Comment Re:We have internet (Score 1) 50
The reasons for not travelling seem questionable though, and you could argue that it wouldn't be safe for Indian staff to travel to the US.
The reasons for not travelling seem questionable though, and you could argue that it wouldn't be safe for Indian staff to travel to the US.
Singing is pretty much a commodity service now. With autotune almost anyone can do it, but you can hire a professional for not a lot of money. It's good that people get work instead of AI slop, but also the rates are very low and it's a side gig at most.
The people who making a living from it tend to have other talents too. Song writing, stage performance, looking conventionally attractive, building up a social media following, etc.
AI probably won't change much in that respect.
It's incredible that anyone still invests in it, after Musk publicly admitted it was a scam.
And "the only solution for trips over 300 miles"? Less than an hour via existing maglev technology, which both Japan and China are deploying as we speak. That's just the start though, maglev can probably double that speed, close to the speed of sound. The issue is the noise, and you don't need a vacuum tube to solve it.
I'm hoping for more than normal. Big floods of used but perfectly serviceable drives and memory hitting the market, at bankruptcy prices.
Also can they please hurry up and get LTO 10 out the door, so that LTO 8 drives get cheap? Thanks.
It's a borderline scam, where so many jobs, even minimum wage ones, need a degree just to get past the application submission stage, that a degree is almost mandatory in many fields. A lot of it is employers transferring the cost of training to the employee.
It also blows the meritocracy arguments out of the water, because a person's ability to get high level qualifications is highly dependent on their ability to pay. Not just pay for college, but to not work so much they don't have time to do extra studying or non-core activities.
Seems more like political problems. They have been trying to build large wind farms and export cables for years. If they can't even manage that, they have no hope of building nuclear.
It's a tragedy really. They have massive amounts of space for this stuff. A lot of sun, and good on and off shore wind resources. The domestic solar market is actually doing okay, because it gets less political interference and there isn't all that much that can be done to stop people putting panels on their homes.
I would be surprised if software updating an aircraft is that simple. It probably needs to be controlled and tested after the update, with records kept by maintenance staff, and notifications sent to pilots.
Eastern Europe was screaming about how dangerous this was, but they weren't listened to.
To be fair they were against the entire world. At the time there was a generalised policy idea pushed by American economists that by enriching a nation it will naturally tend towards a stable democracy. The people most shouting against this were among the poorest and they were dismissed on similar grounds.
Buying Russian gas, investing in Russia, and China, and the middle east, all of this was seen as a way to enrich the people. With riches comes education, with education comes resistance against autocracy. That was the theory anyway.
And it was only a theory.
It's easy to point the finger at Merkel, if you ignore literally everyone else in the world. But the reality was this was effectively western world policy. Merkel's gas policy just happened to seal the largest monetary deal.
And indeed, life can be comfortable as a kept woman
That it yadeyaddering a WHOLE lot of history. Europe wasn't so much a kept woman as much as she was married off unwillingly due to a war. Much of the continent was devastated not just by the way, but by the terms agreed to by the losing team. E.g. limiting the amount of armoury, the dismantling of industry, the resulting economic disaster that followed. A "beaten woman" may be a more apt description.
There's a reason LULUCF is included in climate change estimates around the world: deforestation and the use of land is a huge emission source. It's easy to be quick to dismiss Australia's efforts, but the reality is LULUCF's inclusion should be applauded because Australia had a fucking horrendous historical track record on deforestation, and despite still being very bad it's encouraging to see the rate reduce since 2008. Excluding it as a source of emissions doesn't help anyone even if the accounting can be a bit more questionable than direct emissions.
Then why do they have to force non-Australian companies to produce shows if there's a healthy Australian tv-industy?
Because monopolies and oligopolies exist only to make the maximum amount of money, and the maximum amount of money is achieved by stuffing the global catalogue with global appeal. For that you still look to the USA movie industry, despite the fact they produce less movies per year than Australia on a per capita basis.
Australia seems to understand that a healthy market is maintained through regulation. Many Slashdotters on the other hand haven't seen what an economics textbook actually looks like. If they ever peaked into one, they'd realise what a horror show a truly free market is.
Tumbleweeds, dying reefs and spiders? We've had enough of that already.
You're so clever showing the world your ignorance. Australia used to have one of the largest film industries in the world. Even now on a per capita basis they release more local movies than the USA does with an average of one movie every 3-4 days. The local series industry is also quite massive though America has them beat on a per capita basis there.
I can't completely fault your ignorance, you're probably a Netflix subscriber and only know what Netflix chooses to show you, and guess what, they will preference making movie deals for general world wide audiences rather than your local content.
Ha ha, Paris Accord. Guess how much France, the country which lead said accord, was fined for not meeting their own commitments? Spoiler alert, it's €1.
Yeah, and whose fault is that? Right the USA which objected to one word in the entire accord: "Shall" instead of "Should". But sure, blame the French.
Anyway blame game aside the fault is your own. The court case fine had little to nothing to do with the Paris agreement as it was brought locally by a local court against the government related to an international agreement. The fine was always going to be symbolic because there was no legal mechanism to do something otherwise. Governments can't pass laws to fine themselves. Laws don't work like that.
Incidentally the French are part of the EU and the Paris Agreement was signed in such a way that the block reports emissions. The EU is ranked "Insufficient" against the Paris target. Canada is ranked "Highly Insufficient" along with China and India, and the USA "Critically Insufficient" sharing that category with what Trump would call "3rd world shitholes".
So I wouldn't go throwing shade at France in a story about Canada.
"We're 100% in favour of dealing with the environmental crisis unless it costs us money in which case we'll be dead by the time it gets really bad so who cares, it won't be us who have to live with it".
The problem is one of short term thinking and lack of strategy. Those who will invest money to deal with the problem are the ones that will make the most money in the future when the rest of the world plays catchup and comes asking the experts for assistance.
The future cost money but that investment pays dividends.
Amazon has long had a DNS service, called Route 53
Yes... that is
In other news when there's a breakdown on the highway and you reroute traffic over local roads it will be slower.
"Life, loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it." -- Marvin the paranoid android