Someone I know told me he had a book on Amazon that way. When I went to look at it I found the most awful prose, and the worst case of comma-itis I've ever seen in my life. No, really, it was, like, a comma, maybe two, every one, maybe two, words, or phrases, you know?
They just like going after the low-hanging fruit so that they claim to be doing their jobs.
Housing and transportation are difficult problems to solve. Maybe they've assigned some experts to work on the difficult problems, who will take a couple years to come up with some potential plans. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if they just decided that the problems were too difficult to solve, so they won't bother trying.
Did you notice that they went with the easiest possible response to the issue of delivery robots? They could have set up testing requirements or additional safety mechanisms so that the robots can't seriously injure pedestrians. Instead, the city just banned the robots and called it a day.
This is definitely huge blunder, but a SNAFU? Because it stands for "Situation Normal - All Fucked Up" and implies something happens all the time, which is not the case here.
Eh, that ship sailed years ago. On the other hand,
It now transpires that the bug fix has a bug of its own.
I completely agree. Doing it would possibly piss off a lot of the pilots, which could have some negative consequences in the future. And definitely don't believe that the airline should be able to just say, "Too bad, you all have to work on Christmas." My only point was that there wouldn't be "major" legal trouble, only whatever remedy is specified in the contract, otherwise liability for compensating the pilots for any money that they lose (e.g. for vacations that they've already booked) plus some amount of punitive damages.
If both sides act like reasonable adults, though, I would hope they could resolve the issue. If the airline says, "Look, we screwed up, but we don't want to ruin our customers' holidays. If any pilots are willing to cancel their time off, we'll pay you extra," I would like to think that the pilots would do what they reasonably can instead of telling the airline to fuck off just because they can.
A contract is a contract, agreement + promise.. You don't get to back out of those, not without a major reputation hit for failing to keep your word and major legal consequences, anyways.
I doubt there would be "major legal consequences." Cancelling a pilot's planned vacation probably isn't going to ruin their life. The airline will have to do something like pay those pilots double their normal pay and reimburse them if they have to cancel hotel bookings, but those costs would be relatively small.
Trust me, you NEVER want airplanes to fly themselves. Airplanes have no fail-safe mode. Software can ALWAYS fail even in the most advanced HAL9000. Worst case, if sensors that feed the computer fail, or if power fails, you're shit out of luck and everyone dies.
Because mechanical parts can never fail, so electronics are automatically less safe? And I'm not an aeronautics expert, but I seem to recall that if a plane loses power, you're pretty screwed anyway.
To counter this, I can buy a dumb phone that stays on for one month without any charging, or with continuous phone calls and texting it will last 7 days. 5 days if I'm using it's crappy web browser and low-res screen. If cell phone makers instead of giving me a pointlessly thinner phone, just gave me a larger battery I could use it for a whole day without needing a charge.
I picked up a pair of 10k mAh battery packs for $30. Each one of those is enough to charge my phone 3 times, which would be enough to last over a week. It looks like you can get 20k mAh battery packs now, so just buy one of those, tape it to your phone, and it will last twice as long as your continuous-use dumb phone.
Well it shouldn't be accepted as fact. Ideally the courts would instruct the jury to treat the software's output as similar to a human being saying, "This is my expert opinion." You can submit your own software's "opinion" as evidence as much as you can get your own expert human to testify on your behalf.
One of the requirements for presenting expert testimony is that you have to provide all of the materials that the expert used in forming their opinion. If the results of some software were treated as an expert opinion, the "materials relied upon" would almost certainly include the source code. It may even make the programmers, as the source of those materials, subject to being deposed about how they developed the software.
A truly competitive market will fix itself, but they need competition
I completely agree. Unfortunately, ISPs are pretty close to a natural monopoly and have very high costs to enter the market. No amount of deregulation (short of near-complete anarchy, maybe) is going to lead to any significant competition, and with that little regulation, all the ISPs will end up merging into a monopoly anyway.
So looks like there is another non-renewable energy source ready and available!
We can load heavy boulders on the truck from mountain tops, drive it down hill and charge the grid!
That's basically what a hydroelectric dam is, just with water instead of boulders.
This can be even converted to a sort of mechanical battery to store excess electricity made by solar plants.
Are there already places doing that with water? I know I've seen the idea discussed on Slashdot, but I don't remember offhand if any place has implemented it yet.
Just stop it. Just fucking stop it. I don't give a fuck about Bitcoin.
Apparently you give a small fuck, because you took the time to go to the article page and post a comment. Someone who doesn't give a fuck would have stopped reading after the headline and moved on to the next story.
That would require massive collusion amongst every publisher. If you could demonstrate that actually happening, the FTC would probably love to hear about it.
Most schools spend on sports the money that was income from sports. Eliminating sports at universities isn't going to suddenly give them an extra $50 million to spend elsewhere.
It's taking short-term gain in exchange for potentially greater long-term gain. In many fields, having a Ph.D. gets you access to higher positions (and thus higher pay) than only having a Master's degree. Leaving a Ph.D. program early to take an industry job isn't necessarily a bad decision, but I hope that any students doing it have thought carefully about the advantages and disadvantages so that they're making an informed decision.
Perhaps when they stop paying football and basketball coaches obscene salaries and pay professors and grads what they are actually worth the quality at universities will improve.
Fixed it for you.
You're making the assumption that hiring a different football coach and paying them $1-2 million less will not have any effect on the revenue generated by the football team. I'd be interested in seeing your reasoning or evidence for making that assumption.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean Internet 3.0. Internet 2 was By the Universities, For the Universities.
Yes, it did, approximately 50 years ago. The federal government is the reason that AT&T had to allow non-AT&T telephones.
Someone I know told me he had a book on Amazon that way. When I went to look at it I found the most awful prose, and the worst case of comma-itis I've ever seen in my life. No, really, it was, like, a comma, maybe two, every one, maybe two, words, or phrases, you know?
Wow, you know Captain Carrot?
If San Francisco really cared about public safety, they would ban illegal aliens
[citation needed]
They just like going after the low-hanging fruit so that they claim to be doing their jobs.
Housing and transportation are difficult problems to solve. Maybe they've assigned some experts to work on the difficult problems, who will take a couple years to come up with some potential plans. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if they just decided that the problems were too difficult to solve, so they won't bother trying.
Did you notice that they went with the easiest possible response to the issue of delivery robots? They could have set up testing requirements or additional safety mechanisms so that the robots can't seriously injure pedestrians. Instead, the city just banned the robots and called it a day.
This is definitely huge blunder, but a SNAFU? Because it stands for "Situation Normal - All Fucked Up" and implies something happens all the time, which is not the case here.
Eh, that ship sailed years ago. On the other hand,
It now transpires that the bug fix has a bug of its own.
WTF?
I completely agree. Doing it would possibly piss off a lot of the pilots, which could have some negative consequences in the future. And definitely don't believe that the airline should be able to just say, "Too bad, you all have to work on Christmas." My only point was that there wouldn't be "major" legal trouble, only whatever remedy is specified in the contract, otherwise liability for compensating the pilots for any money that they lose (e.g. for vacations that they've already booked) plus some amount of punitive damages.
If both sides act like reasonable adults, though, I would hope they could resolve the issue. If the airline says, "Look, we screwed up, but we don't want to ruin our customers' holidays. If any pilots are willing to cancel their time off, we'll pay you extra," I would like to think that the pilots would do what they reasonably can instead of telling the airline to fuck off just because they can.
wouldn't predicting the future odds of the Jets winning the Superbowl be equally relevant to society? Maybe even moreso?
I don't see how just sitting there and saying "zero" is relevant to society.
A contract is a contract, agreement + promise.. You don't get to back out of those, not without a major reputation hit for failing to keep your word and major legal consequences, anyways.
I doubt there would be "major legal consequences." Cancelling a pilot's planned vacation probably isn't going to ruin their life. The airline will have to do something like pay those pilots double their normal pay and reimburse them if they have to cancel hotel bookings, but those costs would be relatively small.
Trust me, you NEVER want airplanes to fly themselves. Airplanes have no fail-safe mode. Software can ALWAYS fail even in the most advanced HAL9000. Worst case, if sensors that feed the computer fail, or if power fails, you're shit out of luck and everyone dies.
Because mechanical parts can never fail, so electronics are automatically less safe? And I'm not an aeronautics expert, but I seem to recall that if a plane loses power, you're pretty screwed anyway.
To counter this, I can buy a dumb phone that stays on for one month without any charging, or with continuous phone calls and texting it will last 7 days. 5 days if I'm using it's crappy web browser and low-res screen. If cell phone makers instead of giving me a pointlessly thinner phone, just gave me a larger battery I could use it for a whole day without needing a charge.
I picked up a pair of 10k mAh battery packs for $30. Each one of those is enough to charge my phone 3 times, which would be enough to last over a week. It looks like you can get 20k mAh battery packs now, so just buy one of those, tape it to your phone, and it will last twice as long as your continuous-use dumb phone.
I'm anti forcing private companies to disclose their source code.
They don't have to disclose their source code. They can choose instead to have it not be usable in court.
Freedom of choice does not mean freedom from consequences.
Well it shouldn't be accepted as fact. Ideally the courts would instruct the jury to treat the software's output as similar to a human being saying, "This is my expert opinion." You can submit your own software's "opinion" as evidence as much as you can get your own expert human to testify on your behalf.
One of the requirements for presenting expert testimony is that you have to provide all of the materials that the expert used in forming their opinion. If the results of some software were treated as an expert opinion, the "materials relied upon" would almost certainly include the source code. It may even make the programmers, as the source of those materials, subject to being deposed about how they developed the software.
So who do you want controlling your access to the free market? Verizon, Comcast or AT&T?
Wait, I get a choice?
Store located on Elm Street claims making Elm Street less accessible will be a nightmare.
FTFY
And if it happened, would Black Friday have to be moved to the 13th?
A truly competitive market will fix itself, but they need competition
I completely agree. Unfortunately, ISPs are pretty close to a natural monopoly and have very high costs to enter the market. No amount of deregulation (short of near-complete anarchy, maybe) is going to lead to any significant competition, and with that little regulation, all the ISPs will end up merging into a monopoly anyway.
So looks like there is another non-renewable energy source ready and available!
We can load heavy boulders on the truck from mountain tops, drive it down hill and charge the grid!
That's basically what a hydroelectric dam is, just with water instead of boulders.
This can be even converted to a sort of mechanical battery to store excess electricity made by solar plants.
Are there already places doing that with water? I know I've seen the idea discussed on Slashdot, but I don't remember offhand if any place has implemented it yet.
Metric tonne or Imperial tonne?
I prefer the fucktonne myself.
Imperial fuckton or metric fuckton?
Just stop it. Just fucking stop it. I don't give a fuck about Bitcoin.
Apparently you give a small fuck, because you took the time to go to the article page and post a comment. Someone who doesn't give a fuck would have stopped reading after the headline and moved on to the next story.
Millenials are, upon the whole, the worst fucking generation ever birthed by mankind.
What does that say about the generation that raised them?
They probably could be, but since they're already government-sanctioned monopolies, clearly the rules don't apply to them anyway.
That would require massive collusion amongst every publisher. If you could demonstrate that actually happening, the FTC would probably love to hear about it.
Most schools spend on sports the money that was income from sports. Eliminating sports at universities isn't going to suddenly give them an extra $50 million to spend elsewhere.
It's taking short-term gain in exchange for potentially greater long-term gain. In many fields, having a Ph.D. gets you access to higher positions (and thus higher pay) than only having a Master's degree. Leaving a Ph.D. program early to take an industry job isn't necessarily a bad decision, but I hope that any students doing it have thought carefully about the advantages and disadvantages so that they're making an informed decision.
Perhaps when they stop paying football and basketball coaches obscene salaries and pay professors and grads what they are actually worth the quality at universities will improve.
Fixed it for you.
You're making the assumption that hiring a different football coach and paying them $1-2 million less will not have any effect on the revenue generated by the football team. I'd be interested in seeing your reasoning or evidence for making that assumption.