mortdeus

For us just to sit back while you guys prostitute us for all our worth so you can pay for your 3rd wife's divorcing you?

I think when comparing this to the sun there are lots of things worth considering from many different angles.

1. To say this threat is nothing compared to the risks we face from the sun, completely ignores the fact that we have millions of years of evolutionary exposure to sunlight and because of that fact the immune system has become way more acclimated to dealing with it's carcinogenic properties. Of course, our immune systems aren't perfect but considering how much more exposure we all are to sunlight than any other carcinogen, if we didn't have a strong evolutionary tolerance to it; melanoma would obviously be the #1 leading cause of cancer. But it's not.

Now in hindsight, what we don't have evolutionary genetic tolerance for is microwave radiation. While i'm not in anyway an expert in biology or the physics of light, I do have enough insight to know that we should never underestimate the possible negative outcome of any potential problem when it's still just a mathematical theory we're playing with rather than a reality of nature we're all dying from.

I mean, we underestimate and miscalculate these kind of things all the time and it's kind of counter productive that the answer to the question of "When will we learn to stop doing this?" is always "Once, we underestimate and miscalculate, discover our error and become smarter because of it"...

2. The bigger issue this has when compared to the sun is the fact that all of us can agree while there is such a thing as getting too much sun. However, there isn't such a thing as internet that is too fast. We essentially all want to be able to download terabytes at the speed of light so that we can one day be on Mars and be able to seamlessly stream Netflix from Earth while were up there. And while of course there is a speed of light limitation of like i believe 8 minutes, that doesn't mean people aren't going to complain why they cant instantly stream from there.

This is what we need to understand about this issue. There is no limitation to how much radio wave radiation we want when we are thinking of that radiation in the language of the internet, as "Content".

3. When it comes to protecting ourselves from this, if it actually does turn out to be a substantial problem. All the solutions suck.

The radio wave EM shielding for example protects you from the potentially harmful waves. But it also creates like I said, a deadzone.

So putting it in your walls of your home, because you don't want you and your entire family constantly being exposed to the cell tower that might only be a football field length away from your house (as the one near my house is), also means you can't receive or make calls to and from your cell phone. This is a deal breaker for most people, and as far as i'm aware RF shielding isn't like sunscreen where it blocks out most of the harmful light while letting in the some you want. It's an all or nothing solution.

Which is why I think putting the RF shield in clothing like a hoodie would be an interesting venture idea. The shielding protects your body, while your phone is still outside of the shielded area. (although this obviously doesn't protect your face and i don't think RF shielded masks are going to find a market other than antifa)

And another reason why the implications of this would really suck, is that it means were stuck with crappy wires and the companies who own the rights to pumping internet to and fro over them. I am mostly looking forward to 5G because I view it as the primary means we are going to get ourselves out of the era of shitty slow internet and greedy cable company overlords who wouldn't know how to disrupt something if a tv with rainbow bars on the screen hit them in the face.

In traditional finance there is usually some sort of method in place that directly associates (either concretely as in say requiring an ID or loosely as in just having video surveillance correlated with say a money order or money gram transfer) a persons identity with an account anytime they are conducting any form of financial transaction.

With bitcoin, there is no way to pinpoint exactly who created an address. I can create thousands of wallets, and distribute them to all my terrorist buddies across the world for example, and it's not like traditional finance where i had to get somebody connected to the government (as the banks are) to sign off on me doing that.

The only weaknesses bitcoin has that I can see is

1.

that people's computers are typically less secure and easier to break into than banks who do a good job implementing security, and therefore its way easier to steal..

2. Because its decentralized and entirely electronic based when somebody actually steals your money it is virtually impossible to reverse that without requiring a hard fork of the block chain and for some currencies you just can't do that. (for example, nobody is going to be able to hardfork btc and take over it just because somebody ripped off a $1m worth of BTC from joe shmoe who hadn't updated his Ubuntu PC in 2 months because he's too lazy to type in his password everyday)

And lastly, the fact that bitcoin (and all other currency for that matter) becomes virtually worthless when nobody is willing to give you fiat in exchange for it. There is always going to be a weakness in the fact that these terrorists are going to need to convert their bitcoin into fiat eventually. Realistically, it doesn't actually make any sense why terrorist organizations would do this because of this weakness. You'd have to find a buyer for them who can give you fiat directly without raising suspicion. Which means direct cash exchanges and if you are already at that level of coming out into the open. You might as well just mail people cash using bogus identities and PO boxes.

What they fail to realize is that by centralizing their focus on highly populated metropolitan area like NYC and SF they are essentially trying to compete in markets that I wasn't even aware could have restaurants capable of sustaining their businesses when they don't have the option for delivery.

I mean i've been on treasure island and ordered food from just about every notable restraunt in SF you could think of and they all had in house speed delivery services that were willing to travel that far and still managed to get there within 45-75 minutes of placing the order. (presuming you don't order too close to the nightly commute out of the city)

Where Uber should really focus on promoting UberEats is more rural cities like just about every town in the midwest because out here we have a ton of towns with privately owned restaurants that are extremely profitable and yet don't offer delivery services because it's not profitable for them to do so; but it would be profitable for everybody if Uber offered their services as the middle man for every restraunt in town.

I mean i know of like 4 restaurants in town that 3 or 4 ubereats drivers could provide delivery services for and I know that number of drivers would have to grow to 8 or 12 within a year of providing the service. And there is virtually no competition out here and out here car delivery actually makes a lot more sense than trying to figure out where to park in NYC or SF.

Honestly the fact that Uber isn't already implementing this in my town by now, would concern me enough to consider shorting their stock.

There is nothing more telling in my view that a company is headed into uncharted territory it's totally not prepared to navigate than a company not understanding where they aught to set their heading because they haven't got even the slightest clue in which direction all the booty has been buried.

And then of course Rob Pike, Russ Cox, Ken took what they learned from their background at Lucent and paired it with Robert Griesmers background in developing innovative VMs for Javascript and Java and they essentially put everything they learned to develop the Go programming language.

Which if you get into the architectural aspects of it. You know actually dig into how it's implemented deep down you will see a lot of code that is essentially derived from plan9 and inferno's code in many ways.

YouTube video that generally summarizes what's of special interest about this.

Didn't they like completely throw the book at him by charging him under that completely insane law the Computer Fraud Act?

For example, I have yet to find any modern editor that draws inspiration from the brilliantly designed ideas used in Plan 9's 'sam' and 'acme' editors.

For example structured regexps, 3 button mouse chording, and the 'plumb' feature thats basically a context-aware, smarter version of a unix pipe between two executables.

I mean i can go on and on but another thing that i find absolutely annoying about newer editors is that they all use Webkit as the base of their apps core foundation.

This makes it irritating to consider trying to make changes to the code that I believe would overall improve the editor and make it more useful. (at least as far as im concerned)

I can literally make a list a mile long of things I like in other editors and wish i could see condensed into one ultimate code editor to supplant all code editors that had come before.

What I mean is that good ideas in tech tend to be somewhat of a logically sound and mathematical nature.

Which means it doesn't matter what you believe about your code, or what you had to go through to write it, or what it would mean to society if we just used your code regardless because you just so happen to belong to some historically oppressed minority group that is under represented in the tech industry as a whole.

If your code isn't demonstrated as being technologically superior after measured up against my code, guess what... your code goes in the trash, mine gets merged upstream, and everybody gets to come to the common consensus that as far as all the bits in our cosmos are concerned, every thing can be explained as being binary.

The questions he asked doesn't even give us new insight into Linus's opinions on tech.

One crazy idea is that we build a space elevator out of carbon nanotubes, and then make a core component of it act as a pump to suck up oil and water from sea level all the way up into the outer regions of our atmosphere and then we run the steam powered electrical generators up there and send the electricity back down the elevator.

Now this might sound crazy but lets seriously consider what we have to gain by this.

1. Physics are totally on our side in space. In a steam powered generator, the steam turns one side of the turbine and then must escape out to ensure too much back pressure doesnt build up and grind things to a halt. Along with this steam we also expel out the greenhouse gases generated from burning the fuel with it.

The thing is once we expel the steam and CO2 it goes out in a mixture and we cant really do a whole lot to sustainably trap it, store it until it cools off, and just reuse it, and all the while figure out some way to separate out the greenhouse gases and try to do something with it so we dont have to just release it into the air.

The thing is, burning oil to produce steam in space solves a lot of problems like this for us due to the physical properties how things work in the vacuum of space vs where there is no atmospheric pressure.

1. If you expel a mixture of steam and C02 into the cold vacuum space the water vapor will rapidly turn into liquid and then solid while the greenhouse gases remain gaseous. This leads to easier methods of filtration and water recycling.

The C02 is forced out into space and the water stays to be sent back down.

2. Wait, sent back down?

Yes because to make the pump work up without too much energy being required to suck it up against the power of Earth's gravitational pull (think of this like trying to suck a think milkshake through a straw a mile long) its best to utilize the downward pull of gravity to aide us in the process. Thus creating a vacuum.

3. When we run out of oil we can send up nuclear fuel next and just shoot the spent highly radioactive fuel that's no longer useful to us into space too.

4. The electricity generated can be used to power the electromagnetic elevator up and down.

5. We'll need a space elevator to make solar sails work anyways. We might as well utilize it to generate energy in every we can.

6. If any of this manages to blow up on us the explosion happens hella far away from us.

7. Surface level renewable power sources like wind, hydroelectric, and solar are all things we can utilize effectively assuming we build it in the most optimal place. (my best guess is somewhere in the ocean just south of Alaska)

In that kind of scenario, i find that a small notebook and pencil is still superior to an app simply because i don't have to think too much about the process of getting myself into a position where i can actually record the idea.

Its just too hard to get into the habit of remembering you have a note taking app on your phone that you can use whenever the good idea has just hit you.

You are too excited about the idea and trying your hardest to recall all the key details and keep them freshly in mind to be able to navigate to the app, wait for it to load up, press the + button, type in the idea using your thumbs, write in a title, save it, shit the app just crashed, load the app back up, great my idea wasnt saved, guess ill try writing it again, damn it i wish these notifications would stop popping up and pinging me, uhhh crap what was the clever angle to my idea again? Damn it.

Plus if im pulling out my phone, why not just use the voice controlled virtual assistant to record my ideas?

Not only does it have speech to text recognition but its actually quicker and more reliable than pulling out your notepad, flipping to an empty page, and hoping your writing utensil doesnt break/run out of ink.

"man, if only there was a way more exciting way to go about doing this.";

Which prompted the "ahah" lightbulb moment of the guy sitting just within earshot, one row over, who just so happened to be jotting down his own notes on some promising startup ideas?

What this means is doing whatever is necessary to retain valued employees and yet also try and make that profit to revenue ratio as high as possible on their quarterly report. Or at least make it look like that ratio will net positive in the near future.

What this means to you is that if your CEO is actually willing to let you walk, assuming he's not bad at his job, you need to really consider whether they can afford to pay you (and everyone else for that matter) more while still being able to reach their quarterly goals.

Thats why you might want to consider asking for stock options instead because if the CEO is focusing on increasing the companies valuation, chances are you can make even more money down the line.

In conclusion don't just expect that a CEO who is negotiating hard with you, is only doing so because they are trying to cheat you. They might actually personally agree that you should probably get paid more but they probably feel that way about themselves as well.

Stock is always the last ditch best effort to try and get the compensation you feel you deserve. Plus it reassures the CEO that they don't have to worry as much about losing you to the competition. At least not for a couple more years, and who knows. Maybe by then the company will do so well you'll be in a much better position to negotiate for a promotion.

If they still aren't trying to give you what you want, than say thank you for the great experience working there but you must go where you receive the most benefits.

Also its worth asking for compensation in vested preferential stock if you anticipate there being a substantial increase in the company's evaluation down the road. Though remember that you have to actually buy the stocks out of pocket when the time comes to execute your stock option. Which if you are barely covering your overhead now you should be careful anticipating actually having access to the money at that later date

I can sympathize somewhat with their position being a conservative because I understand that their job is to create the most profitable product and its hard to take a more conservative position on things when frankly our base tends to be of much less volume because were often defending unpopular ideas based on higher order philosophical principals we feel are worth protecting no matter the cost.

For example, I dont like white supremacists or racists, but at the same time i think its important we allow those ideas to persist in a democracy because we see any censorship as a slippery slope that it might seem like a good idea at first to go down but just because it seems to be the quicker and most straight forward path to get down off the mountain (which btw is where we all want to get to in a polite society) that doesnt mean we dont end up tripping halfway down and tumbling to the bottom with broken bones.

In other words if we start down this path with seemingly good intentions whats to say were not going to be trying to take further steps in this supposedly moral direction just because in order to be continuously progressive and push such an agenda that gets you the votes, you need to invent some new issue and solution to progress towards.

In other words what do democrats campaign on to remain in power when they actually achieve a Utopia?

Isnt that kind of a conflict of interest for democrats then if they want power for the sake of just being in power?

Btw in all fairness i should point out that the Republicans are all about creating crisises for them to campaign on being to solve as well. (hence the fact we dont take libertarians very seriously within our caucus)

All im saying is that at the end of the day, we need conservative and liberal ideals to promote a healthy democracy and sometimes the liberals get it right and sometimes the conservatives do.

When it comes to my gut feelings on the issues of free speech we need to be less concerned about the individual's voice and whats being said and be more concerned by the volume we give to select voices to say things so loud they can drown everybody else out.

The major problem in telling a story like this, is that it is hard to force the plot to reveal itself because there are so many pitfalls you can fall into that turns the whole personality of the story into feeling like its kind of a bit of a cliche or just poorly executed.

And yeah, so in the story he gets lynched because he is spotted trying to sneak away from a gorgeous white girls house after dark by a group of racist men in their early 20s who are infatuated by the girl who has no interest.

Any ways, the way they lynch him is very grotesque and done in a very crazy symbolic way that you kinda have to know whats going on in the story up to that point to get.

I kinda wonder what kinda hell id get myself if i actually tried to write this book in an age where people dont believe a white author can lynch a black person in his book and not be racist in either way the pendulum swings in this case. (e. g. you'd be justifiably considered racist if you wrote a lynching into your book if its a form of realizing a fantasy youd like to commit IRL but cant because society doesnt let you get away with it, but oh boy what if we lived in the 50s... thats the obvious way this could be considered racist but the lesser obvious way this racism can swing in the other direction is when you exploitatively use the lynching to make the story appear more interesting and sensationally important than it actually is. In other words to use lynchings inspired by early 20th century jim crow black history as a prop to suggest im trying to make a political statement or something on behalf of black people, like they need my help to ensure their story is heard)

Frankly, i think its a lot harder for people to understand you can actually be racist and yet be totally into the race in question especially when it comes to borrowing from their culture without ensuring you paid proper reparations up front.

Malcom X actually talks about this form of racism where white people at the time of the civil rights movement were trying hard to make black people felt like they were no different that white people when black people didnt want to be recognized as being the same because they wanted people to respect that they want to be seen as black people and treated like black people. They just wanted black people to get the respect they were owed for being major contributors to what made American culture great at the time. In otherwards they didnt want their children to resent not being born white in America because they have done more for far less than any other people in this country and yet people still consider them a second class race nobody would optimistically choose if you could actually select your preferred race to be born into the world as. They deserve to be proud and respected in a way we still havent figured out.

For example Elvis learned everything that made him a star by going to listen to black bands play at jive clubs. He took what was obviously cool and exotic in that black culture and then just whitewashed it for white audiences.

Rock and Roll was invented by black artists, many of whom starved to death never seeing a single dollar for the songs they wrote and are now topping the charts because an all white rockabilly band covered it live on johnny carson.

Google does not need to be in the business of trying to provide parental oversight over creators who just so happen to be minors.

Plus dont we want to retain the ability to profile people who are showing a concerning level of indication that they may be somebody who is willing to act on an impulse to commit paedophilia.

IMHO i think the best course of action to deal with pedophiles on youtube who think they are protected by the annomity of the internet, is to try and develop a way that makes it possible for authorities to obtain enough solid evidence that enables a federal prosecutor to bring up validatably just charges against youtube users who knowingly attempt to proposition a minor into an act of sex.

Also i need explicitly throw out an IANAL disclaimer right now and point out—— !!! I am NOT a lawyer nor a student of law !!!——before I delve into this more.

But theoretically speaking I think from a prosecutorial point of view (which again i stress that IANAL) it shouldn't be hard to prove a logically sound legal case that a sexually provactive comment that is targeted at a minor subject in a video's public forum (regardless of how vague, indirect, or seriously intended said comment may or may not be composed) this should all be considered knowingly propositioning a minor.

Having a 35% corporate tax AND a 35% income tax on all earners who make more than 120k/year, means the Government would essentially recieve %70 of all of Netflix's revenues, assuming inbound revenue and outbound expenditures are maintained at a 1:1 rate of growth.

Netflix doesn't pay (nor should they be paying any) taxes right now because they invest heavily in producing original content using borrowed money. When that original content flops they still have to pay back all that money they lost plus interest.

Netflix might have made a ton of profit this year but im pretty sure they are still heavily in debted (in the billions last i checked). To tax netflix at 35% now that they are finally starting to see a return on their investment would only cripple the corporation from maintaining their upwards momentum of growth.

You only want to start taxing a corporation when they are completely self reliant on their own revenue when funding their day to day operations and investments towards R&D.