771 karma · joined March 1, 2012
As a side note: I wasn't aware how _little_ surface damage nuclear weapons actually inflict. I was always under the impression that a nuke would level entire cities + surrounding suburbs.
As a secondary note: Why would you expect it to be free? It's something that someone spent time on.
Business is traditionally played as a game of market advantage/disadvantage. To Dropbox, Rice's international connections and political clout are far more valuable to them (obviously) than a few users throwing a hissy fit and dropping their service. Again, rather obviously, the method to change that view is if John Q. Public can create enough unrest and antagonism towards Rice, then that disadvantage outweighs the edge Rice brings.
There are two issues I see:
1. The power Rice brings to the table is ridiculously significant. Regardless of what she's alleged to have done, she is one of tens of western female political leaders. She has deep connections with major businesses within the US. Etc, etc, etc.
2. The article written at 'Drop-Dropbox' is full of strawmen arguments and subjective analysis. This, among other points, makes the article a piece of crap.
I don't really have the time, nor the willingness to actually pull apart the article, but I'll point out a few things:
"Choosing Condoleezza Rice for Dropbox's Board is problematic on a number of deeper levels, and invites serious concerns about Drew Houston and the senior leadership at Dropbox's commitment to freedom, openness, and ethics. When a company quite literally has access to all of your data, ethics become more than a fun thought experiment."
This is a slippery-slope argument, designed to instill fear into the reader. The author provides nothing of substance but insinuates: "Because Rice joined the Board of Dropbox, all of your data is going to be used for unethical (like what?) purposes". The author also shows a significant lack of understanding about how large corporate businesses work. The Board of Directors make broad, sweeping, general directions for the company to proceed in. In addition, if people are concerned with Rice making "unethical" decisions, keep in mind that there's a voting process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_directors#Exercise_of...) to keep power in check. Even further, once the company becomes publicly traded, a creation of a separate board who normally consist of outside members, are required to audit the company; this, in theory, prevents companies from "unethically" treating your data. Now even though this paragraph has nothing to do with the NSA and associated programs, I'm sure if anybody responds, it's going to be the first thing out of their mouth. To this I respond: Rice is not the US government. Much less, she's not even part of the NSA.
I'll point out another annoyance I've noticed: Strawmen Arguments.
Statements like:
"She helped start the Iraq War"
"She was involved in the creation of the Bush administration's torture program"
"Rice was on the Board of Directors at Chevron"
All are designed to instill fear, hatred, and disgust towards Rice. But really?...
Americans, Canadians, British, French, German, Australian, etc, etc, etc all helped to start the Iraq War. Americans are especially guilty. If anybody was around during 9/11, I'm sure we can all recall the fear and anger we had towards the suicidal fundamentalists who piloted planes into the Towers. Now, I'm not one to call for war, but I can remember that I wanted to do anything and everything in my power to hit back (somehow) at those who caused me and my country pain and harm.
Same can be more or less said for the other 'headlines' but I care far too little about changing a few random stranger's thoughts over the internet.
Thanks.
Thus. Class of 2018.
Why are you referencing the terror attacks on 9/11?
In the case of the Kiwis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI6TRTBZUMM#t=63. Is this group of screaming, chest-beating men any different in their expression of grief?
In the case of the Aussies: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/aug/02/london-2012-aus.... Is this swimmer's loss really more significant than the loss of one's family and friends? I mean...no one died and this wasn't 9/11...right? Why is she crying, hiding her face, and hunched over?
In the case of the French: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117014/Toulouse-sho.... This woman didn't even lose any family (maybe) and yet she has smashed her fists to the window, pressed her head close to the coffins, and is openly weeping.
I mean, look at these Americans: http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1360633/philip-seymour-hoffma... (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/philip-seymour-hoffman-actor-strugg...). A freaking actor died and they're weeping and moping.
My point is that I don't fully understand what your intentions were, but I feel that your comments come across as xenophobic and disrespectful to the families who are currently experiencing loss.
It's also an old sailor's superstition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailors%27_superstitions#Cats
It's not a completely novel idea, but it it an interesting find which may lead to more interesting conclusions.
1. There is almost 0 chance that you've tasted beef from a wagyu cow from the city of Kobe. Aside from import/export costs, the cost in Japan (having actually eaten Kobe beef from Kobe) is far closer to about $400-600 per steak (2kg perhaps?)
2. Americans have been importing wagyu cattle and crossbreeding them with cows here to create American "Kobe beef" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagyu#United_States
When Galileo championed the idea of heliocentrism, the vast majority of all other astronomers during his time opposed his views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
The idea of phlogiston was quite prevalent in the chemistry community for about a century before it was definitively proved to be a pile of combustible turds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
Even recently, in the early 20th century, physicists believed that: a) The smallest particle of matter (the atom) had been quantified, measured, and fully explored. b) There was no more to discover in the field of physics. Clearly, they were wrong.
Let me rephrase my objection more clearly. I believe that the Earth's climate (across all biomes) has been rapidly shifting over recent time. I know that humans can impact local ecosystems and one of the results is a shift in local climate. I have yet to see evidence for (cum hoc ergo propter hoc is a danger when looking at studies) humans causing climate change on a global scale.
This does not mean that we should stop our efforts to prevent deforestation. Nor does it mean we should ignore local environmental disasters, but linking local impact to global impact has not been done definitively yet, so as a scientist, I question that belief. It is not out of arrogance that I question, but out of the desire to be a better scientist. I am trained to base my beliefs in: Hypothesis -> Evidence -> Examination -> Belief. What we do have currently is a very good "guesstimate" hypothesis (we observe that humans can cause local ecosystem shifts). What we do not have is evidence. And thus, we do not have the opportunity for discussion or the transition to belief.
Talking about what's happening in both the Atlantic ice sheets and the Antarctic ice shelves can become complicated, and as far as I can tell (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) not definitive by any means.
However, rainforests are by no means the "Earth's inhaler of carbon dioxide (and by extension I took that to mean 'oxygen producer' as well)". According to many sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainforest#Tropical, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-2.1/broecker.htm, http://www.iub.edu/~act/files/publications/1992-93/93-03_Def...), rainforests do not contribute much to global oxygenation.
In fact, organisms like the prochlorococcus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prochlorococcus have been theorized to be responsible for at least 50% to 60% of the world's atmospheric oxygen (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v424/n6952/full/nature0... there's a paper in the references there which has that statistic, but I don't remember which). Today, these microbes are still hard at work, churning out oxygen and while some mistakes have been made (iron seeding, etc) they're still the most populous microbe on the planet.
I would also contest the point about human beings. (This is my opinion talking now). I will not disagree that the earth's climate is changing rather rapidly (relative to the measurable past). I will argue though that it is arrogant to presume that humans are the root cause. On a micro scale, humans have been rather destructive to specific ecosystems. However, I have yet to see convincing proof that humans can effect climate change to this magnitude on a macro scale.
That being said, after taking a quick look at the front-facing material on both sites, I have a question for you/GoPago: While the point you make about the initial cost being higher (about 1k with iPad) is valid, Square seems to run a pricing scheme where they charge a flat $275 per month and get rid of any extra cut they take.
Just based off some rough math, assuming the business processes $200k worth of transactions per year (about $550 per day, very reasonable) merchants will save about 2.5k per year if they use Square. For more slightly more successful businesses who process upwards of $500k-1m per year the delta grows even larger (upwards of $26k).
If the merchant runs a 1-man business which processes maybe $50k worth of transactions per year and uses Square's charge of 2.75% per swipe, he'll still be saving approx $300. And he'll own the hardware which inherently has resell value.
What specifically does GoPago offer over Square which is worth at least $300?
Observation: Am I wrong in thinking that both amateur and serious runners keep a general idea of how far they've run (just like in the video, "Hi I'm Meir and I run 80 miles a week"). If that's the case, then he'll need to replace his shoes every 5 weeks (given a 400 mile limit). Even if he's got races or marathons or friendly runs between then, he's still got about 200 miles of wiggle room. For someone who just runs for general health (say every other day at a rate of 2 miles per run), one's shoe will last at least a year upwards to two years. At that point, aren't most people thinking of getting a new shoe anyways?
Question: While I like the medical bracelet idea, how does that actually become implemented in real life/what usecases do you guys see being used? The benefit of a medical bracelet is that LEO or medical professional can immediately identify what is wrong (he's having a seizure, check his bracelet, it might be due to diabetes). Is there a precedent for a LEO to take out his laptop which is presumably connected to the department's network and plug in an unknown and unsecured USB storage device?
In a standard drug+robbery cycle (I'm guessing here):
Alice robs a Walmart/7-11/etc with armed force or intent to use armed force.
Alice gains $500.
Alice goes to Bob and pays the $500 to him for drugs.
Not only is Alice in danger (she can be prosecuted for armed theft), but the cash can be traced back to Bob putting him in danger. This also links Alice to Bob's drug dealing activities which stacks additional charges on Alice.
In a Tide-enhanced drug+robbery cycle:
Alice goes to the Walmart/7-11/Etc and walks out with 10 tubs of detergent (coordinating shift changes to make her escape). If caught, she can only be prosecuted for shoplifting which is at best a mark on the record.
Alice sells the tubs of Tide to Bob and grabs her drugs.
If caught with the tubs of Tide, Bob can deny any connection. In addition, as Cynthia, Darcy, Elizabeth, ... all shoplift Tide from the same store, that store's inventory of Tide detergent will be depleted. As it takes time for P&G to ship the Tide out, the store will have to rely on local-area suppliers of Tide which in turn will have bought the Tide from Bob at a markup.
As long as Bob is not caught with the drugs on him, he'll not face any charges (for possessing marked cash for example) as a bottle of Tide is deniable. Similarly, Alice will only face charges for shoplifting which carries a far more lenient sentence compared with grand theft.
1. "Nibbles": Reach a general agreement (agree on a basic premise). Instead of instantly accepting the deal, push for one small concession at a time.
2. Before entering into a discussion, think about a 'BATNA' = Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement. Are there other options? Is there a minimum you are willing to agree with?
3. "Expanding the pie": While certain points in contention may be very inflexible (salary, job position), "expand the pie" and seek out other areas which may be more flexible (vacation days, compensation). This also serves to clarify the central hinge of the negotiations.
4. Disarming Empathy. Essentially, the act of being empathetic (in a sort of self-deprecating way perhaps?) so that the other side bargains against themselves while you do not budge from your initial offer.
Since the temperature of the water bathing the meat (or veggie, etc) is a constant, you know exactly when your steak is a perfect medium rare. Not only is it cooked perfectly, the fats and marinade and etc are all sealed (quite literally) with the meat so the food is chock-full of flavor.
Spec Ops: The Line is one of the first games I've really seen traverse from the collection of descriptors we normally use for video games (childish, immature, time waster, brainless fun, etc) into the realm of what I'll call "deep media". I'll define deep media as the collection of literary and artistic work which is created not with the primary goal of entertainment, but with conveying an outlook or a perspective of the world.
Spec Ops: The Line is not a pretty, nor particularly fun game, but by golly is it good.
http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/http://www.nixonmcinn...
What will happen to Tiny Speck?
Tiny Speck, the company behind Glitch, will continue. We have developed some unique messaging technology with applications outside of the gaming world and a smaller core team will be working to develop new products. But now is not the time to talk about that. Right now our concern is with the players and our comrades who are suddenly looking for new work.