The title is written from the perspective of the original problem, not from the solution. It then leads the user through the process of discovering why the bytes were 'disappearing.' From the perspective of the original users the bytes were disappearing.
> Very few people walk around with that amount of cash today.
... because the cops would stop him, insinuate that the money probably had something to do with crime, and then seize it to line their own pockets coughcough I mean "bolster their budgets."
Marie Curie was also fine with working with Radium... until we found out that it wasn't good for you. The thing about stuff like cancers is that it's really difficult to say "this person's cancer was caused by X." The best we can do are wide spectrum studies about cancer rates, and try to use statistics to limit the variables.
You know that saying controversial things about Apple has basically always been his schtick. It drives pages views when people get all upset and flood into the site to read the article so that can go back to Hacker News/SlashDot/Reddit/Digg/Fark/Facebook/Twitter/whatever to argue about it.
> Right, and such a concession to be agreed on by Canada would require an equally beneficial concession made by the U.S. no?
The way that Trump likes to negotiate that's not necessarily the case. He may think that he can get huge concessions without giving anything in return by just "playing hardball" and issuing threats to terminate negotiations if they don't go his way.
We're sort of focusing on digital here, but some of the IP rights stuff in the agreement would make certain generic drugs available in Canada illegal... so the prices of medication would go up since you could no long buy the generic brand. I would not say that's a win for Canadians.
That's what the article is claiming, but not what Tesla is confirmed though, which is what this thread started with. Tesla's statement says no such thing.
> High prices isn't a signal that we have run out, it is a signal that more mines are needed. It is likely the market will heed the signal.
It is a signal that there is a high demand, and not enough supply (whether naturally or artificially -- e.g. diamonds) to meet that demand. That's it.
Building more mines can only happen if the resources exist to mine. This idea that "the market" is a magic wand to wave at problems really needs to stop. As far as "the market" is concerned, the electric car industry could collapse because it failed to innovate past resource shortages.
IIRC, Colloquy (a macOS IRC client) used to do this. Each IRC channel was basically an XML feed, and the theming was just XSLT applied to the XML feed and the output displayed in a WebView widget.
I'm thinking it has more to do with spread than concentration. Trace amounts distributed over the entire universe, vs trace amounts in a localized area.
Not everyone hears about the name change because it doesn't make the same headlines as the original controversy. So people still associate the controversy with the old name, and have maybe never even _heard_ the new name yet.
> I would guess that with antibiotics, meat production can be like 20% more efficient, maybe somewhat more.
But at great cost. The farmer makes more short-term profit, while offloading the externality of dealing with the consequences (breeding antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria) to the future[1] or just someone else entirely[2]. Are these costs really worth it for you to get cheap cuts of meat at the grocery store, or to ensure that the farmer makes more money (or remains profitable at all[3])?
[1] Antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria make cattle farming impossible.
[2] Antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria enter the general human population generating a significant health crisis.
[3] If the livestock industry can't stay afloat without these low-dose antibiotics, then maybe they should either charge more (meat becomes a luxury item), or they should just end livestock farming altogether. The production of meat isn't as essential to the functioning of society as people think. It's definitely not worth the risk of creating a health crisis just because "the meat must flow."
This has been known for quite a while. I'm sure you could come up with quite a few sources if you really wanted to, though I'm not sure how well the phenomena has been studied (seeing as we still don't know what causes it).
Most of these devices are insecure not because the attackers are hyper-sophisticated, but because the software is rushed and a second-thought to the hardware. There is no one (in power) at these companies that cares about crafting quality software. They just care about crafting the bare minimum to make their devices work.
I wager that "security" is something fairly far from their mind when they craft this software, which I consider especially negligent for any company that is dealing in networked devices.