Every millionaire I've met would rather spend a thousand dollars on a lawyer than pay a fifty cent tax, so yes; if you can somehow swindle them into talking about it as a tax instead of a fine, then they'll stop feeling like they got away with something and feel like they need to avoid it next time! As long as it is a fine, they just feel good about paying it, it means they were trying hard!
If they use the money to fund additional enforcement efforts then it could be more powerful, but I don't know anything about if that happens in Australia or not.
Unfortunately, this amount of money is likely too small to even get Apple execs to ask where it goes, or care. But it doesn't have to hurt to lose the money for losing it to modify behavior; though is certainly helps.
But that's the thing about an open language like English; it changes whenever people want, even though the People are mostly a bunch of idiots. They're not wrong though, the language really does include whatever stupid shit they're saying these days.
So you can never just know that you're using the term correctly, and other people are incorrect; all you can really know is the way you used to use the term, and that if you keep using it in the same way then for you it can mean the same thing. But when you hear other people using a term, and it sounds wrong, the obvious implication is that the language shifted, not that more people are just wrong now.
If you need to add a qualifier to a binary classifier, you're just creating a useless term.
Outside of programming languages and math formulas, creating a useless term is not a mistake, problem, error, or in any way incorrect. Useless terms are perfectly cromulent, and it is up to the reader to find value or not.
So anything that's temporarily not operational is now "soft-bricked"?
Bob Dylan said that slang changes so fast, people in the future won't even be able to understand it! Although I do understand over 90% of Subterranean Homesick Blues. But kids who grew up on the other side of the tracks already might not.
Don't worry, there is no requirement or expectation that you keep up with modern language. Let the whippersnappers make their noise, even if it sounds like they're worshiping the devil and getting married to a holiday resort; don't worry Gramps, it's just the new words, that isn't at all what it means. No Gramps, they do still listen to the Beatles. No, the Beatles are still not devil music.
The term "4th world" hasn't even caught on yet now, and you seem to be bundling it into your understanding of the past. I guess hindsight isn't always as straightforwards as people think.
It is easy to understand why some Americans always were using the terms correctly, and others were using an alternate system of adhoc understanding; we don't have the sort of government propaganda that would ensure that the Cold War terminology was dominant. So people who were less tuned-in to world events had an alternate understanding that was usually consistent; First world countries are of course richer than the rest, and Third World, having no sponsor, were at economic disadvantages and so remained poor with economies based on agriculture or resource extraction.
And of course people in countries that were less involved in the Cold War, or who tried to insulate their population from it, would naturally be using any sort of Cold War terminology in a sloppy or alternate way. It is more natural for people to judge other societies on economic and cultural values rather than political alliances; keeping people focused on alliances requires constant and pervasive propaganda over a long period of time, something only the 2nd World ever even tried.
Just because something is published on wikipedia doesn't make it authoritative. The part you're pointing to only consists of uncited summary, and an original map.
It is a complete absurdity to say that NATO members are "Second World." That's just completely absurd! Former Soviet-bloc countries that are still aligned with Russia, it would be perfectly reasonable even without inferences about modern Russia, but including Bulgaria is just daft and prevents it from even being considered as a serious claim.
Sure, but the low-level waste isn't where the biggest dangers are.
Also the French have a substantial reprocessing industry even without many reactors in the world designed to use reprocessed fuel. If you look into it, most of the waste that is left over from fuel can be reprocessed and used again.
Plus the low-level waste can be reduced substantially if needed.
Did you know that nuclear bombs are not the only type of explosion?
It is funny how arrogant you are about your supposed knowledge, when you don't seem to even understand the words.
If you understood the context of nuclear disasters, you'd already know that are a bunch of different types of explosive risks you have to manage at different parts of the process.
What turns you from a person with a little bit of knowledge into a drooling idiot is your arrogance combined with sloppy parsing of what is actually said, and a lack of domain-specific knowledge about not only nuclear disasters, but general science; chemistry and physics allows you to predict specific known things, it does not support any sort of "thuts unpossabul" type of arguments. Ever. Science makes positive claims, not negative claims. When you find yourself about to say something totally fucking moronic like, "all the chemistry and physics... [absolute claim]" just stop and ask yourself, do I really understand "all the chemistry and physics and engineering?" You could easily save yourself looking so stupid.
Sorry to reply twice, but I thought I'd expand it to point out that switching "explosion" to "nuclear explosion" is such a pathetic bait-and-switch that nothing else you said is worth evaluating.
To you, Fukushima isn't a nuclear disaster at all, I guess it is just a hydrogen hazard? I guess there was no risks of explosions involved? And surely my local nuclear waste dump doesn't have fires and explosions on a regular basis, right? Oh, wait...
And just for sortof a "Cliff Notes" on "explosions," since you're aliterate and can't check the dictionary as I advised: Any fire risk in an enclosed space is likely risks causing various explosions. You don't actually need to go all "I think I remember high school physics" on me. LOL
You can't know what the demand actually is, because all the cell phones come with convenient bundled apps. The people who go out of their way to use a map that is only a map might be the only ones even exercising a decision! Everybody else might just be using what they were provided, and so we'd know nothing about how happy they would be if provided something else.
This doesn't occur to you, but "feature phones" already had voice-activated contact search that ran entirely on the phone. Also, offline map routing applications work quite well. There is nothing special some particular Brandybrand(TM) is doing that makes you able to say "take me to [insert contact name]," that capability is the same as saying "call [insert contact name]" which already worked well 15 years ago.
The reason that google can warn you about a closed road is that your state Department of Transportation bundles that into a traffic alert system that google consumes.
None of what you value from your Brandybrand(TM) Appyapps(R) actually even come from Brandybrand! It is all either provided to them by the Gubermint, or else is old-hat stuff that is available from numerous sources. Routing for different times of day is really easy when you're consuming realtime traffic alerts from the government.
As above, in many cases it isn't even google doing it; they're just integrating the government data stream into their platform. Places with high quality traffic data already release it; here in Oregon we have it, and we're not a rich state, nor do we have the traffic density to lower the cost per person. They also provide it on a map, but since they don't advertise on it, they also don't pay the phone companies to preinstall it on phones.
People also ignorantly credit google with the transit data, but it is my local government transit organization that installed the GPS systems and did the networking to make that realtime data available. Users tend to consume it via the google maps app, but the same data is on the transit website. Is it convenient to bundle all these things in one place? Sure! Of course it is. But it doesn't imply that the company doing the bundling has some sort of special datacenter capability needed. To run their own service at the scale of their service, sure, but if people were consuming the data directly from the different government agencies that collect it, those agencies actually would be able to serve up the data just fine. If you consider the amount of data the government stores compared to what google stores, then it becomes pretty obvious that datacenter capability is not a bottleneck for the US government; or even for most local governments!
Most of that is in fact cheap if you have a lot of users.
You make it sound as if you think there is a room full of humans doing it. For parts there is, like knowing where all the lanes are, but they work for the government and map the roads and release detailed GIS data in the public domain.
Here in the Pacific Northwest the government is doing a horrible job of handling the waste, so I don't think it is a good idea to ask the government to run it unless you're going to mandate that they use specific technologies; preferably with an emphasis on reusing existing waste as fuel!
Well, you managed to assplode and spew shillmeat all over the room, so who knows.
You also probably need to look up the word "explode" in the dictionary if you think that something being nuclear waste somehow precludes it from exploding; you will find nothing that suggests any such natural law.
And by the way: the containers they use now, to store the waste; already leak. Fuck-an-A, how many times did your head assplode when you wrote that shit, anyway?! You came up with a hypothetical about what if they started leaking in a thousand years, shit already leaks now. That's pure horseshit, not any sort of hypothetical. Yeah, if safe storage was a thing, then you could calculate what would happen in 1000 years of safe storage. When actual storage sites have leaks regularly, that's just wanking.
And for the record, I could explode a dumbass with just a voltage potential and a couple pieces of wire.
That was always true in many places; development teams include at least one *nix gnome to plan the app infrastructure, and the ops teams have development duties to build out the internal tools.
The utility of devops was for when you have a BOFH, instead of a regular IT team. That can happen for good and bad reasons, usually bad, but sometimes there has to be a BOFH because PCI-DSS, or some other unavoidable reason. And then most of the developers act like spoiled children; they argue philosophy without comprehending that nobody at the bank cares, and you really do have to survive the audit. So the role of dev-ops was created, so that there is a person in the middle who can figure out what the developers really want, and what technologies that are allowed can get them something close enough, and then figure out what exactly has to be communicated to ops so that it is provisioned in the intended way. Or if it is just a petty BOFH, then they're a diplomat who translates the requests into Klingon, or whatever is needed to appease the clown.
Some people blather about continuous integration, but that was already a thing long before devops was a word, so it can't be that.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they take the parents away. And the kids go to a different agency.
Every millionaire I've met would rather spend a thousand dollars on a lawyer than pay a fifty cent tax, so yes; if you can somehow swindle them into talking about it as a tax instead of a fine, then they'll stop feeling like they got away with something and feel like they need to avoid it next time! As long as it is a fine, they just feel good about paying it, it means they were trying hard!
Wait, are you saying he didn't advocate that Apple stop answering low-value repair calls for consumers without professional qualifications?!
Golly! With a comment so stupid, how can we really be sure he didn't mean what he said??!
That's not a practicable option. The closest you could get would be simply banning operations in your country.
If it was a thing, every country would do it, and every company would have negative infinity net value.
If they use the money to fund additional enforcement efforts then it could be more powerful, but I don't know anything about if that happens in Australia or not.
Unfortunately, this amount of money is likely too small to even get Apple execs to ask where it goes, or care. But it doesn't have to hurt to lose the money for losing it to modify behavior; though is certainly helps.
You were right, once upon a time.
But that's the thing about an open language like English; it changes whenever people want, even though the People are mostly a bunch of idiots. They're not wrong though, the language really does include whatever stupid shit they're saying these days.
So you can never just know that you're using the term correctly, and other people are incorrect; all you can really know is the way you used to use the term, and that if you keep using it in the same way then for you it can mean the same thing. But when you hear other people using a term, and it sounds wrong, the obvious implication is that the language shifted, not that more people are just wrong now.
If you need to add a qualifier to a binary classifier, you're just creating a useless term.
Outside of programming languages and math formulas, creating a useless term is not a mistake, problem, error, or in any way incorrect. Useless terms are perfectly cromulent, and it is up to the reader to find value or not.
So anything that's temporarily not operational is now "soft-bricked"?
Bob Dylan said that slang changes so fast, people in the future won't even be able to understand it! Although I do understand over 90% of Subterranean Homesick Blues. But kids who grew up on the other side of the tracks already might not.
Don't worry, there is no requirement or expectation that you keep up with modern language. Let the whippersnappers make their noise, even if it sounds like they're worshiping the devil and getting married to a holiday resort; don't worry Gramps, it's just the new words, that isn't at all what it means. No Gramps, they do still listen to the Beatles. No, the Beatles are still not devil music.
You've got some... No, on your chin.
The term "4th world" hasn't even caught on yet now, and you seem to be bundling it into your understanding of the past. I guess hindsight isn't always as straightforwards as people think.
It is easy to understand why some Americans always were using the terms correctly, and others were using an alternate system of adhoc understanding; we don't have the sort of government propaganda that would ensure that the Cold War terminology was dominant. So people who were less tuned-in to world events had an alternate understanding that was usually consistent; First world countries are of course richer than the rest, and Third World, having no sponsor, were at economic disadvantages and so remained poor with economies based on agriculture or resource extraction.
And of course people in countries that were less involved in the Cold War, or who tried to insulate their population from it, would naturally be using any sort of Cold War terminology in a sloppy or alternate way. It is more natural for people to judge other societies on economic and cultural values rather than political alliances; keeping people focused on alliances requires constant and pervasive propaganda over a long period of time, something only the 2nd World ever even tried.
Just because something is published on wikipedia doesn't make it authoritative. The part you're pointing to only consists of uncited summary, and an original map.
It is a complete absurdity to say that NATO members are "Second World." That's just completely absurd! Former Soviet-bloc countries that are still aligned with Russia, it would be perfectly reasonable even without inferences about modern Russia, but including Bulgaria is just daft and prevents it from even being considered as a serious claim.
Sure, but the low-level waste isn't where the biggest dangers are.
Also the French have a substantial reprocessing industry even without many reactors in the world designed to use reprocessed fuel. If you look into it, most of the waste that is left over from fuel can be reprocessed and used again.
Plus the low-level waste can be reduced substantially if needed.
Did you know that nuclear bombs are not the only type of explosion?
It is funny how arrogant you are about your supposed knowledge, when you don't seem to even understand the words.
If you understood the context of nuclear disasters, you'd already know that are a bunch of different types of explosive risks you have to manage at different parts of the process.
What turns you from a person with a little bit of knowledge into a drooling idiot is your arrogance combined with sloppy parsing of what is actually said, and a lack of domain-specific knowledge about not only nuclear disasters, but general science; chemistry and physics allows you to predict specific known things, it does not support any sort of "thuts unpossabul" type of arguments. Ever. Science makes positive claims, not negative claims. When you find yourself about to say something totally fucking moronic like, "all the chemistry and physics ... [absolute claim]" just stop and ask yourself, do I really understand "all the chemistry and physics and engineering?" You could easily save yourself looking so stupid.
Sorry to reply twice, but I thought I'd expand it to point out that switching "explosion" to "nuclear explosion" is such a pathetic bait-and-switch that nothing else you said is worth evaluating.
To you, Fukushima isn't a nuclear disaster at all, I guess it is just a hydrogen hazard? I guess there was no risks of explosions involved? And surely my local nuclear waste dump doesn't have fires and explosions on a regular basis, right? Oh, wait...
And just for sortof a "Cliff Notes" on "explosions," since you're aliterate and can't check the dictionary as I advised: Any fire risk in an enclosed space is likely risks causing various explosions. You don't actually need to go all "I think I remember high school physics" on me. LOL
I do not think you know what nuclear waste is.
And I don't think you know what English words are, so.
You can't know what the demand actually is, because all the cell phones come with convenient bundled apps. The people who go out of their way to use a map that is only a map might be the only ones even exercising a decision! Everybody else might just be using what they were provided, and so we'd know nothing about how happy they would be if provided something else.
This doesn't occur to you, but "feature phones" already had voice-activated contact search that ran entirely on the phone. Also, offline map routing applications work quite well. There is nothing special some particular Brandybrand(TM) is doing that makes you able to say "take me to [insert contact name]," that capability is the same as saying "call [insert contact name]" which already worked well 15 years ago.
The reason that google can warn you about a closed road is that your state Department of Transportation bundles that into a traffic alert system that google consumes.
None of what you value from your Brandybrand(TM) Appyapps(R) actually even come from Brandybrand! It is all either provided to them by the Gubermint, or else is old-hat stuff that is available from numerous sources. Routing for different times of day is really easy when you're consuming realtime traffic alerts from the government.
As above, in many cases it isn't even google doing it; they're just integrating the government data stream into their platform. Places with high quality traffic data already release it; here in Oregon we have it, and we're not a rich state, nor do we have the traffic density to lower the cost per person. They also provide it on a map, but since they don't advertise on it, they also don't pay the phone companies to preinstall it on phones.
People also ignorantly credit google with the transit data, but it is my local government transit organization that installed the GPS systems and did the networking to make that realtime data available. Users tend to consume it via the google maps app, but the same data is on the transit website. Is it convenient to bundle all these things in one place? Sure! Of course it is. But it doesn't imply that the company doing the bundling has some sort of special datacenter capability needed. To run their own service at the scale of their service, sure, but if people were consuming the data directly from the different government agencies that collect it, those agencies actually would be able to serve up the data just fine. If you consider the amount of data the government stores compared to what google stores, then it becomes pretty obvious that datacenter capability is not a bottleneck for the US government; or even for most local governments!
Most of that is in fact cheap if you have a lot of users.
You make it sound as if you think there is a room full of humans doing it. For parts there is, like knowing where all the lanes are, but they work for the government and map the roads and release detailed GIS data in the public domain.
Here in the Pacific Northwest the government is doing a horrible job of handling the waste, so I don't think it is a good idea to ask the government to run it unless you're going to mandate that they use specific technologies; preferably with an emphasis on reusing existing waste as fuel!
Claiming that the "second world" exists is an explicit claim that the Cold War never ended.
Maybe you're right, but you've got a lot of legwork to do if you want that to be the default position that the world believes in. ;)
Either you believe in Soviet Putinland, or else there is just 1st and 3rd world.
They can't explode dumbass.
Well, you managed to assplode and spew shillmeat all over the room, so who knows.
You also probably need to look up the word "explode" in the dictionary if you think that something being nuclear waste somehow precludes it from exploding; you will find nothing that suggests any such natural law.
And by the way: the containers they use now, to store the waste; already leak. Fuck-an-A, how many times did your head assplode when you wrote that shit, anyway?! You came up with a hypothetical about what if they started leaking in a thousand years, shit already leaks now. That's pure horseshit, not any sort of hypothetical. Yeah, if safe storage was a thing, then you could calculate what would happen in 1000 years of safe storage. When actual storage sites have leaks regularly, that's just wanking.
And for the record, I could explode a dumbass with just a voltage potential and a couple pieces of wire.
Yeah, I'll try to keep that in mind in 10 years when they've been around long enough to be willing to try them.
This story reminds me why I make sure to pay the fee to protect my privacy before complaining about my privacy...
But yeah, it would be nice if privacy was included.
In Soviet Russia, economy gigs you!
That was always true in many places; development teams include at least one *nix gnome to plan the app infrastructure, and the ops teams have development duties to build out the internal tools.
The utility of devops was for when you have a BOFH, instead of a regular IT team. That can happen for good and bad reasons, usually bad, but sometimes there has to be a BOFH because PCI-DSS, or some other unavoidable reason. And then most of the developers act like spoiled children; they argue philosophy without comprehending that nobody at the bank cares, and you really do have to survive the audit. So the role of dev-ops was created, so that there is a person in the middle who can figure out what the developers really want, and what technologies that are allowed can get them something close enough, and then figure out what exactly has to be communicated to ops so that it is provisioned in the intended way. Or if it is just a petty BOFH, then they're a diplomat who translates the requests into Klingon, or whatever is needed to appease the clown.
Some people blather about continuous integration, but that was already a thing long before devops was a word, so it can't be that.