Sigh. That was meant as an example. I left out driving out of state for state systems, or driving to, oh I don't know, Canada and Mexico for a US-wide system. When you think about the implications, you can easily see that an odometer only system will not work.
Since this is in the U.S. Congress, it is a U.S. wide system. I am pretty sure that if you totaled all of the miles driven in Canada and Mexico by people with their cars registered in the U.S. , it would not even reach the level of statistical significance in the total of mileage driven in any one of the states on the borders with those countries.
However, you are tight that when you consider the implications, it is obvious that an odometer only system wouldn't work. How could they track your movements with an odometer only system?
You're right that any mechanic can read the legislated OBD-II codes. However, manufacturers are allowed to use proprietary codes or protocols for anything that isn't emissions related, and it wouldn't be too difficult to lock you out of everything else, if they really wanted to. Reading OBD-II trouble codes is only the tip of the iceberg of what you can do when you have full read and write access to the ECU.
That is the point of this law, they currently "lock you out" by not publishing what those codes mean. I'm pretty sure that what you are suggesting would violate either the current OBD-II legislation or this new law. Additionally, the problem with releasing the key only for cars sold in Massachusetts is that the manufacturer can only know what cars are sold new in Mass, this law would also cover cars sold used.
I find this business practice on the part of automobile manufacturers very offensive. On the other hand, I am very skeptical of additional government regulation. My suspicion is that the problem this law is designed to fix is one that was created by government regulation in the first place.
There already is a government mandated standard for getting access to engine information. It's called OBD and you read codes off with a $100 reader. Your local AutoZone, etc. will usually even let you borrow a reader if you need to.
OBD defines a set of specific codes for specific errors or measurements. It also allows manufacturers to define their own codes and measurements. I don't know of single vehicle whose manufacturer specific codes are not publicly available. Okay, you may have to pull out a book or look it up online (e.g. here is the list of codes for may BMW E46 3-series) but it's out there and it's an amazing thing. The newer cars will even give you details like your exact fuel/air mixture... in real-time. 9 times out of 10 the code pulled off the reader will tell me exactly what's wrong my car.
It amazes me how many hobbyist and even professional mechanics complain about this. The tools are there, and cheap, just learn how to use them.
I went to that link, there were an awful lot of "UNKNOWN CODE" listed. I stopped skimming between 500 and 600 and found over 70 "UNKNOWN CODE" listings in that. Those "UNKNOWN CODE" listings are what this law is about. Those aren't unused codes, they are codes that BMW considers trade secrets and that are only published to mechanics working for BMW dealerships (other car manufacturers have similar codes).
This is very important, because if Ford* needs to release the information needed to repair the Focus* to the state of Massachusetts, they will basically make it available everywhere in the world where Ford sells this car.
Similar to other US state laws regarding pollution or safe materials, this will affect us worldwide
Or they'll add a state-specific encryption key needed to unlock the computer for repair work. And they'll only release the key for vehicles sold in Massachusetts.
That won't work. Currently, any mechanic can read the codes (there is an open standard for the chip that outputs the codes), the problem is that they don't publish what the codes mean (outside of the basic codes that are defined in the standard).
Then read the odometer. It is already a crime to tamper with it. I don't want the government tracking my position. They have no business doing this. This idea is totally stupid on principle. Just add more cost to the vehicle too.
Only government would be this stupid!
This is not government stupidity, it is an attempt to get a tracking system in place under the guise of replacing gas tax (which of course will never be eliminated). Congresscritters long ago stopped actually writing the laws and just this summer started admitting they don't even read them.
What happens is some person tells them that this bill will have such and such an affect, this is a result desired by the Congresscritter so he or she introduces the bill (or if it was already introduced, votes for it) without ever actually reading it to see if it actually does what the person claimed.
So, are you claiming that before 1992 electric utilities were non-profit? Because I happen to know that in my area that is not true. Additionally, since what you are referring to is Federal regulations, it doesn't exactly effect what I said, which was about state regulations, which as a matter of fact your link states: "By 2008 only about a dozen states had deregulated their electricity markets".
. In the past, when utilities were heavily-regulated non-profits,.
When exactly was this? The utilities that provide electric and gas in my area have been for profit companies for as long as I have been alive (and I believe for as long as electric has been available to run in home appliances in this area). They have also always been heavily regulated and require authorization from the state to raise rates.
I forgot to point out that the primary example given in the article is about Medicare not paying for the Iphone but paying for a much more expensive device. So, the profit motive of the insurer is not the problem. That means that your entire post is a strawman argument, as are many of the posts on this topic that talk about how this shows that a nationalized health care payment system would be better (since this is a problem with the existing government health care payment system).
It's not exactly useless. In truth the procurement of items for medical treatment in countries with socialized healthcare is often quite different. Not always, mind you, but often. Without a financial motivation for whether or not patient obtains a device to help them, most people tend to be both compassionate and pragmatic.
Are you saying that the companies that make medical treatment supplies in countries with soialized healthcare are not run for a profit? That the companies in those countries operate without financial motivation? I find that hard to believe.
By life threatening I was referring to diseases which will in most cases kill you if not treated, such as many cancers and HIV infection. Life threatening was my choice of words, not that of the source I got this information from, they referenced specific illnesses (most of which are always considered life threatening no matter how early they are diagnosed). The same article suggested that in the U.S. people generally get diagnosed and treated earlier than in countries with socialized medicine, which was one of the main drivers behind the longer survival rate for those diagnosed with these illnesses. So, as you see your entire argument does not apply to the case I was making.
It will get vastly worse when the government takes total control. Every bit player will get their funding for their "medical" devices and the only thing not getting real money is patient care.
The evidence is against you there -- most countries with state healthcare provision get better health outcomes for about the same per-capita spending as the US government is already spending on healthcare. Your health insurance contributions are buying you nothing in terms of health (though I grant that they might buy you nicer places to be sick in). Have a look at the cross-country comparisons and see who you think is being shafted at the moment.
That depends on how you define healthcare outcomes, if you define it as length of survival after being diagnosed with a life threatening illness, the U.S. comes out much higher.
You know, you might have a point if we were comparing the health care and insurance system of a single U.S. state to the same in a single E.U. state, but we aren't. When the E.U. has a national health care system, then we will be able to compare how well it works to how well the U.S. system works. If people in the U.S. were proposing setting up systems on a state by state basis the way that the E.U. does it, there is a possibility there would be a workable system on the table somewhere.
You don't seem to understand, Robert Mapplethorpe's work is not "similar to goatse" it is "high art". I haven't quite figured out how it is more "artistic" than goatse, although, I think it is because in addition to being sick and twisted it is specifically offensive to Christians. I'm not sure on the last, since I have never viewed any of Robert Mapplethorpe's work, but that appears to be the position taken by his champions the last time there was a controversy over tax dollars being used to fund a display of his work.
So, my understanding is that Apple decided that it wasn't worth doing business in Australia (at least that particular form of business) and disabled the gifting feature for Itunes in Australia.
Did you even check the link I posted? The link gave specific examples of the other news networks doing the same things you accuse Fox News of. BTW, I have not watched more than 6 hours of Fox News programming since the network began. I believe that television is an inherently terrible place to get news from.
It is one of the smaller states of the European Union. Once upon a time it was a full fledged independent country that played a significant role in world affairs (or at least European).
Yes, but the environmental mark was, on average, a lot smaller than modern living. The Australian Aborigines had a way of life that was essentially unchanged for tens of thousands of years.
That they adopted shortly after using a slash and burn approach to get rid of a predatory lizard that was too large and dangerous for them to handle with any of the other technology available to them and turned much of Australia into desert from grassland (sorry, I don't know how much of the current Australian desert was desert before the aboriginals arrived).
What really needs to happen is that "the public" needs to be aware of what is happening and, in Fox News style, be instructed how to feel and respond to it.
I'm not sure why you think this is the sole province of Fox News, Perhaps because Fox News more closely reflects what the general American public thinks and feels? And thus appears to be more effective at shaping pubic opinion, when in fact they are more reflecting public opinion than shaping it. Here is a link that lists many attempts (some successful, some not) by other news sources to shape public opinion by selectively (and sometimes falsely) reporting the news: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/15/media-malpractice-tom-brokaws/
My point exactly, you don't need a CD/DVD-ROM drive in a netbook for those things (you could have a CD/DVD-ROM drive as an external device that hooks up via USB), but I can certainly understand why you would want a CD/DVD-ROM in your netbook for those things. I can, also imagine a few more things that would be more convenient with a CD/DVD-ROM drive.
Why would you need a CD/DVD-rom when you have USB stick and fast Internet?
Wrong question. The question should be (forgetting the grammatical errors in the OP), "Why would you want a CD/DVD-rom when you have USB stck and fast Internet?" The answer is, "None of your business, if I want it, I should be able to get it (assuming I'm willing to pay what it costs to add it in)." I can think of many reasons why someone might want a CD/DVD-ROM in a netbook (not all of them good).
Ever since Reagan got rid of the fairness doctrine, all news has been is spun to the left or right.
Yes, under the fairness doctrine, news sources would present you with both sides of an issue. On one side of the issue you would have the sensible, reasonable liberal and on the other side of the issue you would have the radical, wild-eyed "conservative" nut-job. I put the conservative in quotes because the news would often use somebody like Lyndon LaRouche and call them a conservative (Lyndon LaRouche is a complete nut-job whose ideas currently bear closer resemblance to liberals than to conservatives).
In my company there comes a point when I just cut users off. They've inflicted whatever problem upon themselves, we've addressed it twice -- this is the third strike and they're out. It's not worth it to anyone to continue supporting people who insist on screwing themselves over, and the number one way they screw themselves over is by using an OS that allows them to screw themselves over so easily.
Okay, so I guess I do sound like "that guy". But how long are you going to continue mounting these Herculean efforts to rescue idiots from their own incompetence with a system that encourages their incompetence?
As long as my boss pays me to keep those people as productive employees. The people I support use computers to provide our product (reports about stuff) to our clients. Now, if I have to spend too much time cleaning malware off of a computer I support, I will report it to my boss as it suggests that perhaps that particular user is spending too much time doing none work related things with their computer.
The people who I clean up computers for outside of my work environment pay me to do it as well, they can continue to screw up their computers as much as they want, I can use the money.
Because those 1 billion people he saved had X billion children that are now facing starvation. I guess we'll just need to keep increasing crop yields rather than deal with the ultimate problem. When people have food they try and make more people, even if feeding those new people is untenable.
I don't have the reference available at the moment, but I came across a reference one or two years ago that indicated that the average caloric intake of persons in third world countries is currently about double that of 30 years ago.
Based on current trends in population growth, the UN estimates that human population will top out at approximately 9 billion before the end of this century (sorry, I don't remember the date they predicted for that). After that, they predict that human population will decrease. I don't remember how far out they project, but it doesn't matter because once human population starts to decline any prediction based on current trends becomes unreliable.
I am generally skeptical of UN predictions based on current trends because of the influence of political bias on their methodology. However, this prediction is consistent with other things I have read about human population dynamics (the growth of any particular subset of human population is generally inversely proportional to its wealth). Additionally, anything I can imagine disrupting the influences driving the trends they based this projection on is likely to accelerate human population peaking and starting to decline.
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh. That was meant as an example. I left out driving out of state for state systems, or driving to, oh I don't know, Canada and Mexico for a US-wide system. When you think about the implications, you can easily see that an odometer only system will not work.
Since this is in the U.S. Congress, it is a U.S. wide system. I am pretty sure that if you totaled all of the miles driven in Canada and Mexico by people with their cars registered in the U.S. , it would not even reach the level of statistical significance in the total of mileage driven in any one of the states on the borders with those countries.
However, you are tight that when you consider the implications, it is obvious that an odometer only system wouldn't work. How could they track your movements with an odometer only system?
You're right that any mechanic can read the legislated OBD-II codes. However, manufacturers are allowed to use proprietary codes or protocols for anything that isn't emissions related, and it wouldn't be too difficult to lock you out of everything else, if they really wanted to. Reading OBD-II trouble codes is only the tip of the iceberg of what you can do when you have full read and write access to the ECU.
That is the point of this law, they currently "lock you out" by not publishing what those codes mean. I'm pretty sure that what you are suggesting would violate either the current OBD-II legislation or this new law. Additionally, the problem with releasing the key only for cars sold in Massachusetts is that the manufacturer can only know what cars are sold new in Mass, this law would also cover cars sold used.
I find this business practice on the part of automobile manufacturers very offensive. On the other hand, I am very skeptical of additional government regulation. My suspicion is that the problem this law is designed to fix is one that was created by government regulation in the first place.
There already is a government mandated standard for getting access to engine information. It's called OBD and you read codes off with a $100 reader. Your local AutoZone, etc. will usually even let you borrow a reader if you need to. OBD defines a set of specific codes for specific errors or measurements. It also allows manufacturers to define their own codes and measurements. I don't know of single vehicle whose manufacturer specific codes are not publicly available. Okay, you may have to pull out a book or look it up online (e.g. here is the list of codes for may BMW E46 3-series) but it's out there and it's an amazing thing. The newer cars will even give you details like your exact fuel/air mixture ... in real-time. 9 times out of 10 the code pulled off the reader will tell me exactly what's wrong my car.
It amazes me how many hobbyist and even professional mechanics complain about this. The tools are there, and cheap, just learn how to use them.
I went to that link, there were an awful lot of "UNKNOWN CODE" listed. I stopped skimming between 500 and 600 and found over 70 "UNKNOWN CODE" listings in that. Those "UNKNOWN CODE" listings are what this law is about. Those aren't unused codes, they are codes that BMW considers trade secrets and that are only published to mechanics working for BMW dealerships (other car manufacturers have similar codes).
Or they'll add a state-specific encryption key needed to unlock the computer for repair work. And they'll only release the key for vehicles sold in Massachusetts.
That won't work. Currently, any mechanic can read the codes (there is an open standard for the chip that outputs the codes), the problem is that they don't publish what the codes mean (outside of the basic codes that are defined in the standard).
Then read the odometer. It is already a crime to tamper with it. I don't want the government tracking my position. They have no business doing this. This idea is totally stupid on principle. Just add more cost to the vehicle too. Only government would be this stupid!
This is not government stupidity, it is an attempt to get a tracking system in place under the guise of replacing gas tax (which of course will never be eliminated). Congresscritters long ago stopped actually writing the laws and just this summer started admitting they don't even read them.
What happens is some person tells them that this bill will have such and such an affect, this is a result desired by the Congresscritter so he or she introduces the bill (or if it was already introduced, votes for it) without ever actually reading it to see if it actually does what the person claimed.
So, are you claiming that before 1992 electric utilities were non-profit? Because I happen to know that in my area that is not true. Additionally, since what you are referring to is Federal regulations, it doesn't exactly effect what I said, which was about state regulations, which as a matter of fact your link states: "By 2008 only about a dozen states had deregulated their electricity markets".
. In the past, when utilities were heavily-regulated non-profits, .
When exactly was this? The utilities that provide electric and gas in my area have been for profit companies for as long as I have been alive (and I believe for as long as electric has been available to run in home appliances in this area). They have also always been heavily regulated and require authorization from the state to raise rates.
I forgot to point out that the primary example given in the article is about Medicare not paying for the Iphone but paying for a much more expensive device. So, the profit motive of the insurer is not the problem. That means that your entire post is a strawman argument, as are many of the posts on this topic that talk about how this shows that a nationalized health care payment system would be better (since this is a problem with the existing government health care payment system).
No. Are you making a strawman argument?
No, you appeared to be.
It's not exactly useless. In truth the procurement of items for medical treatment in countries with socialized healthcare is often quite different. Not always, mind you, but often. Without a financial motivation for whether or not patient obtains a device to help them, most people tend to be both compassionate and pragmatic.
Are you saying that the companies that make medical treatment supplies in countries with soialized healthcare are not run for a profit? That the companies in those countries operate without financial motivation? I find that hard to believe.
By life threatening I was referring to diseases which will in most cases kill you if not treated, such as many cancers and HIV infection. Life threatening was my choice of words, not that of the source I got this information from, they referenced specific illnesses (most of which are always considered life threatening no matter how early they are diagnosed). The same article suggested that in the U.S. people generally get diagnosed and treated earlier than in countries with socialized medicine, which was one of the main drivers behind the longer survival rate for those diagnosed with these illnesses. So, as you see your entire argument does not apply to the case I was making.
It will get vastly worse when the government takes total control. Every bit player will get their funding for their "medical" devices and the only thing not getting real money is patient care.
The evidence is against you there -- most countries with state healthcare provision get better health outcomes for about the same per-capita spending as the US government is already spending on healthcare. Your health insurance contributions are buying you nothing in terms of health (though I grant that they might buy you nicer places to be sick in). Have a look at the cross-country comparisons and see who you think is being shafted at the moment.
That depends on how you define healthcare outcomes, if you define it as length of survival after being diagnosed with a life threatening illness, the U.S. comes out much higher.
You know, you might have a point if we were comparing the health care and insurance system of a single U.S. state to the same in a single E.U. state, but we aren't. When the E.U. has a national health care system, then we will be able to compare how well it works to how well the U.S. system works. If people in the U.S. were proposing setting up systems on a state by state basis the way that the E.U. does it, there is a possibility there would be a workable system on the table somewhere.
You don't seem to understand, Robert Mapplethorpe's work is not "similar to goatse" it is "high art". I haven't quite figured out how it is more "artistic" than goatse, although, I think it is because in addition to being sick and twisted it is specifically offensive to Christians. I'm not sure on the last, since I have never viewed any of Robert Mapplethorpe's work, but that appears to be the position taken by his champions the last time there was a controversy over tax dollars being used to fund a display of his work.
So, my understanding is that Apple decided that it wasn't worth doing business in Australia (at least that particular form of business) and disabled the gifting feature for Itunes in Australia.
Did you even check the link I posted? The link gave specific examples of the other news networks doing the same things you accuse Fox News of.
BTW, I have not watched more than 6 hours of Fox News programming since the network began. I believe that television is an inherently terrible place to get news from.
What's Denmark?
It is one of the smaller states of the European Union. Once upon a time it was a full fledged independent country that played a significant role in world affairs (or at least European).
Yes, but the environmental mark was, on average, a lot smaller than modern living. The Australian Aborigines had a way of life that was essentially unchanged for tens of thousands of years.
That they adopted shortly after using a slash and burn approach to get rid of a predatory lizard that was too large and dangerous for them to handle with any of the other technology available to them and turned much of Australia into desert from grassland (sorry, I don't know how much of the current Australian desert was desert before the aboriginals arrived).
What really needs to happen is that "the public" needs to be aware of what is happening and, in Fox News style, be instructed how to feel and respond to it.
I'm not sure why you think this is the sole province of Fox News, Perhaps because Fox News more closely reflects what the general American public thinks and feels? And thus appears to be more effective at shaping pubic opinion, when in fact they are more reflecting public opinion than shaping it. Here is a link that lists many attempts (some successful, some not) by other news sources to shape public opinion by selectively (and sometimes falsely) reporting the news: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/15/media-malpractice-tom-brokaws/
My point exactly, you don't need a CD/DVD-ROM drive in a netbook for those things (you could have a CD/DVD-ROM drive as an external device that hooks up via USB), but I can certainly understand why you would want a CD/DVD-ROM in your netbook for those things. I can, also imagine a few more things that would be more convenient with a CD/DVD-ROM drive.
Why would you need a CD/DVD-rom when you have USB stick and fast Internet?
Wrong question. The question should be (forgetting the grammatical errors in the OP), "Why would you want a CD/DVD-rom when you have USB stck and fast Internet?" The answer is, "None of your business, if I want it, I should be able to get it (assuming I'm willing to pay what it costs to add it in)." I can think of many reasons why someone might want a CD/DVD-ROM in a netbook (not all of them good).
Ever since Reagan got rid of the fairness doctrine, all news has been is spun to the left or right.
Yes, under the fairness doctrine, news sources would present you with both sides of an issue. On one side of the issue you would have the sensible, reasonable liberal and on the other side of the issue you would have the radical, wild-eyed "conservative" nut-job. I put the conservative in quotes because the news would often use somebody like Lyndon LaRouche and call them a conservative (Lyndon LaRouche is a complete nut-job whose ideas currently bear closer resemblance to liberals than to conservatives).
In my company there comes a point when I just cut users off. They've inflicted whatever problem upon themselves, we've addressed it twice -- this is the third strike and they're out. It's not worth it to anyone to continue supporting people who insist on screwing themselves over, and the number one way they screw themselves over is by using an OS that allows them to screw themselves over so easily. Okay, so I guess I do sound like "that guy". But how long are you going to continue mounting these Herculean efforts to rescue idiots from their own incompetence with a system that encourages their incompetence?
As long as my boss pays me to keep those people as productive employees. The people I support use computers to provide our product (reports about stuff) to our clients. Now, if I have to spend too much time cleaning malware off of a computer I support, I will report it to my boss as it suggests that perhaps that particular user is spending too much time doing none work related things with their computer.
The people who I clean up computers for outside of my work environment pay me to do it as well, they can continue to screw up their computers as much as they want, I can use the money.
Because those 1 billion people he saved had X billion children that are now facing starvation. I guess we'll just need to keep increasing crop yields rather than deal with the ultimate problem. When people have food they try and make more people, even if feeding those new people is untenable.
I don't have the reference available at the moment, but I came across a reference one or two years ago that indicated that the average caloric intake of persons in third world countries is currently about double that of 30 years ago.
Based on current trends in population growth, the UN estimates that human population will top out at approximately 9 billion before the end of this century (sorry, I don't remember the date they predicted for that). After that, they predict that human population will decrease. I don't remember how far out they project, but it doesn't matter because once human population starts to decline any prediction based on current trends becomes unreliable.
I am generally skeptical of UN predictions based on current trends because of the influence of political bias on their methodology. However, this prediction is consistent with other things I have read about human population dynamics (the growth of any particular subset of human population is generally inversely proportional to its wealth). Additionally, anything I can imagine disrupting the influences driving the trends they based this projection on is likely to accelerate human population peaking and starting to decline.