I kind of got used to it (desensitized), but I was also quite freaked out at first. I was in a little restaurant with dodgy TV reception and lost my appetite because of some of the really freaky distortions. I had to toss half my food.
I've read about the bad side of other's LSD trips, and this matched it pretty well. I hope somebody sues: this is Bad Tech.
What is "reality" anyway? Economies are built on nothing more than perception...suits pretending we know what the hell we're talking about, but any economist will tell you it's all about perception and mood.
That is largely true, but there are also patterns to perception and results of perception. These patterns can be studied to make statistical predictions. Human behavior can be modeled to some degree in aggregate. I agree the models are not perfect and that's partly why economists are often wrong.
However, part of the reason they are wrong is because investors are using the same or similar models and try to take advantage of their predictions. Investors have access to the research papers also. Thus, it's a moving recursive target because the new models are intentionally used to muck up the new models by getting a jump on trends.
In this case one can see if investments in Category X pay for themselves in a given time-frame as valued in stocks or the recent revenue of the company, among other metrics. That much is an objective measurement. (I suppose there may be disagreement over how to determine if a company is in Category X, but that doesn't seem the point of contention.)
There's a potential idea for a startup: aggregate basic listings and links from many smaller sites using a combination of site scraping and registered vendors who key in or supply clean data. The revenue would be generated by product-specific ads and/or listing placement. It's kind of a commerce-oriented Google, but with structured elements to make shopping-centric searching easier (thumbnail, title, model# , price, shipping price range, synopsis, color/sizes, and a link to vendor's detail). If it gets good enough, Google may even buy your site for jillions.
what Amazon did was figure out that they didn't need to make profit so long as they kept investing in new technology that they could maybe sell eventually.
Use wealth to get more wealth: that's how the rich get richer and the rest fight for scraps. It's how MS killed smaller competitors: subsidize competing product until competitor dies or has to turn niche. Becoming a de-facto standard is another way to get bigger by being big. And Warren Buffett admitted part the reason for his success is that his portfolio is so large he can afford riskier investments than smaller investment co's because the shear quantity of investments smooths out dips and failures of individual holdings: law of big averages. He doesn't have to play it safe.
joys of constantly re-positioning an antenna to get a decent signal.
One of the benefits of analog signals is that they "degenerated" more gracefully than the compressed digital signals now in use for broadcast in most areas.
The analog signal may be snowy or have streaks under poor signals, but you could still see most of the image. With compressed signals, signal loss often results in ungodly distortions from a Cubists' nightmare. Faces can look really grotesque as the cubist distortions move with the head's movement. When I first saw it I questioned the contents of my salad and drank lots of water.
Go where? Amazon nuked the competition. It's the same reason most orgs still have Microsoft desktops despite MS sucking rotting eggs forward and backward. Your poop has to be crevice-for-crevice compatible with the shape of everyone else's MS-Anus if you want to pass goods and services instead of be constipated.
Back then "bully" was sometimes slang for "good" or "friendly", but detractors of the President still used or implied the "mean" interpretation. Bad overloading is not just done by lousy API designers.
Since the late 1950's, the end of the decade has always had a recession of some kind. Sometimes it's a bit late and sometimes a bit early, but always there. Even before the 1950's, there's been roughly a 10-year pattern also. (Wars tends to jack up the economy, mucking up the pattern. Great stimulus, but deadly of course.)
The only thing I can see preventing or delaying it is pent-up demand due to the large mortgage bubble recession: the economy has yet to get to "full steam" because of side-effects of it, such as people and banks with too much debt to spend on new things.
If he takes credit for things he's barely touched, then it would be fair game to blame him for down-turning industries he barely touched also, no? (Including automobiles)
Both parties have been blaming or crediting the current President of the time for gas prices even though they usually have very little to do with gas prices. Any changes in drilling laws/rules usually take several years to affect supply.
It's silly political games. The problem is, such games often "work" on voters, who are often naive or short-sighted.
It's indeed not realistic for content hosters to inspect all content (assuming such even does any good). It would either put them out of business, jack up customer prices bigly, and/or drive such business overseas.
If they should inspect "some" content or do a cursory review, then the law would have to specify the time and/or expense required to be devoted to it. If they take the lazy way out and require "a reasonable" amount of time, then that will also jack up the prices because the penalty would be at the whim of jurors or judges.
How could a law specify resources in an unambiguous and practical way? Anybody want to give such text a shot?
Here's an idea I'll float: if a site has a history of or reason to expect suspicious sex-related transactions, then it's required to run all content through a filter to check against a word/phrase list downloadable from a [yet unspecified] federal agency, and refreshed at least monthly. If any content matches, then the hoster must inspect each instance within a week and either report suspicious activity to local law officials, or reject the customer's content. The inspection activity is to be logged and kept for at least a year.
To avoid such inspection work, most hosters will probably start automatically refusing certain words or phrases in ads. Synonyms will probably end up being used, just like you suggested, making it silly game.
Thus, the legislation is probably busybody nonsense to make the law-maker sound "tough on crime". Same stupid game as ever.
By the way, actual escorts are not illegal by themselves. It's kind of like hiring a body guard. "Escort" is just often used as a synonym for more nefarious activities. It's kind of like paying the mafia "protection fees": they could merely be a legitimate security service who happens to have an Italian accent. Security services themselves are not illegal. If you effectively ban one synonym, another will pop up in its place. Legislating profiling and guesswork would be a can of worms.
It may even trigger ethnic profiling lawsuits if a hoster checks on certain groups more than others while checking for "suspicious activity". Italian security services on the East Coast may indeed be "suspicious", but that's ethnic profiling. (My apologies if I offended any Italians.)
Status reports are common in the industry; done them for many orgs. However, they are usually summarized and weekly because nobody wants to hear about specific widget properties and fiddling one typically has to do every day. That's a waste of most people's time. Sure, there are exceptions when there's a logjam, but for the most part managers don't have the time for day-level details. I suspect this particular situation will end up the same way in the longer term.
The big picture here is not entirely about Trump and Trump's signature. His election win has proven that trade (including services) and visas/immigration may not flow so easy across borders in the future for geopolitical reasons. Thus, businesses decided to be less dependent on them on average.
The Russians made many attempts in many systems using many methods. The "Podesta" incident just happens to be one made public and high profile and is NOT the entirety of the Russia "problem", as you seem to imply. The server logs on many election-related systems have been found full of attempts.
I imagine most attempts made by Russia failed, but if you try enough things on enough servers and enough people, eventually you will find holes. Hacking favors the patient and persistent.
I've fallen for a trick myself, I must admit. I typed in the URL as given (didn't click it, though) rather than go to the main site and regular menus of the intended vendor. After I was bamboozled, I realize I skipped a "safety step", slapped my forehead, and vowed to be more careful next time. (It was a small amount, which is probably why I was less careful than I should have been.)
I've caught tricks before using the regular "safety checklist", but humans are humans and somethings skip steps out of forgetfulness, laziness, distractions, fumble fingers, Mondays, etc.
I think we have to give Trumpo some credit. He shook the overseas-based outsourcing market by introducing fear, uncertainty, and doubt into it such that companies are less likely to want to depend on it exclusively or heavily.
His most effective strategy has been the bully pulpit. Getting legislation passed has been a bear for him, and Executive Orders have had relatively limited impact compared to other newly elected Presidents.
In addition to overseas outsourcing, border crossings appear to be down, possibly on the threat that he'll make life difficult for undocumented visitors.
Some also give him credit for the alleged stock market surge by promising to cut taxes and regulation, although the stock trends have been arguably the same for about 6 years if one ignores smaller bumps and dips.
USA has a new 4th branch of gov't: the Shouting Branch...or the Twitter Branch.
Some hoped the You're-Fired meme was merely to induce drama for TV excitement, and as President he'd be more thoughtful. Not. What's next, DC Spin the Bottle? It would be a hoot to see T's chubby ass try to play Twister; somebody could get hurt.
The same thing occurred to me. The graduates may end up where they do for a reason. A thorough test would randomly place half the group into unpaid internships and the other half in paid positions. But that would short-circuit the interview process, and interview ability affects ones career in general (longer term).
For example, if you are a poor interviewer, you would be less likely to get a job out of school and have to settle for unpaid internships etc. But the process mentioned above would put poor interviewers into jobs they otherwise would NOT get.
Thus, it's difficult to devise an experiment to fully test a causation relationship. The only one I can think of right now is to yank some portion out of their newly acquired job and put them into unpaid internships. But neither the graduate nor the company would be happy with that. You'd have to mess with lives and commerce to get good studies.
Software engineering faces a similar problem: companies don't want to be guinea pigs for real software they depend on. Thus, very indirect causation models have to be created, which makes it a soft science.
For example, certain personalities may gravitate toward certain companies, project types, and/or languages. Thus, the project results may reflect staff skills and habit as much as or more so than the technology used, and therefore saying technology X is better than Y is dubious. You'd have to force employees into situations they may not otherwise want to get sufficient randomization.
Slashdot Mirror
I kind of got used to it (desensitized), but I was also quite freaked out at first. I was in a little restaurant with dodgy TV reception and lost my appetite because of some of the really freaky distortions. I had to toss half my food.
I've read about the bad side of other's LSD trips, and this matched it pretty well. I hope somebody sues: this is Bad Tech.
That is largely true, but there are also patterns to perception and results of perception. These patterns can be studied to make statistical predictions. Human behavior can be modeled to some degree in aggregate. I agree the models are not perfect and that's partly why economists are often wrong.
However, part of the reason they are wrong is because investors are using the same or similar models and try to take advantage of their predictions. Investors have access to the research papers also. Thus, it's a moving recursive target because the new models are intentionally used to muck up the new models by getting a jump on trends.
In this case one can see if investments in Category X pay for themselves in a given time-frame as valued in stocks or the recent revenue of the company, among other metrics. That much is an objective measurement. (I suppose there may be disagreement over how to determine if a company is in Category X, but that doesn't seem the point of contention.)
There's a potential idea for a startup: aggregate basic listings and links from many smaller sites using a combination of site scraping and registered vendors who key in or supply clean data. The revenue would be generated by product-specific ads and/or listing placement. It's kind of a commerce-oriented Google, but with structured elements to make shopping-centric searching easier (thumbnail, title, model# , price, shipping price range, synopsis, color/sizes, and a link to vendor's detail). If it gets good enough, Google may even buy your site for jillions.
Use wealth to get more wealth: that's how the rich get richer and the rest fight for scraps. It's how MS killed smaller competitors: subsidize competing product until competitor dies or has to turn niche. Becoming a de-facto standard is another way to get bigger by being big. And Warren Buffett admitted part the reason for his success is that his portfolio is so large he can afford riskier investments than smaller investment co's because the shear quantity of investments smooths out dips and failures of individual holdings: law of big averages. He doesn't have to play it safe.
One of the benefits of analog signals is that they "degenerated" more gracefully than the compressed digital signals now in use for broadcast in most areas.
The analog signal may be snowy or have streaks under poor signals, but you could still see most of the image. With compressed signals, signal loss often results in ungodly distortions from a Cubists' nightmare. Faces can look really grotesque as the cubist distortions move with the head's movement. When I first saw it I questioned the contents of my salad and drank lots of water.
Go where? Amazon nuked the competition. It's the same reason most orgs still have Microsoft desktops despite MS sucking rotting eggs forward and backward. Your poop has to be crevice-for-crevice compatible with the shape of everyone else's MS-Anus if you want to pass goods and services instead of be constipated.
Competition is good, now lets get some.
Back then "bully" was sometimes slang for "good" or "friendly", but detractors of the President still used or implied the "mean" interpretation. Bad overloading is not just done by lousy API designers.
Since the late 1950's, the end of the decade has always had a recession of some kind. Sometimes it's a bit late and sometimes a bit early, but always there. Even before the 1950's, there's been roughly a 10-year pattern also. (Wars tends to jack up the economy, mucking up the pattern. Great stimulus, but deadly of course.)
The only thing I can see preventing or delaying it is pent-up demand due to the large mortgage bubble recession: the economy has yet to get to "full steam" because of side-effects of it, such as people and banks with too much debt to spend on new things.
If he takes credit for things he's barely touched, then it would be fair game to blame him for down-turning industries he barely touched also, no? (Including automobiles)
Both parties have been blaming or crediting the current President of the time for gas prices even though they usually have very little to do with gas prices. Any changes in drilling laws/rules usually take several years to affect supply.
It's silly political games. The problem is, such games often "work" on voters, who are often naive or short-sighted.
It's indeed not realistic for content hosters to inspect all content (assuming such even does any good). It would either put them out of business, jack up customer prices bigly, and/or drive such business overseas.
If they should inspect "some" content or do a cursory review, then the law would have to specify the time and/or expense required to be devoted to it. If they take the lazy way out and require "a reasonable" amount of time, then that will also jack up the prices because the penalty would be at the whim of jurors or judges.
How could a law specify resources in an unambiguous and practical way? Anybody want to give such text a shot?
Here's an idea I'll float: if a site has a history of or reason to expect suspicious sex-related transactions, then it's required to run all content through a filter to check against a word/phrase list downloadable from a [yet unspecified] federal agency, and refreshed at least monthly. If any content matches, then the hoster must inspect each instance within a week and either report suspicious activity to local law officials, or reject the customer's content. The inspection activity is to be logged and kept for at least a year.
To avoid such inspection work, most hosters will probably start automatically refusing certain words or phrases in ads. Synonyms will probably end up being used, just like you suggested, making it silly game.
Thus, the legislation is probably busybody nonsense to make the law-maker sound "tough on crime". Same stupid game as ever.
By the way, actual escorts are not illegal by themselves. It's kind of like hiring a body guard. "Escort" is just often used as a synonym for more nefarious activities. It's kind of like paying the mafia "protection fees": they could merely be a legitimate security service who happens to have an Italian accent. Security services themselves are not illegal. If you effectively ban one synonym, another will pop up in its place. Legislating profiling and guesswork would be a can of worms.
It may even trigger ethnic profiling lawsuits if a hoster checks on certain groups more than others while checking for "suspicious activity". Italian security services on the East Coast may indeed be "suspicious", but that's ethnic profiling. (My apologies if I offended any Italians.)
Status reports are common in the industry; done them for many orgs. However, they are usually summarized and weekly because nobody wants to hear about specific widget properties and fiddling one typically has to do every day. That's a waste of most people's time. Sure, there are exceptions when there's a logjam, but for the most part managers don't have the time for day-level details. I suspect this particular situation will end up the same way in the longer term.
The big picture here is not entirely about Trump and Trump's signature. His election win has proven that trade (including services) and visas/immigration may not flow so easy across borders in the future for geopolitical reasons. Thus, businesses decided to be less dependent on them on average.
Oh the irony burns. Correction: ...sometimes skip steps...
The Russians made many attempts in many systems using many methods. The "Podesta" incident just happens to be one made public and high profile and is NOT the entirety of the Russia "problem", as you seem to imply. The server logs on many election-related systems have been found full of attempts.
I imagine most attempts made by Russia failed, but if you try enough things on enough servers and enough people, eventually you will find holes. Hacking favors the patient and persistent.
I've fallen for a trick myself, I must admit. I typed in the URL as given (didn't click it, though) rather than go to the main site and regular menus of the intended vendor. After I was bamboozled, I realize I skipped a "safety step", slapped my forehead, and vowed to be more careful next time. (It was a small amount, which is probably why I was less careful than I should have been.)
I've caught tricks before using the regular "safety checklist", but humans are humans and somethings skip steps out of forgetfulness, laziness, distractions, fumble fingers, Mondays, etc.
A good many Republicans trashed the DNC for their "lax security". Crow soup anyone?
I think we have to give Trumpo some credit. He shook the overseas-based outsourcing market by introducing fear, uncertainty, and doubt into it such that companies are less likely to want to depend on it exclusively or heavily.
His most effective strategy has been the bully pulpit. Getting legislation passed has been a bear for him, and Executive Orders have had relatively limited impact compared to other newly elected Presidents.
In addition to overseas outsourcing, border crossings appear to be down, possibly on the threat that he'll make life difficult for undocumented visitors.
Some also give him credit for the alleged stock market surge by promising to cut taxes and regulation, although the stock trends have been arguably the same for about 6 years if one ignores smaller bumps and dips.
USA has a new 4th branch of gov't: the Shouting Branch...or the Twitter Branch.
I heard she married the Nigerian Prince, and they moved to Russia.
Whenever SNL writers finish a draft, news comes out that gives then even better material, so they wad up the draft and start over.
It's like being a web front-end dev: new month = new style fad, except SNL's choices change daily.
It was changed to that because Pacific Islanders objected to "Big Kahuna"
Hey, ratch it rith the racism there!
Corporations ARE people; the corporate-stuffed courts said so.
I would like to see more consumer advocacy and consumer representatives testify.
Some hoped the You're-Fired meme was merely to induce drama for TV excitement, and as President he'd be more thoughtful. Not. What's next, DC Spin the Bottle? It would be a hoot to see T's chubby ass try to play Twister; somebody could get hurt.
Entrumpy: In Chaos We Trust
Then how do we shop for hookers?
The same thing occurred to me. The graduates may end up where they do for a reason. A thorough test would randomly place half the group into unpaid internships and the other half in paid positions. But that would short-circuit the interview process, and interview ability affects ones career in general (longer term).
For example, if you are a poor interviewer, you would be less likely to get a job out of school and have to settle for unpaid internships etc. But the process mentioned above would put poor interviewers into jobs they otherwise would NOT get.
Thus, it's difficult to devise an experiment to fully test a causation relationship. The only one I can think of right now is to yank some portion out of their newly acquired job and put them into unpaid internships. But neither the graduate nor the company would be happy with that. You'd have to mess with lives and commerce to get good studies.
Software engineering faces a similar problem: companies don't want to be guinea pigs for real software they depend on. Thus, very indirect causation models have to be created, which makes it a soft science.
For example, certain personalities may gravitate toward certain companies, project types, and/or languages. Thus, the project results may reflect staff skills and habit as much as or more so than the technology used, and therefore saying technology X is better than Y is dubious. You'd have to force employees into situations they may not otherwise want to get sufficient randomization.