crying about a lack of alternatives not existing when you aren't even willing to pay for it in the first place is just pathetic.
I have no problem with people making competing products but I do have a problem with how Amazon goes about it. The fact that their resulting products aren't highly successful does not excuse their tactics. I'm certain the companies which have been driven out of business would agree.
You might as well argue that attempted murder is no big deal because nobody died.
It seems like the sensible solution here is to ban for-profit editors (and revert their changes). Regardless of accuracy, profitability creates a significant motive to corrupt Wikipedia.
Whether you like or hate systemd, it must be a pain to deal with all the drama and hate surrounding it when all you want to do is put out a decent distro.
If it really is such a corrosive issue that reaches everyone then wouldn't it make sense to make it optional, if only to prevent hardship on your packaging teams?
My understanding is that most packages simply need to be rebuilt using./configure --without-systemd. Would it not be worth making a set of "without systemd" packages to quell the drama and hate?
it'd be about worsening the situation so we have cover for a regime change. If you did too much it would be obvious.
And if you used a virus a la stuxnet then you would be easily exposed as they would have evidence of your involvement. The NSA wouldn't expose themselves to such predictable open scrutiny like that. Besides, everything I've learned indicates that the NSA has clear, acheivable and direct mission objectives. The CIA deals with lots of (human) uncertainty, so if the US was involved then you should suspect them.
And we absolutely care enough.
No, no we don't. However, it could be manual sabotage by a Venezuelan countryman. Using that approach, the CIA could be involved.
If you think otherwise you haven't been paying attention to who's running the show. John Bolton comes to mind. They guy in charge of Venezuelan aid was literally involved in the Contra scandal and used aid to smuggle arms in.
That's fine and all but that still lacks the serious qualifiers for exposing the US to blowback. The smarter move is to let it play out and stand by as we are viewed as the good guys. Not a fan of Bolton but he's not (always) a complete idiot, so if he tried to get us involved then a cyberweapon would be a shitty and transparent approach and they would let him know.
Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down. Even the most die hard pro war guy gets heat for keeping us there (Bolton went on the news shows and looked a fool for saying we'd be there forever). We need a new war. It was supposed to be Iran, but the rest of the world said no.
True or not, getting the NSA to do your dirty work to force our involvement just isn't in the cards. However, the CIA might be game.
First, if the US wanted to disrupt their power system then they would have done enough damage that it would still be down. Second, they aren't doing anything with the electricity that the US really cares about therefore there isn't a real reason to sabotage it.
I'm not claiming the US would be above taking such actions, I'm just saying that the US doesn't care enough about Venezuela to bother.
It's pretty plain why Kamala Harris wants to send your money through Washington and keep a portion of it. Why YOU would agree with that I have no idea. Unless you're just a superfan of politicians that play for team D. Superfans do non-sensical things.
A. Your state decides what is needed in your state.
Conceptually, this seems like the better idea. However, there are plenty of politicians that wouldn't give two shits if they had the worst security. They would only care after everyone's data was stolen and it was reported to the public. By mandating spending on IT, it ensures these systems are maintained.
If you want to better understand how little they value security, just look at corporations because the same types of assholes are in charge of the budgets.
Start doing journalism that sells and that people will support.
We tried that model and the problem is that stops being journalism and starts being sensationalism. Eventually, it diverges from reality completely at which point it's like a tabloid. Fox News is the greatest example of this.
Why should a new tax have to look after any normal "job"?
Because it's not a normal job. An informed public is elemental to a healthy democracy.
They should have made an adult spin-off site. Served both markets, resolved the issues for advertisers who don't want to be on a porn site.
They had no problem with serving "adult content". The reason they banned pornography was that people would upload child pornography. This was a significant business problem because it meant they had to police the site vigilantly which requires humans which you have to pay. Instead of doing this, their solution to remove all pornography was optimal for them because it could be automated. Creating a second site would simply cost them money.
What was frightening was the _crazy_ adoption rate of this mediocre web service - _everyone_ I knew was putting pressure on everyone else _they_ knew to also be on Facebook. People kept telling me "I can't find you on Facebook, I can't find you on Facebook". That doesn't happen without Billions of Dollars in capital behind the first push of the website.
You have greatly underestimated the stupidity of mankind.
If you're dealing with the lowest of temperatures then it's a perfect environment for superconductive materials. My question is why wouldn't they build a superconductive circuit?
Although the photos in question were shared under a Creative Commons license, many users say they never imagined their images would be used in this way
Just because you lacked the creativity to consider what was possible with your data doesn't mean there is anything improper has happened when they do use it in such a way.
Also, if you have given away your data thinking that somehow corporations would respect you then you don't really understand what drives corporations.
The reality is that if it's profitable then a corporation will do it. It doesn't matter if it's morally repugnant, illegal or downright evil because if it's possible to make a profit then there will be a corporation that will do it. Note that being illegal typically means they will be fined which they consider a business expense.
If you know this president then it's that he flip-flops when the pressure is on. As soon as a Republican objects he will change his position. Count on it.
The US said rules governing armed robots still stood and humans would retain the power to veto their actions.
Veto power by humans is important but what's more important is having a proven track record of being able to reliably identify enemies. Someone should need to authorize each kill order.
I believe the short-term objective here is to alleviate the stress put on the soldier in charge. If you see a robot kill someone then you mind can be convinced that you didn't really kill anyone. However, if you have to press the button that activates the sequence to kill someone then your mind registers that as you killing them. This is important because PTSD is higher in drone pilots.
The long-term objective of a killer machine army is obvious and terrifying because it's mere the extension of a small number of individuals. There will be nobody to say "this is wrong" or "these people are not our enemies" because machines do not feel, do not object and they do not think.
Never create a weapon that you wouldn't want to fall into the hands of your worst enemy.
Slashdot Mirror
If they're so intent on finding money in everything, why not start charging people for a version of it?
Simple, people won't pay for it. There is a lot of interesting psychology that goes on and at the present, people are unwilling to pay for simple online software based services. The basic problem is that people aren't being paid nearly enough for the jobs they are doing for corporations and are therefore much more conservative in their spending.
Intel doesn't want to compete in low-margin product areas where it can only make a few dollars off each sale. Intel wants to sell expensive desktop and laptop processors where it is the only supplier, and rake in the profits.
Actually, the real money is in the server market. Low-end desktops don't rake in much cash either but the high-end ones are far more profitable.
Intel is really killing everything that isn't a real money maker because they are losing money on them due to that fact that there is real competition in these sectors from non-x86 chips. Intel is suffering mostly because of their (relatively) high prices and fierce NDA policies which drive people to competitors.
Intel's real innovation has always been in anti-competitive behavior so when they are unable to rig the game, they fold.
1. You get what you pay for. The entire point of each service is to see if they can monetize it. When the monetization fails to cover the expense of providing the service then they cut their losses. If you fail to recognize that you are the product when it comes to free web services then you're going to have a bad time.
2. Services, like everything on the web, are short-lived. So if you haven't recognized that "the cloud" is composed of computers you don't own and if you don't mirror your data elsewhere then you're going to have a bad time.
3. FOSS never dies. If you get a FOSS computer program that (doesn't rely on outside information and) you like then it will never abandon you. It might not be perfect, it's might be unsupported but at no point will someone take it away from you because it's on your computer and it runs on your computer.
Higher temperatures sooner in the year causing earlier melting.
In Colorado we've had record low temperatures for February.
A trend which carried on in March
It may surprise you to learn that after things get cold in an area that they then get warmer which causes all that snow to melt. The increasingly extreme weather and weather fluctuations are indicative of Climate Change.
It's not a coincidence that all these "rare weather events" are becoming increasingly common because they are part of the larger pattern that is Climate Change.
There a numerous studies on the more tech you add the more frequent failures become and the more frequent and costly servicing becomes (simply more stuff to fail and more stuff to service and more stuff to repair).
It also depends on the type of technology that is being added. If it has moving parts then it's far more likely to breakdown. This is part of the reason why EVs are cheaper to maintain, it's mostly solid state. This particular sensor could also be a highly reliable part if it's a solid state component, especially MEMS sensors. You never hear people talk about the microphone on their cellphone failing because it's an ultra-reliable MEMS sensor.
Now, the real dilemma is that while many people may want to recycle in theory, they don't want to pay the true cost of recycling. There is significant processing to be done if we want it to actually work, but we seem to think it should be no more expensive than just tossing stuff into the landfill
If you don't want to pay to recycle then the solution is simple: include the cost of recycling something in the price. Simply put, the originator of the product should be charged the amount it costs to recycle their product.
As much as self-proclaimed Libertarians may hate this, this is actually a Libertarian solution because you are only paying for the damage you have done. Likewise, hardcore capitalists will complain this is government interference but we've seen how things go when the government doesn't regulate the environment. Furthermore, this is a market friendly opportunity as it will create recycling jobs as well as incentives to make low pollution and easily recyclable products.
Ever hear of throttling?
Isn't that exactly what this is?
[Twitter has] got to be broken up along with Google and Facebook.
I would be OK with breaking up Alphabet (since they are so diverse) but don't break up Facebook/Twitter. Instead, force their sites to support a cross-site API that allows people to migrate away while still being able to interface with people on Facebook/Twitter. It's a proven tactic that worked quite well with AOL Instant Messenger.
The fact that you want the FTC to bust up social media platforms but don't seem to give a rat's ass about banks is very telling. You only really seem to care about being able to act like asshole online.
How can you call any use of an API that you published as abuse?
By violating the intention of the publication of the API. The intention here was to enable to user applications to post to and read Twitter. Abuse would be harvesting all of the information posted to Twitter.
If you do, you're doing it wrong.
Poppycock! Anyone can abuse an interface. Take for a second to consider HTTP. With HTTP if you have millions of computers request pages repeatedly from a single server while discarding the result you can deny other people the ability to access the page as well as drive up the cost of hosting the page.
What is the proper solution in the case of HTTP? Only serve content to known and trusted computers that request it? That solution subverts the entire purpose of the Internet.
Nothing worse than an endless parade of bills that are voted on just to virtue signal, with no chance of accomplishing anything.
It's not virtue signalling if they really do want to pass it into legislation. It indicates to voters who is preventing legislation from being enacted that is widely supported by the public.
Would be nice if everyone would try to work together to solve real problems.
Alternatively, the public can be shown who should be voted out because they are not acting in the interests of the public.
Honestly, who actually pays for Photoshop? I'll tell you who: professionals. If you aren't paying for it but you are still using it then you are pirating the software. Honestly, there are enough applications out there for every platform to do image manipulation that anyone crying over Adobe is unlikely to even be entitled to use the software in the first place.
these image editors are not designed to handle animated GIFs
Sure... but last I checked either was Photoshop. Also, who is paying for Photoshop to make animated GIFs? Nobody. Crying about a lack of alternatives not existing when you aren't even willing to pay for it in the first place is just pathetic.
I have no problem with people making competing products but I do have a problem with how Amazon goes about it. The fact that their resulting products aren't highly successful does not excuse their tactics. I'm certain the companies which have been driven out of business would agree.
You might as well argue that attempted murder is no big deal because nobody died.
It seems like the sensible solution here is to ban for-profit editors (and revert their changes). Regardless of accuracy, profitability creates a significant motive to corrupt Wikipedia.
Whether you like or hate systemd, it must be a pain to deal with all the drama and hate surrounding it when all you want to do is put out a decent distro.
If it really is such a corrosive issue that reaches everyone then wouldn't it make sense to make it optional, if only to prevent hardship on your packaging teams?
My understanding is that most packages simply need to be rebuilt using ./configure --without-systemd. Would it not be worth making a set of "without systemd" packages to quell the drama and hate?
it'd be about worsening the situation so we have cover for a regime change. If you did too much it would be obvious.
And if you used a virus a la stuxnet then you would be easily exposed as they would have evidence of your involvement. The NSA wouldn't expose themselves to such predictable open scrutiny like that. Besides, everything I've learned indicates that the NSA has clear, acheivable and direct mission objectives. The CIA deals with lots of (human) uncertainty, so if the US was involved then you should suspect them.
And we absolutely care enough.
No, no we don't. However, it could be manual sabotage by a Venezuelan countryman. Using that approach, the CIA could be involved.
If you think otherwise you haven't been paying attention to who's running the show. John Bolton comes to mind. They guy in charge of Venezuelan aid was literally involved in the Contra scandal and used aid to smuggle arms in.
That's fine and all but that still lacks the serious qualifiers for exposing the US to blowback. The smarter move is to let it play out and stand by as we are viewed as the good guys. Not a fan of Bolton but he's not (always) a complete idiot, so if he tried to get us involved then a cyberweapon would be a shitty and transparent approach and they would let him know.
Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down. Even the most die hard pro war guy gets heat for keeping us there (Bolton went on the news shows and looked a fool for saying we'd be there forever). We need a new war. It was supposed to be Iran, but the rest of the world said no.
True or not, getting the NSA to do your dirty work to force our involvement just isn't in the cards. However, the CIA might be game.
First, if the US wanted to disrupt their power system then they would have done enough damage that it would still be down. Second, they aren't doing anything with the electricity that the US really cares about therefore there isn't a real reason to sabotage it.
I'm not claiming the US would be above taking such actions, I'm just saying that the US doesn't care enough about Venezuela to bother.
It's pretty plain why Kamala Harris wants to send your money through Washington and keep a portion of it. Why YOU would agree with that I have no idea. Unless you're just a superfan of politicians that play for team D. Superfans do non-sensical things.
The irony here is that "red" states generally take more money from the federal government than they pay into it. Which is to say, people like you complaining about taxes are more likely to be from a "taker state".
A. Your state decides what is needed in your state.
Conceptually, this seems like the better idea. However, there are plenty of politicians that wouldn't give two shits if they had the worst security. They would only care after everyone's data was stolen and it was reported to the public. By mandating spending on IT, it ensures these systems are maintained.
If you want to better understand how little they value security, just look at corporations because the same types of assholes are in charge of the budgets.
Start doing journalism that sells and that people will support.
We tried that model and the problem is that stops being journalism and starts being sensationalism. Eventually, it diverges from reality completely at which point it's like a tabloid. Fox News is the greatest example of this.
Why should a new tax have to look after any normal "job"?
Because it's not a normal job. An informed public is elemental to a healthy democracy.
They should have made an adult spin-off site. Served both markets, resolved the issues for advertisers who don't want to be on a porn site.
They had no problem with serving "adult content". The reason they banned pornography was that people would upload child pornography. This was a significant business problem because it meant they had to police the site vigilantly which requires humans which you have to pay. Instead of doing this, their solution to remove all pornography was optimal for them because it could be automated. Creating a second site would simply cost them money.
What was frightening was the _crazy_ adoption rate of this mediocre web service - _everyone_ I knew was putting pressure on everyone else _they_ knew to also be on Facebook. People kept telling me "I can't find you on Facebook, I can't find you on Facebook". That doesn't happen without Billions of Dollars in capital behind the first push of the website.
You have greatly underestimated the stupidity of mankind.
If you're dealing with the lowest of temperatures then it's a perfect environment for superconductive materials. My question is why wouldn't they build a superconductive circuit?
Although the photos in question were shared under a Creative Commons license, many users say they never imagined their images would be used in this way
Just because you lacked the creativity to consider what was possible with your data doesn't mean there is anything improper has happened when they do use it in such a way.
Also, if you have given away your data thinking that somehow corporations would respect you then you don't really understand what drives corporations.
The reality is that if it's profitable then a corporation will do it. It doesn't matter if it's morally repugnant, illegal or downright evil because if it's possible to make a profit then there will be a corporation that will do it. Note that being illegal typically means they will be fined which they consider a business expense.
If you know this president then it's that he flip-flops when the pressure is on. As soon as a Republican objects he will change his position. Count on it.
The US said rules governing armed robots still stood and humans would retain the power to veto their actions.
Veto power by humans is important but what's more important is having a proven track record of being able to reliably identify enemies. Someone should need to authorize each kill order.
I believe the short-term objective here is to alleviate the stress put on the soldier in charge. If you see a robot kill someone then you mind can be convinced that you didn't really kill anyone. However, if you have to press the button that activates the sequence to kill someone then your mind registers that as you killing them. This is important because PTSD is higher in drone pilots.
The long-term objective of a killer machine army is obvious and terrifying because it's mere the extension of a small number of individuals. There will be nobody to say "this is wrong" or "these people are not our enemies" because machines do not feel, do not object and they do not think.
Never create a weapon that you wouldn't want to fall into the hands of your worst enemy.