Let's not forget that World War II actually got off the ground because the French refused to muster an army against Germany when they flagrantly violated the Treaty of Versailles by invading the Rhineland, a demilitarized zone per the Treaty and also the Locarno Pact.
Actually, Winston Churchill put it down to the harsh conditions imposed by the treaty of Versaille. Perhaps if the UK and France (and the US) hadn't completely screwed the German economy and imposed impossible debts onto the Germans, bread would never have reached 5 marks a loaf... which was why Hitler became so popular.
Fun game, this 20/20 hindsight on history.
Maybe if the US hadn't been so lazy and got of their arses in 1939 instead of 1941, we wouldn't have had to rely on the Russians.
How is Democracy at risk over this? Does not "information want to be free"? Is not it good that voters know more about the candidate, than less?
It's good if the information is accurate. The problem here is that misinformation has been mixed in with the information. When people are misinformed, they make poor choices.
And me without mod points.
The problem with recent elections is not the availability of information, but the availability of misinformation. Often the quality of accurate information is so bad, the less well informed cant tell the difference between information and misinformation. The result is, as you said, poor choices.
They funny thing is Le Penn has also filed a complaint about hacking by the "extreme left"! So whether that is supposed to attack the credibility of Macron's accusations or add to them, we dont know.
The thing is, the extreme left... or the left in general don't have a candidate in this election. Marcon is centre right (he's a banker), Le Pen is extreme right.
France is centre right leaning in general though, so I expect this to be a victory for Marcon, sadly not enough of a victory to put Front National out of its misery.
I wouldn't trust anything coming out of Le Pen to be accurate or grounded in reality. She's basically following Trumps strategy of attacking her opponent instead of announcing policy but in a far less competent manner (yes, I didn't think it was possible either).
Objective: The goal can be clearly defined in simple words. There are few input parameters to the problem that affect the output. The output is easily measured. The decision process for the input parameters has just a few steps.
Repeatable: The input parameters are similar and the outcome is similar.
You're a computer scientist who has never attempted to tile their own roof.
Robots are a good several decades off replacing manual labour in a volatile environment because they cant cope with things like an unexpected gust of wind. We cant even build a car completely with robots yet. Sure it's as basic as input perimeters on a CS level, but try defining every possible input perimeter based on every possible meteorological condition. We haven even started with every possible "kid with hose" permutation either yet.
For robots to reliably do a lot of low level labour jobs, they need to be good enough to be able to establish a lot of their own input parameters without human intervention (this is also why autonomous cars wont be a reality for some time, sorry).
Freedom of speech means "freedom of speech you don't like". Sound like Cloudflare is a champion of free speech (as if we didn't already know that from keeping torrent sites alive). Good on em.
Freedom of speech does not protect you from criticism.
Using freedom of speech to try to shut down critics is both a hypocritical and losing argument. If you want free speech to be your defence, you cant use it to shut down people who will criticise what you have to say. Otherwise you're the one who wants everyone to shut up and silently accept everything you say. As you eluded to, freedom of speech does not extend solely to speech you like. If you are afraid of having your ideas challenged, then perhaps you should keep them to yourself rather than demand others have their free speech impinged because you don't like to be questioned.
Criticism is protected speech... in fact it is the most important of the explicitly protected forms of expressions because it gives us the right to criticise those in power.
Secondly, it's the ultimate concession in any argument. It tells me the most compelling argument to defend what you say is that it is literally not illegal to say it.
Now lets, for a moment consider who you are defending. The Daily Stormer openly admits to doxing anyone who would criticise them. Do these people sound like the champions of free speech to you?
"hate" is a subjective term. people can get offended by anything they choose.
Sorry, but that is wrong. "Hate" has a very specific definition, at least in the UK. "Hate" is targeted at a protected attribute such as race, sex and religion and is a deliberately and maliciously targeted and sustained harassment or threats against a protected attribute.
If you were to bully someone over having red hair you'd be an arsehole, but that would be regular harassment. OTOH, if you bullied someone over being Asian, then you'd be a racist arsehole and that would be racial harassment.
Only those with no knowledge of the actual legal definitions of "hate" think that it can be applied to anything and everything. It cannot.
If you were to take offence at cakes and hassle a cake shop to have their website taken down, a judge in the UK would be more likely to indite you for harassment. Intent matters a lot in hate crime cases, it's up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants actions was made with hateful (as defined above) intent. Note I also said actions, hate crimes are almost never a once off, this makes it easier for the prosecution, not that bigots make it hard as they've usually posted crap everywhere about how they hate something. Finally, the nature of their bigotry is always specified by the prosecution, "hate crime" is a catchall word used by the less eloquent of news publications, the court will specify if it were racist, sexist, xenophobic, so on and so forth.
The myth that "hate" crimes are undefined needs to die
Prince Phillip retired today. Prince Phillip is famous for many inappropriate gaffes, many of which are racial in nature. Prince Phillip has never been indicted for hate crimes because he hasn't committed any, his gaffes were always the result of stupidity rather than malice, his intent was always clearly not hateful. Hate laws are reserved for the likes of Anders Breiviks.
I wouldn't call it the best, but it certainly is a very good sports car that can be used as a daily. However the 911 has issues, mostly with a rear mounted engine and as such out of Porsche's range I'd take the Coxter (Cayman).
The Cayman is an interesting car, and with the mid engine it is nicely balanced. The issue with the Cayman is its the 911's little sibling, so Porsche is, I think, holding it back a bit on purpose to keep the 911 out front.
As for the 911 itself, it is the flagship so it doesn't have that issue. It used to be a bit of a beast due to the rear engine, but that has been completely tamed for a long time now; *especially* in the AWD models.
Couldn't agree more, the Cayman could be better than it is and Porsche are deliberately keeping it under the 911.
Budget is also a reason I'm thinking Cayman. I'm at a point in my life where I could afford a decent used one (outright).
If money were no object, I'd have to say Aston Martin or Maserati would be a better daily sports car.
Yeah, they're certainly very driveable and quite a bit more exclusive, but I think ultimately that plays into the Porsche's favor. I have at least 6+ Porsche shops within an hour of here that are either Porsche exclusive or at least Porsche specialists. There are dealers and aftermarket specialty places if you want Ruf or Techart etc. The technicians have lots of experience from working on the cars day in and day out and know about all the odd ball problems; and there is a large community of owner/enthusiasts with DIY knowledge and support. That's part of what makes the car a viable daily driver.
Maserati and Aston Martin are both just a little too 'Ferrari' by comparison... the parts aren't ever in stock, everything costs a fortune (even relative to Porsche), and the techs are fewer and further apart and you just can't get the same level of real actual experience unless perhaps you live in a very few places. For example Autotrader lists 13 Aston's of ANY make / model / year for sale in the local metro area of 2.5 million. Maserati... 29.... there are actually more Ferrari listed at 31. There are over 200 Porsches listed, and almost half of them are some 911.
PS -- I really agree with you about Apple. About the marketing, about them really being beige Camry's once you see through the marketing lustre. Great analogy there.
Oddly enough, I looked at Aston Martins around southern England earlier this evening, you could get a 2006 DB9 for around GBP 50,000. But yes, they are priced to be somewhat exclusive where as a Porsche is an everymans sports car.
As someone who comes from Kia/Hyundai background, I've never quite understood the appeal of Porsche's products. I don't think Porsche's products are terrible or anything, but I just fail to see what is so special and different about Porsche's cars that many Porsche users would never dream of switching to a non-Porsche product.
You're not a car guy.
OK, the first thing is, only a few Porsche owners will never own any other car. This alone makes the comparison between Apple and Porsche completely wrong.
The appeal of a Porsche to car guys is their technical perfection (another inconsistency in the analogy). Porsche's are drivers cars, they offer maximum control and feedback to the driver (pretty much the opposite of Apple). I'm not a Porsche fanboy in any sense of the word, but I see the appeal of the vehicles because I am a petrolhead. When you consider the wants of a petrolhead, you cant really go past Porsche for price and performance, sure, there are cheaper drivers cars, there are better drivers cars but there aren't better drivers cars for less than a Porsche.
I also love technology, but I cant see the appeal of Apple products and when Apple fanboys start talking I understand why, I revel in doing things with my technology (the same as I revel in controlling my car, which is a Nissan 200sx S15), I like changing settings, I want control over my device. When Apple fanboys start talking about their devices they have two arguments, first to attack the competition, to deride Microsoft and Google, the second it to say how little they have to think about their devices. Thats why I'm not Apple's target market, I do think about what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. This is what makes a petrolhead different to the steering wheel attendants in their automatic white goods who only want to go from A to B, when a petrolhead goes from A to B, he wants to strap in for the ride.
Compare PCs with high dpi display, 1080p camera, sound and microphone which doesn't suck, trackpad which doesn't suck, battery which actually lasts all day and endures for years, and a warranty which you can walk into a store anywhere in the world and get the machine serviced.
In 2012, I bought an Asus U46SV for less than half the price of a Macbook. It had a better graphics processor (Nvidia compared to an Intel), more RAM, replacable hard disk. Battery would last 9 hours in power saving mode. I replaced it this year because I simply wanted a laptop that could play more modern games.
1080p camera, microphone, good trackpad and keyboard were standard back then. In fact, of all the laptop keyboards I've used in recent memory, Apple's were the worst. Further more, there were plenty of manufacturers who would service my laptop in my home or workplace. Given that the nearest Apple store to me in 2012 was 5000 KM away this was a no brainer. Even collect and return is less of a hassle than going into somewhere that has an Apple store.
Then consider the resale value...
After 5+ years of faithful service, I don't really care. I doubt that a 5 year old Macbook would be worth anything anyway. I'm giving my old U46SV to a charity that refurbishes them and gives them to the underpriveldged. I got my A$900 worth of value out of a better spec'ed laptop and I guarantee after 2 years, the Macbook would have lost A$900 in value.
I speak so highly of my old Asus... I replaced it with another one, an Asus K50U. It has an i7, Geforce 940mx, 512 GB SSD, camera, full sized KB, 9 hour battery life and delivers all of this in a 15" package at under 2KG... And what was the princely sum I paid for this, GBP 750. More expensive than your average laptop but a bargain considering the spec and quality you get from an Asus. if you want a 15" Macbook Pro, starting prices are GBP 2,349 (2,699 if you want the same spec as my K50U). It could retain half it's value in 2 years... and you'll have lost more than me even if my Asus was worth 0 pounds.
The 911 is pretty much the best sports car on the planet that can still be used as a daily driver. Calling it a 'crap car' is just being petty, and probably jealous.
I wouldn't call it the best, but it certainly is a very good sports car that can be used as a daily. However the 911 has issues, mostly with a rear mounted engine and as such out of Porsche's range I'd take the Coxter (Cayman). If money were no object, I'd have to say Aston Martin or Maserati would be a better daily sports car.
The Corvette is more hit and miss as a car, and it's no 911, but in terms of raw fun per dollar it's pretty hard to beat.
The Corvette is something you have to admire for its simplicity and barn door engineering. German cars are high tech done well, the Vette is low tech done well. Its a simple thing, big V8 at the front, power to the back, manual transmission in the middle. Given the choice between a 911 and a Vette, I'd take the vette because I like the purer driving experience, fewer electronic aids make for a more exiting drive to me.
As for the GTR, that is a completely different kettle of fish, a GTR pretty much has 3000 mile service intervals and these are more than just a quick oil change. That means it's less of an everyday sports car and more of an every day race car. They are phenomenal on the track, but expensive to run as a daily.
My ideal sports car would have to be styled by the Italians, engineered by the Germans, interior by the British, manufactured by the Japanese... and priced by the Americans.
Ironically though you are probably right about the Apple. The *mystique* (here you actually do want the 'french' word. mystic is just wrong.) and bragging rights is a big part of the appeal. Apple is a cooler brand than Android or Samsung or LG etc... but Apple's brand strength is fading, IMO.
Apples success comes down to one thing. Marketing. Apple is, or at least was, very, very, very, very, very, very good at marketing.
The problem with marketing is that all marketing is bullshit. Apple, Microsoft, Toyota... it doesn't matter. It's all BS and the more bullshit you feed someone, the more resistance to it they'll gain. Apple is reaching the point where they can't get any more customers with marketing, in fact they're going to start losing them.
To make a car analogy, an Apple product is a lot like a Toyota Camry, simple, unoffensive, basic and beige. Like a Camry, even someone on benefits can get one. Apple have no exclusivity, and that erodes their coolness. Not everyone can own a Maserati, and that is part of the appeal. Apple has simply become passe and as unexciting as the Camry. The problem with the Toyota Camry is not the Camry, it's reasonably priced, relatively comfortable, sufficient power, good efficiency and reliable to a fault. There is simply nothing wrong with a Camry, but nothing special about it either, the problem with the Toyota Camry are the Camry drivers. They buy a Camry because it's the least effort, they don't need to think about it and they take this attitude with all aspects of their driving. Such as it is with Apple's customers, the marketing is wearing off and people are starting to think, is the Iphone as good as we thought it was. The answer is no and because of this, Apple are becoming dependent on those who don't want to think about their purchase.
Not particularly. I'm racist in person, too. I can sit there hiding, or I can work to proselytize. Most people are racist to some degree - it's amazing how people behave when they are in private, particularly if you start with things that they have already started to observe on their own.
I have to strongly disagree here. The word "racist" implies extremely negative connotations. Racism is an irrational hate.
Racism has nothing to do with preferences, its a natural thing that most people are more comfortable with people that are like them. Not just with race but with wealth, culture, language (someone who speaks UK English is more comfortable conversing with someone else who speaks the queens English). This however does not imply that they irrationally hate things that are foreign. Someone who prefers to stay in England and surrounds themselves with English culture is not inherently racist. Sure, the racists like to hide behind these people, but that isn't their fault and I give them the benefit of the doubt.
Now I am not a racist person, however I still love a good racist or sexist joke. Humour is one of the few avenues we can use to explore these concepts and in so doing, reduce their impact on us. However that does not mean I'll walk up to randoms and start spouting off racist or sexist jokes. Its just common sense to gauge your audience before hand, not just because some might be offended... but even worse, some will take the joke seriously.
For those of us who want intellectual honesty and race realism, the internet has been a godsend.
This is woefully inaccurate.
Internet anonymity has been a godsend to closet racism. They'll never be racist in real life because they know they'll get the living shit kicked out of them for it, or at best, end up with no friends what so ever, so they do it behind a keyboard and a pseudonym. That is the kind of coward that internet racists are.
...Australia's government shows that they don't really get this whole "technology" thing...
Australia's current government is what happens when you elect a Conservative based on a fear campaign of the other guy. This is the kind of bollocks the US now has to look forward to.
Sounds like typical SJW solutions...poo poo until you ruin someone's life all because you don't like something.
I wish I had mod points, this deserves to be marked down as a troll. Anyone who uses the term "SJW" is completely full of shit and should be treated accordingly.
The GP was half way right. You need to go after the managers and "decision makers" who are responsible, but forget social media. You need to hurt them in the hip pocket. Legal and financial disincentives are what is needed to stymie outsourcing. PR can handle any social discontent, it's when their positions are threatened because its costing more to outsource than to hire local will they change.
the CEOs of the outsourcing firms have been caught a few times complaining about lazy Americans. And frankly he's right. By Indian or Chinese standards our 50-60 hour work weeks make us lazy. The H1-Bs I know regularly put in 80 hour work weeks. They're young and disposable but they don't care because currency exchange means they're earning a fortune working here. Best case they get a greencard and start doing the 50-60 hr work weeks of Americans, worst case they go back home flush with cash.
The moral? You can't compete with India. You can't compete with a country that has a literal cast system and effective slavery for millions of their citizens. End the H1-B program. Start calling your congressman/woman/thing and ask them why they haven't ended the program. There are other programs for rural doctors. The program is for replacing Americans. Call your congressman and ask. Remind them you and your family and your friends won't be voting for them in their primary. Make sure you say primary. They've gerrymandered the districts. After their Primary they'll win. But they're vulnerable in the primary.
Most of this post is completely incorrect. The rest is only partially incorrect.
First things first, the decision to outsource is never about quality or performance, it's always 100% about money.
Secondly, its not the "exchange rate" that makes working overseas attractive, its the disparity of income. The exchange rate just denotes how many rupees you get for dollars, income disparity is what makes you get more money per hour.
Thirdly, 12 hour working days are rare, its mostly 8 hour shifts, especially for western companies that are subject to laws back home even though the labour is outsourced. As another poster explained, the culture of long hours with Asian companies tends to be more about social rules than work. A Japanese employee might be at work for 12 hours, but thats all about appearance, they have to look like a hard worker by arriving before the boss and leaving after the boss. They don't get any extra work done, a lot of the time they are napping or socialising. This is a common theme across Asia.
In my experience, Indians buck the trend of Asian culture. Most Asian (especially the Chinese) don't like it when the Gwailo demonstrates they know more, so the appearance of knowledge is more important than the knowledge itself. The Indians are the opposite. I once had to run training in Singapore, the ethnic Chinese attended, but never participated. They didn't ask questions or interact much, to do so would have lost them face in front of their colleges. The ethnic Indians on the other hand never stopped with questions. At one point I had to ask them to write them down as I didn't have time to answer them all tonight.
The reason so much outsourcing ends up in India is because they are happy to work under western managers.
Of course with all races, you get the full spectrum from idiot to genius, western, Asian or otherwise, however only certain cultures have a compunction against learning or thinking outside the box. With Indians, you get two types of body shops, cheap ones that employ anyone with an IT cert so they get all the ones that paid for their certs and are pretty much useless. The second kind employs the Indians that are moderately competent, these guys actually earned their grades and are good at performing routine tasks but don't expect much in the way of creativity, the downside of this is that you pay more, probably about the same as hiring flunkies in the US. Those Indians that are actually as good as good western IT workers... We'll they're your colleges. Indians who are a good enough can generally get out of India of their own accord. Most end up in the UK or Australia as India is part of the Commonwealth of Nations which makes it easier to get a visa. Really good Indians will have worked all around the world.
No, steam is not a subscription service. You buy each title you want, once, and that's it. If you want the dlc, you pay a separate unlock fee, once, to get it.
This is a monthly payment, and you get access to all the titles and all the dlc for them (however many your hard drive can hold), and you can swap them out and play them as much as you want....until you cancel the subscription; when you lose access to all of them.
It's going to be more like a Pay/Cable TV subscription. With the basic package, you only get access to a limited set of semi-popular games. To get access to the full catalogue, you need to pay for the gold package. Want DLC, you can pay a nominal sum for a DLC package per game.
BBC is very left wing. YOU think they are good, because they slant things the way you like.
No, the BBC is objectively rated as centre right. The problem you have is that you have gone so far to the extreme right, you dont even know what the left is.
In 1951, Winston Churchill won the election as a conservative, however by modern standards he's left of Obama (who isn't left at all).
Now the BBC is a more reliable source of information for several reasons.
1. The BBC checks their facts.
2. When the BBC publishes incorrect facts they issue a correction.
3. The BBC does not rely on cliche's or appeals to fear/emotion.
Now the reason you believe the BBC is biased is because you're not familiar with what real news looks like. Real news is written in a way to present facts, Fox, Breitbart, Daily Mail, et al. are written in a way to present opinions. As you've probably lived all your life hiding and fighting facts that you don't believe in, any source that presents information, especially information in a dispassionate manner would seem very biased to you. This does not make the source biased, rather it makes you an extremist.
Also, when was the last time Fox News issued a correction, they broadcast several "mistakes" per day but never seem to issue a correction.
Does Google really think that Salon, Infowars and Breitbart readers are getting to those sites via Google? I'm sure some do, but I'll bet most go right to their site of choice.
In our world of ideological teamism - the players have picked their sides and I'm willing to bet that Google had very little to do with their choice.
Those who dont want their views challenged will be going to sites like Breitbart direct as they don't want to risk running into anything that may make them question their preconceptions.
However that is a very small number of people. The masses tend to use search engines and social media.
If anyone can successfully and accurately fight fake news, it is someone like Google. Fake news is best defined as non-fact based articles pretending to be news. Google with their experience in search and data management would be able to build a comparison engine that could compare the content of the article to known facts. Look at the content, not just the source, sure we know that what comes out of Fox News is almost entirely bollocks, so you would weight that news source as being less reliable, but they will still have their broken clock moments.
Looking at the content will also make the more legitimate news sources rely less on cheap cliches and appeals to fear/emotion.
It's ironic that the Guardian is pointing the finger at someone else as unreliable or fake news.
Only if you live in a black-and-white world where everything is absolutely wrong all the time or absolutely right all the time. Back in the real world, certain news media outlets, which not perfect are a lot more reliable than certain other news media outlets.
To equate them all is as wrong as the news stories you are decrying.
This.
There are levels of trust. Whilst I find the Guardian as guilty as the Daily Mail in exagerating and outright fabricating the facts there are two important distinctions,
1. The Daily Mail is far worse at it. This does not excuse the Guardian, but it means I'll trust the DM far less.
2. The Guardian is far more eloquently written. This means that there is a minimum intelligence level required tor read it. Intelligent people are less likely to fall for propaganda and dont like to feel like their back is being urinated on.
So in a straight up fight between the Guardian and the Daily Mail, I'll trust the Guardian to be more accurate until corroborating information is available. This isn't to say that I trust the Guardian, as I said, they often exaggerate, but not to the point of repeatedly printing well proven lies. This is one of the Guardians bigger failures, however were this were reversed, we'd consider this kind of fabrication to be just another day at the Daily Mail.
Turns out, many people do this, and your colleague doesn't find it helpful at all.
Hey Colleague! I'm not CC'ing the boss to help you out.
This.
Lets face facts... You're doing it because you're an arsehole who thinks that name dropping and going over someone's head will get you anywhere... And the level of smug I generate when it backfires has put me on an EPA watchlist... And it always backfires.
Nope we are beginning to see the effect of Trump's electronics ban on Gulf airlines. They are moving orders away from Boeing to Airbus
As much as Trump deserves a good bashing, what we're seeing started long before him. Boeing only sell two aircraft families at the moment, the medium range 737 NG family and the long range 787. Both of which face fierce competition from the Airbus A320 family as well as the A330 and now the A350. The issues that airlines have had with the B787 have hurt it now the A350 is operations.
Also their withdrawal from the super heavy market has completely given that market to Airbus and their A380. Orders for B747's have practically ceased and Boeing's attempts to compete by doing a life cycle update of the 747 were laughable (same as Airbuses attempts to do the same with the A330 when the 787 came out... just to show I'm not biased).
So Boeing are receiving reduced orders due to competition and the lack of a 747 replacement.
However you're quiet right that Airbus is going to see increased options due to the Trumps attacks on the Gulf airlines, but that will take time to materialise.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's not forget that World War II actually got off the ground because the French refused to muster an army against Germany when they flagrantly violated the Treaty of Versailles by invading the Rhineland, a demilitarized zone per the Treaty and also the Locarno Pact.
Actually, Winston Churchill put it down to the harsh conditions imposed by the treaty of Versaille. Perhaps if the UK and France (and the US) hadn't completely screwed the German economy and imposed impossible debts onto the Germans, bread would never have reached 5 marks a loaf... which was why Hitler became so popular.
Fun game, this 20/20 hindsight on history.
Maybe if the US hadn't been so lazy and got of their arses in 1939 instead of 1941, we wouldn't have had to rely on the Russians.
How is Democracy at risk over this? Does not "information want to be free"? Is not it good that voters know more about the candidate, than less?
It's good if the information is accurate. The problem here is that misinformation has been mixed in with the information. When people are misinformed, they make poor choices.
And me without mod points.
The problem with recent elections is not the availability of information, but the availability of misinformation. Often the quality of accurate information is so bad, the less well informed cant tell the difference between information and misinformation. The result is, as you said, poor choices.
They funny thing is Le Penn has also filed a complaint about hacking by the "extreme left"! So whether that is supposed to attack the credibility of Macron's accusations or add to them, we dont know.
The thing is, the extreme left... or the left in general don't have a candidate in this election. Marcon is centre right (he's a banker), Le Pen is extreme right.
France is centre right leaning in general though, so I expect this to be a victory for Marcon, sadly not enough of a victory to put Front National out of its misery.
I wouldn't trust anything coming out of Le Pen to be accurate or grounded in reality. She's basically following Trumps strategy of attacking her opponent instead of announcing policy but in a far less competent manner (yes, I didn't think it was possible either).
Any "Objective Repeatable Task" is automatable.
Objective: The goal can be clearly defined in simple words. There are few input parameters to the problem that affect the output. The output is easily measured. The decision process for the input parameters has just a few steps.
Repeatable: The input parameters are similar and the outcome is similar.
Examples: Roofing. Laundry. Cooking. Manufacturing.
You're a computer scientist who has never attempted to tile their own roof.
Robots are a good several decades off replacing manual labour in a volatile environment because they cant cope with things like an unexpected gust of wind. We cant even build a car completely with robots yet. Sure it's as basic as input perimeters on a CS level, but try defining every possible input perimeter based on every possible meteorological condition. We haven even started with every possible "kid with hose" permutation either yet.
For robots to reliably do a lot of low level labour jobs, they need to be good enough to be able to establish a lot of their own input parameters without human intervention (this is also why autonomous cars wont be a reality for some time, sorry).
Thank you for contacting me about this opportunity. I promise I will beat a harp worker for you.
*beat a harp worker
*BE A HARP WORKER
*HARD, HARD, DUCKING AUTOCORRECT!
This must be an Iphone thing. I never get such incorrect texts on my Nexus 5x. Also if I write fucking, it prints fucking.
Typed this out on my Nexus 5x. HTML is a pain in the arse.
Freedom of speech does not protect you from criticism.
Using freedom of speech to try to shut down critics is both a hypocritical and losing argument. If you want free speech to be your defence, you cant use it to shut down people who will criticise what you have to say. Otherwise you're the one who wants everyone to shut up and silently accept everything you say. As you eluded to, freedom of speech does not extend solely to speech you like. If you are afraid of having your ideas challenged, then perhaps you should keep them to yourself rather than demand others have their free speech impinged because you don't like to be questioned.
Criticism is protected speech... in fact it is the most important of the explicitly protected forms of expressions because it gives us the right to criticise those in power.
Secondly, it's the ultimate concession in any argument. It tells me the most compelling argument to defend what you say is that it is literally not illegal to say it.
Now lets, for a moment consider who you are defending. The Daily Stormer openly admits to doxing anyone who would criticise them. Do these people sound like the champions of free speech to you?
"hate" is a subjective term. people can get offended by anything they choose.
Sorry, but that is wrong. "Hate" has a very specific definition, at least in the UK. "Hate" is targeted at a protected attribute such as race, sex and religion and is a deliberately and maliciously targeted and sustained harassment or threats against a protected attribute.
If you were to bully someone over having red hair you'd be an arsehole, but that would be regular harassment. OTOH, if you bullied someone over being Asian, then you'd be a racist arsehole and that would be racial harassment.
Only those with no knowledge of the actual legal definitions of "hate" think that it can be applied to anything and everything. It cannot.
If you were to take offence at cakes and hassle a cake shop to have their website taken down, a judge in the UK would be more likely to indite you for harassment. Intent matters a lot in hate crime cases, it's up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants actions was made with hateful (as defined above) intent. Note I also said actions, hate crimes are almost never a once off, this makes it easier for the prosecution, not that bigots make it hard as they've usually posted crap everywhere about how they hate something. Finally, the nature of their bigotry is always specified by the prosecution, "hate crime" is a catchall word used by the less eloquent of news publications, the court will specify if it were racist, sexist, xenophobic, so on and so forth.
The myth that "hate" crimes are undefined needs to die
Prince Phillip retired today. Prince Phillip is famous for many inappropriate gaffes, many of which are racial in nature. Prince Phillip has never been indicted for hate crimes because he hasn't committed any, his gaffes were always the result of stupidity rather than malice, his intent was always clearly not hateful. Hate laws are reserved for the likes of Anders Breiviks.
I wouldn't call it the best, but it certainly is a very good sports car that can be used as a daily. However the 911 has issues, mostly with a rear mounted engine and as such out of Porsche's range I'd take the Coxter (Cayman).
The Cayman is an interesting car, and with the mid engine it is nicely balanced. The issue with the Cayman is its the 911's little sibling, so Porsche is, I think, holding it back a bit on purpose to keep the 911 out front.
As for the 911 itself, it is the flagship so it doesn't have that issue. It used to be a bit of a beast due to the rear engine, but that has been completely tamed for a long time now; *especially* in the AWD models.
Couldn't agree more, the Cayman could be better than it is and Porsche are deliberately keeping it under the 911.
Budget is also a reason I'm thinking Cayman. I'm at a point in my life where I could afford a decent used one (outright).
If money were no object, I'd have to say Aston Martin or Maserati would be a better daily sports car.
Yeah, they're certainly very driveable and quite a bit more exclusive, but I think ultimately that plays into the Porsche's favor. I have at least 6+ Porsche shops within an hour of here that are either Porsche exclusive or at least Porsche specialists. There are dealers and aftermarket specialty places if you want Ruf or Techart etc. The technicians have lots of experience from working on the cars day in and day out and know about all the odd ball problems; and there is a large community of owner/enthusiasts with DIY knowledge and support. That's part of what makes the car a viable daily driver.
Maserati and Aston Martin are both just a little too 'Ferrari' by comparison... the parts aren't ever in stock, everything costs a fortune (even relative to Porsche), and the techs are fewer and further apart and you just can't get the same level of real actual experience unless perhaps you live in a very few places. For example Autotrader lists 13 Aston's of ANY make / model / year for sale in the local metro area of 2.5 million. Maserati... 29.... there are actually more Ferrari listed at 31. There are over 200 Porsches listed, and almost half of them are some 911.
PS -- I really agree with you about Apple. About the marketing, about them really being beige Camry's once you see through the marketing lustre. Great analogy there.
Oddly enough, I looked at Aston Martins around southern England earlier this evening, you could get a 2006 DB9 for around GBP 50,000. But yes, they are priced to be somewhat exclusive where as a Porsche is an everymans sports car.
As someone who comes from Kia/Hyundai background, I've never quite understood the appeal of Porsche's products. I don't think Porsche's products are terrible or anything, but I just fail to see what is so special and different about Porsche's cars that many Porsche users would never dream of switching to a non-Porsche product.
You're not a car guy.
OK, the first thing is, only a few Porsche owners will never own any other car. This alone makes the comparison between Apple and Porsche completely wrong.
The appeal of a Porsche to car guys is their technical perfection (another inconsistency in the analogy). Porsche's are drivers cars, they offer maximum control and feedback to the driver (pretty much the opposite of Apple). I'm not a Porsche fanboy in any sense of the word, but I see the appeal of the vehicles because I am a petrolhead. When you consider the wants of a petrolhead, you cant really go past Porsche for price and performance, sure, there are cheaper drivers cars, there are better drivers cars but there aren't better drivers cars for less than a Porsche.
I also love technology, but I cant see the appeal of Apple products and when Apple fanboys start talking I understand why, I revel in doing things with my technology (the same as I revel in controlling my car, which is a Nissan 200sx S15), I like changing settings, I want control over my device. When Apple fanboys start talking about their devices they have two arguments, first to attack the competition, to deride Microsoft and Google, the second it to say how little they have to think about their devices. Thats why I'm not Apple's target market, I do think about what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. This is what makes a petrolhead different to the steering wheel attendants in their automatic white goods who only want to go from A to B, when a petrolhead goes from A to B, he wants to strap in for the ride.
I don't think the premium is that high either.
Compare PCs with high dpi display, 1080p camera, sound and microphone which doesn't suck, trackpad which doesn't suck, battery which actually lasts all day and endures for years, and a warranty which you can walk into a store anywhere in the world and get the machine serviced.
In 2012, I bought an Asus U46SV for less than half the price of a Macbook. It had a better graphics processor (Nvidia compared to an Intel), more RAM, replacable hard disk. Battery would last 9 hours in power saving mode. I replaced it this year because I simply wanted a laptop that could play more modern games.
1080p camera, microphone, good trackpad and keyboard were standard back then. In fact, of all the laptop keyboards I've used in recent memory, Apple's were the worst. Further more, there were plenty of manufacturers who would service my laptop in my home or workplace. Given that the nearest Apple store to me in 2012 was 5000 KM away this was a no brainer. Even collect and return is less of a hassle than going into somewhere that has an Apple store.
Then consider the resale value...
After 5+ years of faithful service, I don't really care. I doubt that a 5 year old Macbook would be worth anything anyway. I'm giving my old U46SV to a charity that refurbishes them and gives them to the underpriveldged. I got my A$900 worth of value out of a better spec'ed laptop and I guarantee after 2 years, the Macbook would have lost A$900 in value.
I speak so highly of my old Asus... I replaced it with another one, an Asus K50U. It has an i7, Geforce 940mx, 512 GB SSD, camera, full sized KB, 9 hour battery life and delivers all of this in a 15" package at under 2KG... And what was the princely sum I paid for this, GBP 750. More expensive than your average laptop but a bargain considering the spec and quality you get from an Asus. if you want a 15" Macbook Pro, starting prices are GBP 2,349 (2,699 if you want the same spec as my K50U). It could retain half it's value in 2 years... and you'll have lost more than me even if my Asus was worth 0 pounds.
The 911 is pretty much the best sports car on the planet that can still be used as a daily driver. Calling it a 'crap car' is just being petty, and probably jealous.
I wouldn't call it the best, but it certainly is a very good sports car that can be used as a daily. However the 911 has issues, mostly with a rear mounted engine and as such out of Porsche's range I'd take the Coxter (Cayman). If money were no object, I'd have to say Aston Martin or Maserati would be a better daily sports car.
The Corvette is more hit and miss as a car, and it's no 911, but in terms of raw fun per dollar it's pretty hard to beat.
The Corvette is something you have to admire for its simplicity and barn door engineering. German cars are high tech done well, the Vette is low tech done well. Its a simple thing, big V8 at the front, power to the back, manual transmission in the middle. Given the choice between a 911 and a Vette, I'd take the vette because I like the purer driving experience, fewer electronic aids make for a more exiting drive to me.
As for the GTR, that is a completely different kettle of fish, a GTR pretty much has 3000 mile service intervals and these are more than just a quick oil change. That means it's less of an everyday sports car and more of an every day race car. They are phenomenal on the track, but expensive to run as a daily.
My ideal sports car would have to be styled by the Italians, engineered by the Germans, interior by the British, manufactured by the Japanese... and priced by the Americans.
Ironically though you are probably right about the Apple. The *mystique* (here you actually do want the 'french' word. mystic is just wrong.) and bragging rights is a big part of the appeal. Apple is a cooler brand than Android or Samsung or LG etc... but Apple's brand strength is fading, IMO.
Apples success comes down to one thing. Marketing. Apple is, or at least was, very, very, very, very, very, very good at marketing.
The problem with marketing is that all marketing is bullshit. Apple, Microsoft, Toyota... it doesn't matter. It's all BS and the more bullshit you feed someone, the more resistance to it they'll gain. Apple is reaching the point where they can't get any more customers with marketing, in fact they're going to start losing them.
To make a car analogy, an Apple product is a lot like a Toyota Camry, simple, unoffensive, basic and beige. Like a Camry, even someone on benefits can get one. Apple have no exclusivity, and that erodes their coolness. Not everyone can own a Maserati, and that is part of the appeal. Apple has simply become passe and as unexciting as the Camry. The problem with the Toyota Camry is not the Camry, it's reasonably priced, relatively comfortable, sufficient power, good efficiency and reliable to a fault. There is simply nothing wrong with a Camry, but nothing special about it either, the problem with the Toyota Camry are the Camry drivers. They buy a Camry because it's the least effort, they don't need to think about it and they take this attitude with all aspects of their driving. Such as it is with Apple's customers, the marketing is wearing off and people are starting to think, is the Iphone as good as we thought it was. The answer is no and because of this, Apple are becoming dependent on those who don't want to think about their purchase.
Not particularly. I'm racist in person, too. I can sit there hiding, or I can work to proselytize. Most people are racist to some degree - it's amazing how people behave when they are in private, particularly if you start with things that they have already started to observe on their own.
I have to strongly disagree here. The word "racist" implies extremely negative connotations. Racism is an irrational hate.
Racism has nothing to do with preferences, its a natural thing that most people are more comfortable with people that are like them. Not just with race but with wealth, culture, language (someone who speaks UK English is more comfortable conversing with someone else who speaks the queens English). This however does not imply that they irrationally hate things that are foreign. Someone who prefers to stay in England and surrounds themselves with English culture is not inherently racist. Sure, the racists like to hide behind these people, but that isn't their fault and I give them the benefit of the doubt.
Now I am not a racist person, however I still love a good racist or sexist joke. Humour is one of the few avenues we can use to explore these concepts and in so doing, reduce their impact on us. However that does not mean I'll walk up to randoms and start spouting off racist or sexist jokes. Its just common sense to gauge your audience before hand, not just because some might be offended... but even worse, some will take the joke seriously.
For those of us who want intellectual honesty and race realism, the internet has been a godsend.
This is woefully inaccurate.
Internet anonymity has been a godsend to closet racism. They'll never be racist in real life because they know they'll get the living shit kicked out of them for it, or at best, end up with no friends what so ever, so they do it behind a keyboard and a pseudonym. That is the kind of coward that internet racists are.
What puzzles me is why they didn't get it from Khalid Masood's phone. Unless he deleted the log, the message he sent is sitting on there.
Allegedly, WhatsApp does not keep local files.
However unless he actually logged out of the app, they would have been able to retrieve it from the server.
...Australia's government shows that they don't really get this whole "technology" thing...
Australia's current government is what happens when you elect a Conservative based on a fear campaign of the other guy. This is the kind of bollocks the US now has to look forward to.
I didn't think you could hire 10,000 new IT workers for minimum wage?
Who said they were IT workers?
What you want are call centre workers, loggers and floggers.
Sure, the call is taken by someone working for slave labour wages in Bumfuck, Alabama but its immediately sent to Mandeep in Mumbai.
However my money is on this not actually happening.
Sounds like typical SJW solutions...poo poo until you ruin someone's life all because you don't like something.
I wish I had mod points, this deserves to be marked down as a troll. Anyone who uses the term "SJW" is completely full of shit and should be treated accordingly.
The GP was half way right. You need to go after the managers and "decision makers" who are responsible, but forget social media. You need to hurt them in the hip pocket. Legal and financial disincentives are what is needed to stymie outsourcing. PR can handle any social discontent, it's when their positions are threatened because its costing more to outsource than to hire local will they change.
the CEOs of the outsourcing firms have been caught a few times complaining about lazy Americans. And frankly he's right. By Indian or Chinese standards our 50-60 hour work weeks make us lazy. The H1-Bs I know regularly put in 80 hour work weeks. They're young and disposable but they don't care because currency exchange means they're earning a fortune working here. Best case they get a greencard and start doing the 50-60 hr work weeks of Americans, worst case they go back home flush with cash.
The moral? You can't compete with India. You can't compete with a country that has a literal cast system and effective slavery for millions of their citizens. End the H1-B program. Start calling your congressman/woman/thing and ask them why they haven't ended the program. There are other programs for rural doctors. The program is for replacing Americans. Call your congressman and ask. Remind them you and your family and your friends won't be voting for them in their primary. Make sure you say primary. They've gerrymandered the districts. After their Primary they'll win. But they're vulnerable in the primary.
Most of this post is completely incorrect. The rest is only partially incorrect.
First things first, the decision to outsource is never about quality or performance, it's always 100% about money.
Secondly, its not the "exchange rate" that makes working overseas attractive, its the disparity of income. The exchange rate just denotes how many rupees you get for dollars, income disparity is what makes you get more money per hour.
Thirdly, 12 hour working days are rare, its mostly 8 hour shifts, especially for western companies that are subject to laws back home even though the labour is outsourced. As another poster explained, the culture of long hours with Asian companies tends to be more about social rules than work. A Japanese employee might be at work for 12 hours, but thats all about appearance, they have to look like a hard worker by arriving before the boss and leaving after the boss. They don't get any extra work done, a lot of the time they are napping or socialising. This is a common theme across Asia.
In my experience, Indians buck the trend of Asian culture. Most Asian (especially the Chinese) don't like it when the Gwailo demonstrates they know more, so the appearance of knowledge is more important than the knowledge itself. The Indians are the opposite. I once had to run training in Singapore, the ethnic Chinese attended, but never participated. They didn't ask questions or interact much, to do so would have lost them face in front of their colleges. The ethnic Indians on the other hand never stopped with questions. At one point I had to ask them to write them down as I didn't have time to answer them all tonight.
The reason so much outsourcing ends up in India is because they are happy to work under western managers.
Of course with all races, you get the full spectrum from idiot to genius, western, Asian or otherwise, however only certain cultures have a compunction against learning or thinking outside the box. With Indians, you get two types of body shops, cheap ones that employ anyone with an IT cert so they get all the ones that paid for their certs and are pretty much useless. The second kind employs the Indians that are moderately competent, these guys actually earned their grades and are good at performing routine tasks but don't expect much in the way of creativity, the downside of this is that you pay more, probably about the same as hiring flunkies in the US. Those Indians that are actually as good as good western IT workers... We'll they're your colleges. Indians who are a good enough can generally get out of India of their own accord. Most end up in the UK or Australia as India is part of the Commonwealth of Nations which makes it easier to get a visa. Really good Indians will have worked all around the world.
No, steam is not a subscription service. You buy each title you want, once, and that's it. If you want the dlc, you pay a separate unlock fee, once, to get it.
This is a monthly payment, and you get access to all the titles and all the dlc for them (however many your hard drive can hold), and you can swap them out and play them as much as you want....until you cancel the subscription; when you lose access to all of them.
It's going to be more like a Pay/Cable TV subscription. With the basic package, you only get access to a limited set of semi-popular games. To get access to the full catalogue, you need to pay for the gold package. Want DLC, you can pay a nominal sum for a DLC package per game.
BBC is very left wing. YOU think they are good, because they slant things the way you like.
No, the BBC is objectively rated as centre right. The problem you have is that you have gone so far to the extreme right, you dont even know what the left is.
In 1951, Winston Churchill won the election as a conservative, however by modern standards he's left of Obama (who isn't left at all).
Now the BBC is a more reliable source of information for several reasons.
1. The BBC checks their facts.
2. When the BBC publishes incorrect facts they issue a correction.
3. The BBC does not rely on cliche's or appeals to fear/emotion.
Now the reason you believe the BBC is biased is because you're not familiar with what real news looks like. Real news is written in a way to present facts, Fox, Breitbart, Daily Mail, et al. are written in a way to present opinions. As you've probably lived all your life hiding and fighting facts that you don't believe in, any source that presents information, especially information in a dispassionate manner would seem very biased to you. This does not make the source biased, rather it makes you an extremist.
Also, when was the last time Fox News issued a correction, they broadcast several "mistakes" per day but never seem to issue a correction.
Does Google really think that Salon, Infowars and Breitbart readers are getting to those sites via Google? I'm sure some do, but I'll bet most go right to their site of choice.
In our world of ideological teamism - the players have picked their sides and I'm willing to bet that Google had very little to do with their choice.
Those who dont want their views challenged will be going to sites like Breitbart direct as they don't want to risk running into anything that may make them question their preconceptions.
However that is a very small number of people. The masses tend to use search engines and social media.
If anyone can successfully and accurately fight fake news, it is someone like Google. Fake news is best defined as non-fact based articles pretending to be news. Google with their experience in search and data management would be able to build a comparison engine that could compare the content of the article to known facts. Look at the content, not just the source, sure we know that what comes out of Fox News is almost entirely bollocks, so you would weight that news source as being less reliable, but they will still have their broken clock moments.
Looking at the content will also make the more legitimate news sources rely less on cheap cliches and appeals to fear/emotion.
It's ironic that the Guardian is pointing the finger at someone else as unreliable or fake news.
Only if you live in a black-and-white world where everything is absolutely wrong all the time or absolutely right all the time. Back in the real world, certain news media outlets, which not perfect are a lot more reliable than certain other news media outlets.
To equate them all is as wrong as the news stories you are decrying.
This.
There are levels of trust. Whilst I find the Guardian as guilty as the Daily Mail in exagerating and outright fabricating the facts there are two important distinctions,
1. The Daily Mail is far worse at it. This does not excuse the Guardian, but it means I'll trust the DM far less.
2. The Guardian is far more eloquently written. This means that there is a minimum intelligence level required tor read it. Intelligent people are less likely to fall for propaganda and dont like to feel like their back is being urinated on.
So in a straight up fight between the Guardian and the Daily Mail, I'll trust the Guardian to be more accurate until corroborating information is available. This isn't to say that I trust the Guardian, as I said, they often exaggerate, but not to the point of repeatedly printing well proven lies. This is one of the Guardians bigger failures, however were this were reversed, we'd consider this kind of fabrication to be just another day at the Daily Mail.
Turns out, many people do this, and your colleague doesn't find it helpful at all.
Hey Colleague! I'm not CC'ing the boss to help you out.
This.
Lets face facts... You're doing it because you're an arsehole who thinks that name dropping and going over someone's head will get you anywhere... And the level of smug I generate when it backfires has put me on an EPA watchlist... And it always backfires.
Nope we are beginning to see the effect of Trump's electronics ban on Gulf airlines. They are moving orders away from Boeing to Airbus
As much as Trump deserves a good bashing, what we're seeing started long before him. Boeing only sell two aircraft families at the moment, the medium range 737 NG family and the long range 787. Both of which face fierce competition from the Airbus A320 family as well as the A330 and now the A350. The issues that airlines have had with the B787 have hurt it now the A350 is operations.
Also their withdrawal from the super heavy market has completely given that market to Airbus and their A380. Orders for B747's have practically ceased and Boeing's attempts to compete by doing a life cycle update of the 747 were laughable (same as Airbuses attempts to do the same with the A330 when the 787 came out... just to show I'm not biased).
So Boeing are receiving reduced orders due to competition and the lack of a 747 replacement.
However you're quiet right that Airbus is going to see increased options due to the Trumps attacks on the Gulf airlines, but that will take time to materialise.
You didn't provide any data.
You provided a video from EverythingApplePro which doesn't sound biased at all.
Please post their testing methodology so it can be repeated, otherwise all you've given us is fake news.
"Revenue was not a top priority"
Well there's your problem.
Half way there, there's an old saying I heard from a successful boss of mine years ago.
"Revenue is vanity, profit is sanity".
You don't need to just make money, anyone can get money through the door. You need to make more money than you're spending.