Biologists have been able to synthesize organic molecules for quite a while now. The current techniques start with a small number of animal cells, but there's no reason that cultured meat can't be created entirely from simple inorganic molecules sometime in the next few decades.
Nope, not just you. I assumed it's because the JavaScript is now coming from a domain that I haven't whitelisted, but I haven't cared enough to figure out for sure.
He's a guy from Massachusetts that wears a boot on his head and advocates for a pony-based economy. He got on the primary ballot in New Hampshire. His campaign slogan was something like "All politicians are vermin, so the president should be Vermin Supreme."
You're right, of course; but you're missing the point, to wit: There are NEVER hand-wringing Articles ANYWHERE about how THOSE Companies "Are fading into irrelevance, suffering declining sales, not innovating, just ripping others off, etc."
NEVER. Why is that?
Because it happened a long time ago for Dell and HP (and Slashdot has certainly had plenty of articles blasting Fiorina's destruction of HP), and Asus and Acer have never been relevant enough to have any articles saying how they're fading into irrelevance.
What are you expecting? Monthly articles on Slashdot titled "Irrelevant companies are still irrelevant"?
...Really avoiding big new product releases. And just giving boring incremental updates.
And yet, when Dell, HP, Lenovo, Asus, Acer, et al. do that for decades on end, nobody cries that they have "Lost Their Mojo".
Dell lost whatever "cool factor" they had probably about 10 years ago. HP, probably even earlier than that, though maybe not as much in the server market (I wasn't involved in that market back then). Lenovo certainly hasn't been selling computers "for decades". I don't recall Asus or Acer ever having any "mojo" at all.
There's nothing 'puritanical' about that idea, either. People wither away when they don't have a purpose in life... Work is good for people whether they themselves believe it or not
.
That's exactly the Puritanical idea being derided: that work should be a person's purpose in life.
In order for millions of people to eat, you need people making food.
All of the food consumed in the US (and most other industrialized countries) is produced by far less than 10% of the population.
In order for millions of people to wear clothing, you need people making clothes. In order for millions of people to have a roof over their heads, somebody has to build it.
So pay people to do those things. If someone is getting $10,000 as a Basic Income from the government, I bet you'll still be able to get them to work in manufacturing and construction if you pay them an additional $20,000.
The supporters of it in that already socialized Scandinavian country realized that you would have to stop all other assistance programs for it to be effective.
Well, yeah, simplifying the welfare system is one of the major points to a UBI. It reduces overhead and ends up saving money without reducing the amount of assistance that people receive.
Another point that was brought up is that in such a situation since everyone gets some basic income that the minimum wage should also be eliminated as the amount that was begin proposed was enough to subsist on.
I think you'll find a lot of people will agree to this. It might even lead to higher total income for people that have what are currently minimum-wage jobs. If the UBI is close to equal to a full-time job that pays minimum wage, and you reduce everyone's salary/wages by that amount (making the start of the UBI program income-neutral for everyone), then you'd have jobs that are currently minimum wage paying $0/hour. Very few people will take a job flipping burgers for no pay, so those employers will have to pay something.
It seems pretty reasonable to me. The first Playstation sold over 100 million units in approximately 6 years (up until the Playstation 2 was released; after this point, I'm assuming that Playstation sales were negligible). The Playstation 2 sold over 150 million units in about the same amount of time. Even if the Playstation 4 sells as well in the next three years as it did in the first three years (which I doubt), it would still be at less than half the number of units sold as the Playstation 2.
The reason is that if they are not regulated and monitored (what you call handcuffing) they will exceed the scope of their mandate. They will spy for political, personal, and criminal reasons. They will do things with their powers other than rooting out terrorists and keeping people safe.
But they told us that they wouldn't do that stuff. There's even a part of the federal court overseeing them to make sure they don't do thing they aren't supposed to do. Surely if the NSA did something they aren't supposed to do, this court would remind them of the scope of their operations and tell them not to go outside that scope again.
But Feinstein is different. She is just as much of an asshat as Burr on social authoritarianism, but also has all the economic authoritarianism of the Democratic Party. If you took the absolute worst of American Politics, and blended them into a Frankenstein chimera, you would get Dianne Feinstein. She has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
Is ideological consistency a redeeming quality? She isn't an authoritarian only when it's convenient or when it matches her religious dogma. She's a True Authoritarian.
She's not a traitor....she is just an incredibly Low IQ person that has some serious sociopath tendencies.
Why the hell Californians keep electing her I'll never understand.
There's this notion that members of Congress, despite passing legislation for the federal government, are supposed to do what's best for their own state instead of what's best for the country as a whole. There's also the issue that influence in Congress, particularly via committee membership and leadership, is based entirely on seniority. Combine these two and you have the problem that replacing Feinstein would lower California's importance in Congress, even if her replacement is clearly better.
Or, perhaps they are charging you more to view the content they do not own because they actually have to pay for it... because, you know, they don't own it in the first place... where if they own it already, then it is theirs to do with as they see fit and charge for it... or not.
Sounds like a good reason that single companies that control both the content and the access should be smacked around with the antitrust hammer.
Anti-Net-Neutrality practices identify the content going through the data stream and treat some packets differently than others based on that content. Net-neutrality is about treating all packets equally, not just in terms of speed, but in terms of cost, or any other factor.
At the risk of invoking the No True Scotsman, that isn't exactly what Net Neutrality was supposed to be about. Normal QoS is acceptable; Net Neutrality is supposed to be solely with regards to source and destination. Time-sensitive data, such as VoIP, can still be prioritized over time-insensitive data, such as BitTorrent; throttling Vonage's VoIP service while prioritizing Verizon's VoIP service would be a violation of Net Neutrality.
The pronouncement is the latest among sweeping changes attempted at a time of crisis by the conglomerate and carries echoes of a 1993 exhortation by Samsung Group patriarch Lee Kun-hee to executives to 'change everything but your wife and children.
As if no executives are ever married to any men whatsoever?
Slashdot Mirror
Biologists have been able to synthesize organic molecules for quite a while now. The current techniques start with a small number of animal cells, but there's no reason that cultured meat can't be created entirely from simple inorganic molecules sometime in the next few decades.
After that, what have they got? Apple Phone? They're not a phone company; how the heck is this going to work?
Apple never really made telephones; they waited until telephones had become small computers.
After that, what have they got? Apple Tunes? They're not a music label; how the heck is this going to work?
Has Apple produced any music? The vast majority, if not all, of what they've done is sell downloadable computer files.
After that, what have they got? Apple Walkman? They're not a portable music player company; how the heck is this going to work?
Apple never made portable cassette or CD players; they waited until portable music players had become small computers.
After that, what have they got? Apple Stores? They're not a bricks-and-mortar retailer; how the heck is this going to work?
How are the Apple Stores generating revenue other than with sales of their computers?
Nope, not just you. I assumed it's because the JavaScript is now coming from a domain that I haven't whitelisted, but I haven't cared enough to figure out for sure.
I'm sure there have been plenty, but the first one that I thought of is the B5 episode The Long Dark.
He's a guy from Massachusetts that wears a boot on his head and advocates for a pony-based economy. He got on the primary ballot in New Hampshire. His campaign slogan was something like "All politicians are vermin, so the president should be Vermin Supreme."
You're right, of course; but you're missing the point, to wit: There are NEVER hand-wringing Articles ANYWHERE about how THOSE Companies "Are fading into irrelevance, suffering declining sales, not innovating, just ripping others off, etc." NEVER. Why is that?
Because it happened a long time ago for Dell and HP (and Slashdot has certainly had plenty of articles blasting Fiorina's destruction of HP), and Asus and Acer have never been relevant enough to have any articles saying how they're fading into irrelevance.
What are you expecting? Monthly articles on Slashdot titled "Irrelevant companies are still irrelevant"?
...Really avoiding big new product releases. And just giving boring incremental updates.
And yet, when Dell, HP, Lenovo, Asus, Acer, et al. do that for decades on end, nobody cries that they have "Lost Their Mojo".
Dell lost whatever "cool factor" they had probably about 10 years ago. HP, probably even earlier than that, though maybe not as much in the server market (I wasn't involved in that market back then). Lenovo certainly hasn't been selling computers "for decades". I don't recall Asus or Acer ever having any "mojo" at all.
There's nothing 'puritanical' about that idea, either. People wither away when they don't have a purpose in life... Work is good for people whether they themselves believe it or not
. That's exactly the Puritanical idea being derided: that work should be a person's purpose in life.
In order for millions of people to eat, you need people making food.
All of the food consumed in the US (and most other industrialized countries) is produced by far less than 10% of the population.
In order for millions of people to wear clothing, you need people making clothes. In order for millions of people to have a roof over their heads, somebody has to build it.
So pay people to do those things. If someone is getting $10,000 as a Basic Income from the government, I bet you'll still be able to get them to work in manufacturing and construction if you pay them an additional $20,000.
Where is this money coming from?
It comes from the several independent, disconnected, high-overhead welfare programs that already exist.
The supporters of it in that already socialized Scandinavian country realized that you would have to stop all other assistance programs for it to be effective.
Well, yeah, simplifying the welfare system is one of the major points to a UBI. It reduces overhead and ends up saving money without reducing the amount of assistance that people receive.
Another point that was brought up is that in such a situation since everyone gets some basic income that the minimum wage should also be eliminated as the amount that was begin proposed was enough to subsist on.
I think you'll find a lot of people will agree to this. It might even lead to higher total income for people that have what are currently minimum-wage jobs. If the UBI is close to equal to a full-time job that pays minimum wage, and you reduce everyone's salary/wages by that amount (making the start of the UBI program income-neutral for everyone), then you'd have jobs that are currently minimum wage paying $0/hour. Very few people will take a job flipping burgers for no pay, so those employers will have to pay something.
It seems pretty reasonable to me. The first Playstation sold over 100 million units in approximately 6 years (up until the Playstation 2 was released; after this point, I'm assuming that Playstation sales were negligible). The Playstation 2 sold over 150 million units in about the same amount of time. Even if the Playstation 4 sells as well in the next three years as it did in the first three years (which I doubt), it would still be at less than half the number of units sold as the Playstation 2.
less likely than being struck by lighting, twice, on the same day.
Have you ever had a lamp fall over and hit you in the head? It hurts like hell.
The reason is that if they are not regulated and monitored (what you call handcuffing) they will exceed the scope of their mandate. They will spy for political, personal, and criminal reasons. They will do things with their powers other than rooting out terrorists and keeping people safe.
But they told us that they wouldn't do that stuff. There's even a part of the federal court overseeing them to make sure they don't do thing they aren't supposed to do. Surely if the NSA did something they aren't supposed to do, this court would remind them of the scope of their operations and tell them not to go outside that scope again.
And sharks.
But Feinstein is different. She is just as much of an asshat as Burr on social authoritarianism, but also has all the economic authoritarianism of the Democratic Party. If you took the absolute worst of American Politics, and blended them into a Frankenstein chimera, you would get Dianne Feinstein. She has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
Is ideological consistency a redeeming quality? She isn't an authoritarian only when it's convenient or when it matches her religious dogma. She's a True Authoritarian.
She's not a traitor... .she is just an incredibly Low IQ person that has some serious sociopath tendencies.
Why the hell Californians keep electing her I'll never understand.
There's this notion that members of Congress, despite passing legislation for the federal government, are supposed to do what's best for their own state instead of what's best for the country as a whole. There's also the issue that influence in Congress, particularly via committee membership and leadership, is based entirely on seniority. Combine these two and you have the problem that replacing Feinstein would lower California's importance in Congress, even if her replacement is clearly better.
I really don't think Trump will be as bad as people seem to think.
That's only because he'll turn in to a politician and abandon all of his campaign promises.
micromanagement
You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Or, perhaps they are charging you more to view the content they do not own because they actually have to pay for it... because, you know, they don't own it in the first place... where if they own it already, then it is theirs to do with as they see fit and charge for it... or not.
Sounds like a good reason that single companies that control both the content and the access should be smacked around with the antitrust hammer.
Anti-Net-Neutrality practices identify the content going through the data stream and treat some packets differently than others based on that content. Net-neutrality is about treating all packets equally, not just in terms of speed, but in terms of cost, or any other factor.
At the risk of invoking the No True Scotsman, that isn't exactly what Net Neutrality was supposed to be about. Normal QoS is acceptable; Net Neutrality is supposed to be solely with regards to source and destination. Time-sensitive data, such as VoIP, can still be prioritized over time-insensitive data, such as BitTorrent; throttling Vonage's VoIP service while prioritizing Verizon's VoIP service would be a violation of Net Neutrality.
It's GUI-based instead of ncurses-based
Moderate advantage to Chrome on that one, I think.
and is scripted with Javascript instead of Lisp.
Err, we'll call that one a draw.
Chrome is not an application. It is an entire operating system, that just happens to include a browser.
How does it compare to emacs?
The pronouncement is the latest among sweeping changes attempted at a time of crisis by the conglomerate and carries echoes of a 1993 exhortation by Samsung Group patriarch Lee Kun-hee to executives to 'change everything but your wife and children.
As if no executives are ever married to any men whatsoever?
~25 years ago? Probably not.
Yup, I saw other people mention that farther down the page. Silly me, thinking that the summary might be accurate for a change.