Really it doesn't make much difference either way.
Unless you are as familiar with the codebase as its authors are (and you definitely won't be) and unless you are doing all of the compilation from source yourself (which you probably won't be), you're still more or less at the mercy of the software vendor.
Even if you read all of the source code they provide you with to "prove" the program doesn't do anything nefarious, there is no guarantee that the binary you install on your computers was based on the source code you read, and not some other version of that source code with a back-door installed.
So it comes down to the same thing -- you either trust your Anti-virus company not to spy on you, or you don't.
A world full of social media narcissists who post every detail about their lives online via dozens of apps that abuse 100 back-channels of telemetry and data aggregation is worried about Nation States stealing shit via hidden anti-virus code.
Fucking hell.
If you're looking for a horror story, read a EULA sometime.
If the cause of the fires was in fact the earthquake, then you're splitting hairs here. We certainly don't segregate wind damage from water damage when talking about hurricanes.
And modern building codes are well equipped to deal with both earthquakes and fires, so it certainly wouldn't be reduced to rubble by an earthquake now.
The 1906 quake measured 7.8 on the scale. Not even close to our strongest quakes on record. Regardless of code improvements, the damage to such a densely populated area if a 9+ were to hit would be considerable. Not to mention cost. LA saw tens of billions of dollars in damage from a 6.7 quake in the 90s.
When one of the largest cities in our entire country allows a fucking monopoly on internet service, there's only one true problem to solve for; the corruption that creates and sustains that shit.
If you're leasing your living space and lose a job, you're no worse off than if you were paying a similarly sized mortgage but you have the advantage of it being easier to move to a new city for new employment if need be.
I recently sold a house as part of moving for a job. I had lived in that house for around 8 years but because the housing market had been more or less flat, what little appreciation there was paid the realtor's fees. The job I was leaving was about a 60 minute commute from that house. Had I not owned, I probably would have come out ahead to rent nearer that job for the 5 years I worked there.
The moral of the story is that flexibility can have value.
There were may parts of the country that saw a considerable appreciation in the housing market over the last 8 years. What if ownership had rewarded you with enough profit to own another home and have it paid off in the next decade?
Freedom from financial burden is the ultimate flexibility.
Making a durable installation isn't fashion, it is the difference between making a donation and making a slave from people. Your coding BS has nothing on physical work, so give up the martyrdom attempts. Physical work must withstand the elements that it will be subject to from day #1, or not only will it not last but will spawn more expenses and costs including failing and killing people. Musk could have done a better job, but he chose not to. There are reasons for that that don't fit in your Ayn Rand bible, and that are unethical and immoral it not illegal in every other situation.
When I was speaking about rushed installs, I wasn't talking about coding BS. I was talking about physical work, so let's just stop with the assumptions.
It's not likely a permanent installation, so enough of the nit-picking over the install. There's a lot of blue tarps doing their job as a rooftop on Florida homes right now, and no homeowners are bitching about them not matching the color of their stucco. Falling and killing people? It's mounted on the ground in a parking lot, not suspended from a rooftop built to no-code standards. It's also mitigating the higher risk of killing people by not having a functioning hospital at all. Let's reserve the comments about people becoming enslaved by Tesla until that actually happens. Besides, the taxpaying masses have been chained to Big Oil and NASA budgets for half a century. EV, Solar, and SpaceX is working to better that situation. No one claimed it would be perfect.
No, capitalism involves a market and options - this is about creating an isolated fiefdom for Musk to rule. A crack-dealer isn't participating in capitalism either, for the same reasons. PR must refuse everything else Musk does after the emergency. The poorly installed panels are designed to be maintenance cost-cows for Musk, and they will have to be scrapped ASAP.
Speaking of options, where's the competition?
Oh that's right. It's a couple of inexperienced guys from Whitefish Energy who got that no-bid deal after lubing it with a 55-gallon drum of palm grease and corruption. I'm sure that isolated bucket of incompetence will pan out with maximum efficiency.
I refer back to my original statement of doing something rather than nothing. And nitpicking about the installation quality of a solar array is pathetic when the end result is a functional solution. I've put in plenty of rushed installs running against the clock in some of the worst environments imaginable. It's called function over fashion, especially when lives are at stake.
Rather ironic when speaking about the land of cushy pointless Federal jobs and $1000 toilet seats. I'd take the honesty of a profit margin over immeasurable corruption and financial incompetence.
You don't think Musk did this as wedge into a future captive market, one where he can charge billions once the media leaves?
Yes. It's called capitalism. Also known as exactly what I expect any company to do that sustains itself with net-positive revenue streams. He's also the guy doing something rather than nothing in the aftermath of a disaster.
Besides, Musk is too "evil" to qualify himself as a religious leader, so redefining as a tax-sheltered religion is off the table.
900 jobs, $10 billion tax subsidies, whatever fee was charged upfront, and whatever fees will be charged later. Musk is evil, and using kids for PR is par for the course.
Let's throw another log on the Musk Evil fire. How dare he try and help save lives.
FFS, talk about damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Boy, sure is a good thing FEMA is funded by Santa Claus so no taxpayers have to pay for rebuilding efforts when disasters hit the US...
>"the project's solar array, in a parking lot next to the hospital, has been liked more than 84,000 times since it was posted to Instagram"
While that is neat looking, is it temporary? It appears to fill almost the entire parking lot, leaving no place to park... Are there other lots? Looks like maybe 150 spots gone. Power is important, but parking is kinda important too, isn't it?
When a facility such as a hospital does not have power, parking goes from relevant - pointless in 2 seconds flat.
There appears to be land available around them to expand the parking lot. Or build a parking garage, which could likely also serve as a future hurricane shelter.
I'm not being sarcastic. Who is demanding automation and voice activation? The reason there is a current push to automation and voice activation is FOR TRACKING AND DATA COLLECTION PURPOSES. It is amusing you think it is about what YOU want.
If no one was buying this shit, the automation industry wouldn't be in a constant state of growth. Doesn't matter who started it, or who didn't ask for it, or even what nefarious activity it drives. People DO use automation. A LOT of people. And none of them give a fuck about trading privacy or security for that convenience. Consumers are also lazier than ever, which is another reason automation and voice activation have become insanely popular, and ultimately drive demand. Look at the migration of authentication. PIN---Pattern---Touch---Face. Catering to lazy clearly sells product.
Yes, I agree that we often get tech features shoved down our throats that seemingly no one asked for. Google Glass is a good example of what happens when product fails to create demand. Amazon Alexa is a Prime example of the polar opposite.
Americans that own and fly planes aren't killing 40,000 people every year.
Now you're confounding the issue. Planes have a lower rate of fatalities both in total and per capita. Part of the reason for this is that the licensing and maintenance requirements are very demanding.
If airplane ownership started to create that kind of liabilty then yes, we would likely be talking about prohibiting ownership
No, we just regulated planes a long time ago, and we are starting to do so with cars now. In both cases, we aim to eliminate the risks where it is reasonably cost-effective to do so.
Smartphones are quickly becoming very deadly devices in the hands of human drivers. They'll soon kill more people in a year than planes will in a decade. Wonder when we're going to start addressing the cost-effectiveness of actual punishment as an effective deterrent to combat unnecessary death.
The cost equation is different for a plane with hundreds of passengers that can destroy an entire block of houses in a crash. In comparison, a single car can rarely destroy a single building or kill more than a dozen people. An errant plane can do so much damage that we established rules at the very beginning, and a single accident is enough to merit reconsideration of the rules.
Planes are highly regulated, and the end result is deaths measured in the hundreds per year.
Considering automobile deaths are measured in the tens of thousands per year, I wonder what the hell it takes to "merits reconsideration" of those rules.
Once autonomous vehicles become the norm, liability and legislation will work to prohibit owning the vehicle, due to the fear that consumers won't maintain the vehicles properly (software or hardware), putting others at high risk on the road. Car ownership will become obsolete.
I have to disagree with you here. It might become more expensive but car ownership won't become obsolete. Why? Because some of us tow boats, etc. and generic vehicles do not work for such applications. On top of that, there are going to have to be provisions for classic cars, which won't fit into the self-driving model.
Sure. They'll be provisions for classic cars, and the humans who insist they can still safely drive them.
However, liability will demand that insurance costs are appropriate. Once autonomous vehicles become the standard, $100/month now will become $1000/month in the future. That will be the cost for the luxury of a human driving a car equipped with 30-year old safety standards. At some point you will be driven off the road due to the cost.
Believe me I don't look forward to freedoms manipulated and destroyed by liability any more than we already have today. But rest assured, it's coming.
As far as getting watercraft into the water, that's what boat drones are for, if you can still afford boaters insurance...
They do? I'm pretty sure everyone is happy with PIN based logins. Does anyone even use Touch ID?
I can only assume you're being sarcastic here. Given the demand this generation has brought forth to automate and voice activate every damn thing, operating technology with as little effort as possible is now a design requirement.
PIN based logins would require someone to lift more than a finger, which is why I see a lot of people using Touch ID. And Face ID reinforces the fact that now even lifting a finger is too much effort.
Why own?
Condominium: you take care of what's on the inside (HVAC, Water Heater, Appliances) you pay someone to maintain what's on the ouside
Apartment: You pay someone to take care of everything
Leased Car: You pay someone to take care of everything and turn it in after X months
Lease Boat: You take it for the season and return it when you are done
People lose jobs all the time. Happens every day. The end result is an inability to sustain this do-it-for-me leased life. Then what?
Lease a car? Cars are not that fucking hard to maintain these days. Getting 150,000+ miles out of one has become the norm, not the exception. 10+ year lifespans are not uncommon, which means years of enjoying no car payment. Housing markets may rise and fall, and even crash at times, but one thing remains certain; owning a home outright means the shelter you need to sustain life cannot readily be taken from you.
Not having perpetual monthly payments for everything also brings me to my next point; saving money for retirement. Not quite sure how you're going to afford to continue to pay everyone else for the luxury of renting all the shit they own when employment ends. Retirement is defined today as that point in your life where it becomes physically or mentally impossible to sustain a job. That's something you plan for, not ignore and assume it will somehow never happen to you.
For 98% of people in the world ownership is a great big hassle.
Why am I not surprised that 98% of the people in the world are that shortsighted and ignorant about the true value of ownership.
liability and legislation will work to prohibit owning the vehicle, due to the fear that consumers won't maintain the vehicles
Wrong. Nothing prevents you from owning aircraft. Of course, you had better follow some very strict maintenance schedules if you want to operate them.
Americans that own and fly planes aren't killing 40,000 people every year. If airplane ownership started to create that kind of liabilty then yes, we would likely be talking about prohibiting ownership instead of merely enforcing enough regulation that ownership becomes cost prohibitive as it is today.
Cars are headed in that direction. You can own them, but you may eventually be forced into a maintenance schedule for safety reasons. We already have that in Europe, if you want to keep your licence plates, you have to pass a mandatory safety checkup every two years. (Brakes, steering, lights, glass, doors - they check anything that could be dangerous if missing/broken). So no old cars being driven around with a big hole in the floor, missing door, or brakes that work on one side only.
You can still own the car - and you may do your own maintenance if you like too.
Sadly, when it comes to the rather fucked legal landscape of liability, the rest of the planet cannot readily compare to the United States. For that reason, it's not easy to compare it to Europe. Hell, we used to have vehicle inspections in my state, to include emissions testing. For reasons unknown, those checks were removed some years ago. Due to the inexplicable nature of laws not following common sense, I would not expect anything less than a continuance of stupidity to the extreme in either direction, to include anything from no rules or regulations to removing car ownership altogether.
Yes, I get the fact that cigarettes are addictive. So is meth, heroin, and opium in a prescription bottle. That doesn't mean people need to become an drug addict in order to "understand" addicts or help them. Former addict is not a prerequisite to work at a treatment center or attend an AA meeting. Plenty of people who were addicted choose to become sober because of the impact of loved ones in their lives urging them to quit, and creating a support system. It's not always a life-threatening incident that creates a path to sobriety.
Read carefully. There is no such thing as a former addict.
If you become addicted to a substance, you will ALWAYS and forever more, be an addict.
Addiction never stops. You don't get over it. It doesn't go away. It is as permanent as chopping off a limb.
Cigarettes are undoubtedly the most fucking horribly addictive product mankind has ever created. 480,000 Americans die every year from it, more than any other product. 7 million worldwide deaths per year. It remains our #1 cause of preventable death, and has held that crown for a long time. Alcohol is likely the next worst.
That said, not every addition creates a permanent effect as those I've outlined above. A good example would be the potheads I knew in high school. Smoked weed all day every day. They were addicts by every definition. After high school, they stopped using it. Never even had a small desire to go back to it. I also knew many who would occasionally use pot with zero chance of becoming a daily addict again.
Once autonomous vehicles become the norm, liability and legislation will work to prohibit owning the vehicle, due to the fear that consumers won't maintain the vehicles properly (software or hardware), putting others at high risk on the road. Car ownership will become obsolete.
Electronics ownership is already becoming obsolete due to the general risk and liability of insecurity. Manufacturers won't offer more than 2-3 years to cover the hardware, and security updates usually stop by then as well. We already essentially lease smartphones these days, placating to some form of forced upgrade every other year due to anything from a lack of support to irreplaceable failing batteries that inevitably mandate replacement. Desktops were something you could actually turn a proverbial wrench on, but no one buys desktops anymore. Repairing portable electronics? Are you kidding me? Wafer-thin designs and sealed chassis aren't easy for anyone to try and work on these days. Often times, it's not even worth the effort.
SaaS models are consuming our digital lives. We don't own DVDs or CDs anymore; we perpetually rent the ability to stream content. Same goes for many larger software suites that you now pay a monthly fee to simply maintain a usage license.
It's not the Right to Repair we need to be fighting for. It's fighting to preserve the Right to Ownership and get the fuck away from everything in your life being consumed at the "bargain" rate of only $9.99 per month.
...If you aren't addicted, you have zero chance of understanding it, and worse, a negative chance to change others. People that are addicted have to choose to change. Logic, proof, and all the AMA studies in the world won't move a truly addicted person one angstrom. Yes - it's not logical. But it is human nature.
Human nature also includes a general propensity to want to help others. You should probably be thankful for that. Without that human trait, there probably would be few doctors or nurses around to help save those who have heart attacks.
Yes, I get the fact that cigarettes are addictive. So is meth, heroin, and opium in a prescription bottle. That doesn't mean people need to become an drug addict in order to "understand" addicts or help them. Former addict is not a prerequisite to work at a treatment center or attend an AA meeting. Plenty of people who were addicted choose to become sober because of the impact of loved ones in their lives urging them to quit, and creating a support system. It's not always a life-threatening incident that creates a path to sobriety.
...your right to partake does not include the right to force others to imbibe in your vice as well. All I ask is that you consider how you'd feel of others felt they could force you to breathe flatulence. I doubt you'd be best pleased.
This is funny. I pictured a large group of flatulent fanatics attacking the vaping crowd by surrounding them in a fart flash mob. Don't light a match.
I thought this was an article of people getting paid $300-$500k/year for jobs. Well within the 1%. That's more than the president of my company made. Not all CEOs are billionaires.
I wasn't referring to the ones writing code. I was referring to the impact of that activity, and the risk of society not adopting quickly enough.
1. Most kids under 8 will not be searching for Porn, at this age it doesn't really interest them the same way it does say a 12 year old.
Hormones have existed since the dawn of time. And fine, replace 8-year old with 12-year old. Or 14-year old. What does it matter? Hardcore porn is still able to be accessed by a minor very easily, and ironically with the very tool given to them by their parents.
2. Tablets are in general safer to browse then PC.
I said porn, not virus. The infection is in the mind, not the PC.
3. Kids under 8 mostly have very poor reading and writing skills, and will not be able to fill out an online form to sign up to particular sites.
All it takes is a typo these days to accidentally stumble across hardcore porn. No sign-up necessary.
As well just like TV, Video Games... The child still needs to be monitored not just blindly abandoned, but the parent doesn't need to be actively participating in the child's activity for this time.
We're calling it a pacifier for a reason; so parents can assume someone or something else is taking on their responsibility for a while.
Not too surprising. Just as the Boomers, were suck in front of the TV, Gen X were given Video Games, Menials have Cell Phones. It makes scene that today's kids have the newest technology to pacify them. We can tout bad parenting... But in truth having an outlet where the child is out of your hands for an hour or so, it overall beneficial. Kids before that technology were just beaten if they were too much of a problem... So having a kid, watch a movie on a tablet in terms of perspective is a good thing.
Given the utter lack of controls being applied, is having a kid watch hardcore porn a "good thing"? Seems few adults really understand the dangers of the internet these days, and I'm willing to bet 99% of tablets in children's hands have an unfiltered internet connection. Perhaps it's time we start considering that perspective for a minute before labeling this a mere pacifier...
They aren't coding the demise of jobs, they are coding a change to the economy. as our current system won't work if no one has jobs. so it means that the entire system will need to change
As companies work to replace human cashiers with automated tellers, tell me again how the CEO gives a shit about the "entire system"? This is but one example. Rinse and repeat as automation drives forward.
That ever-widening gap between the 1% and the 99% represents a growing I-don't-give-a-shit mentality. The masses will eventually be unemployable, driven by the insatiable greed of the wealthy elite who could care less about long term consequences. They can't even see past the next fiscal quarter.
Since man has been infected with the disease of Greed since the dawn of time, don't expect the "system" to change fast enough to prevent a massive impact or even its own demise.
Slashdot Mirror
Really it doesn't make much difference either way.
Unless you are as familiar with the codebase as its authors are (and you definitely won't be) and unless you are doing all of the compilation from source yourself (which you probably won't be), you're still more or less at the mercy of the software vendor.
Even if you read all of the source code they provide you with to "prove" the program doesn't do anything nefarious, there is no guarantee that the binary you install on your computers was based on the source code you read, and not some other version of that source code with a back-door installed.
So it comes down to the same thing -- you either trust your Anti-virus company not to spy on you, or you don't.
A world full of social media narcissists who post every detail about their lives online via dozens of apps that abuse 100 back-channels of telemetry and data aggregation is worried about Nation States stealing shit via hidden anti-virus code.
Fucking hell.
If you're looking for a horror story, read a EULA sometime.
Doesn't Windows come with a built-in antivirus these days?
"It's secure. Trust me."
After looking at the rather colorful history of the built-in browser, tends to make you wonder just how many times we're gonna believe that line...
San Francisco was never reduced to rubble by an earthquake. In the 1906 quake, more than 90% of the damage was caused by resulting fires, not the earthquake itself.
If the cause of the fires was in fact the earthquake, then you're splitting hairs here. We certainly don't segregate wind damage from water damage when talking about hurricanes.
And modern building codes are well equipped to deal with both earthquakes and fires, so it certainly wouldn't be reduced to rubble by an earthquake now.
The 1906 quake measured 7.8 on the scale. Not even close to our strongest quakes on record. Regardless of code improvements, the damage to such a densely populated area if a 9+ were to hit would be considerable. Not to mention cost. LA saw tens of billions of dollars in damage from a 6.7 quake in the 90s.
"Comcast dominates access in the city..."
Say no more.
When one of the largest cities in our entire country allows a fucking monopoly on internet service, there's only one true problem to solve for; the corruption that creates and sustains that shit.
If you're leasing your living space and lose a job, you're no worse off than if you were paying a similarly sized mortgage but you have the advantage of it being easier to move to a new city for new employment if need be.
I recently sold a house as part of moving for a job. I had lived in that house for around 8 years but because the housing market had been more or less flat, what little appreciation there was paid the realtor's fees. The job I was leaving was about a 60 minute commute from that house. Had I not owned, I probably would have come out ahead to rent nearer that job for the 5 years I worked there.
The moral of the story is that flexibility can have value.
There were may parts of the country that saw a considerable appreciation in the housing market over the last 8 years. What if ownership had rewarded you with enough profit to own another home and have it paid off in the next decade?
Freedom from financial burden is the ultimate flexibility.
Making a durable installation isn't fashion, it is the difference between making a donation and making a slave from people. Your coding BS has nothing on physical work, so give up the martyrdom attempts. Physical work must withstand the elements that it will be subject to from day #1, or not only will it not last but will spawn more expenses and costs including failing and killing people. Musk could have done a better job, but he chose not to. There are reasons for that that don't fit in your Ayn Rand bible, and that are unethical and immoral it not illegal in every other situation.
When I was speaking about rushed installs, I wasn't talking about coding BS. I was talking about physical work, so let's just stop with the assumptions.
It's not likely a permanent installation, so enough of the nit-picking over the install. There's a lot of blue tarps doing their job as a rooftop on Florida homes right now, and no homeowners are bitching about them not matching the color of their stucco. Falling and killing people? It's mounted on the ground in a parking lot, not suspended from a rooftop built to no-code standards. It's also mitigating the higher risk of killing people by not having a functioning hospital at all. Let's reserve the comments about people becoming enslaved by Tesla until that actually happens. Besides, the taxpaying masses have been chained to Big Oil and NASA budgets for half a century. EV, Solar, and SpaceX is working to better that situation. No one claimed it would be perfect.
No, capitalism involves a market and options - this is about creating an isolated fiefdom for Musk to rule. A crack-dealer isn't participating in capitalism either, for the same reasons. PR must refuse everything else Musk does after the emergency. The poorly installed panels are designed to be maintenance cost-cows for Musk, and they will have to be scrapped ASAP.
Speaking of options, where's the competition?
Oh that's right. It's a couple of inexperienced guys from Whitefish Energy who got that no-bid deal after lubing it with a 55-gallon drum of palm grease and corruption. I'm sure that isolated bucket of incompetence will pan out with maximum efficiency.
I refer back to my original statement of doing something rather than nothing. And nitpicking about the installation quality of a solar array is pathetic when the end result is a functional solution. I've put in plenty of rushed installs running against the clock in some of the worst environments imaginable. It's called function over fashion, especially when lives are at stake.
FEMA doesn't tack on a profit margin.
Rather ironic when speaking about the land of cushy pointless Federal jobs and $1000 toilet seats. I'd take the honesty of a profit margin over immeasurable corruption and financial incompetence.
You don't think Musk did this as wedge into a future captive market, one where he can charge billions once the media leaves?
Yes. It's called capitalism. Also known as exactly what I expect any company to do that sustains itself with net-positive revenue streams. He's also the guy doing something rather than nothing in the aftermath of a disaster.
Besides, Musk is too "evil" to qualify himself as a religious leader, so redefining as a tax-sheltered religion is off the table.
900 jobs, $10 billion tax subsidies, whatever fee was charged upfront, and whatever fees will be charged later. Musk is evil, and using kids for PR is par for the course.
Let's throw another log on the Musk Evil fire. How dare he try and help save lives.
FFS, talk about damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Boy, sure is a good thing FEMA is funded by Santa Claus so no taxpayers have to pay for rebuilding efforts when disasters hit the US...
>"the project's solar array, in a parking lot next to the hospital, has been liked more than 84,000 times since it was posted to Instagram"
While that is neat looking, is it temporary? It appears to fill almost the entire parking lot, leaving no place to park... Are there other lots? Looks like maybe 150 spots gone. Power is important, but parking is kinda important too, isn't it?
https://www.instagram.com/p/Ba...
When a facility such as a hospital does not have power, parking goes from relevant - pointless in 2 seconds flat.
There appears to be land available around them to expand the parking lot. Or build a parking garage, which could likely also serve as a future hurricane shelter.
I'm not being sarcastic. Who is demanding automation and voice activation? The reason there is a current push to automation and voice activation is FOR TRACKING AND DATA COLLECTION PURPOSES. It is amusing you think it is about what YOU want.
If no one was buying this shit, the automation industry wouldn't be in a constant state of growth. Doesn't matter who started it, or who didn't ask for it, or even what nefarious activity it drives. People DO use automation. A LOT of people. And none of them give a fuck about trading privacy or security for that convenience. Consumers are also lazier than ever, which is another reason automation and voice activation have become insanely popular, and ultimately drive demand. Look at the migration of authentication. PIN---Pattern---Touch---Face. Catering to lazy clearly sells product.
Yes, I agree that we often get tech features shoved down our throats that seemingly no one asked for. Google Glass is a good example of what happens when product fails to create demand. Amazon Alexa is a Prime example of the polar opposite.
Americans that own and fly planes aren't killing 40,000 people every year.
Now you're confounding the issue. Planes have a lower rate of fatalities both in total and per capita. Part of the reason for this is that the licensing and maintenance requirements are very demanding.
If airplane ownership started to create that kind of liabilty then yes, we would likely be talking about prohibiting ownership
No, we just regulated planes a long time ago, and we are starting to do so with cars now. In both cases, we aim to eliminate the risks where it is reasonably cost-effective to do so.
Smartphones are quickly becoming very deadly devices in the hands of human drivers. They'll soon kill more people in a year than planes will in a decade. Wonder when we're going to start addressing the cost-effectiveness of actual punishment as an effective deterrent to combat unnecessary death.
The cost equation is different for a plane with hundreds of passengers that can destroy an entire block of houses in a crash. In comparison, a single car can rarely destroy a single building or kill more than a dozen people. An errant plane can do so much damage that we established rules at the very beginning, and a single accident is enough to merit reconsideration of the rules.
Planes are highly regulated, and the end result is deaths measured in the hundreds per year.
Considering automobile deaths are measured in the tens of thousands per year, I wonder what the hell it takes to "merits reconsideration" of those rules.
Once autonomous vehicles become the norm, liability and legislation will work to prohibit owning the vehicle, due to the fear that consumers won't maintain the vehicles properly (software or hardware), putting others at high risk on the road. Car ownership will become obsolete.
I have to disagree with you here. It might become more expensive but car ownership won't become obsolete. Why? Because some of us tow boats, etc. and generic vehicles do not work for such applications. On top of that, there are going to have to be provisions for classic cars, which won't fit into the self-driving model.
Sure. They'll be provisions for classic cars, and the humans who insist they can still safely drive them.
However, liability will demand that insurance costs are appropriate. Once autonomous vehicles become the standard, $100/month now will become $1000/month in the future. That will be the cost for the luxury of a human driving a car equipped with 30-year old safety standards. At some point you will be driven off the road due to the cost.
Believe me I don't look forward to freedoms manipulated and destroyed by liability any more than we already have today. But rest assured, it's coming.
As far as getting watercraft into the water, that's what boat drones are for, if you can still afford boaters insurance...
They do? I'm pretty sure everyone is happy with PIN based logins. Does anyone even use Touch ID?
I can only assume you're being sarcastic here. Given the demand this generation has brought forth to automate and voice activate every damn thing, operating technology with as little effort as possible is now a design requirement.
PIN based logins would require someone to lift more than a finger, which is why I see a lot of people using Touch ID. And Face ID reinforces the fact that now even lifting a finger is too much effort.
Why own? Condominium: you take care of what's on the inside (HVAC, Water Heater, Appliances) you pay someone to maintain what's on the ouside Apartment: You pay someone to take care of everything Leased Car: You pay someone to take care of everything and turn it in after X months Lease Boat: You take it for the season and return it when you are done
People lose jobs all the time. Happens every day. The end result is an inability to sustain this do-it-for-me leased life. Then what?
Lease a car? Cars are not that fucking hard to maintain these days. Getting 150,000+ miles out of one has become the norm, not the exception. 10+ year lifespans are not uncommon, which means years of enjoying no car payment. Housing markets may rise and fall, and even crash at times, but one thing remains certain; owning a home outright means the shelter you need to sustain life cannot readily be taken from you.
Not having perpetual monthly payments for everything also brings me to my next point; saving money for retirement. Not quite sure how you're going to afford to continue to pay everyone else for the luxury of renting all the shit they own when employment ends. Retirement is defined today as that point in your life where it becomes physically or mentally impossible to sustain a job. That's something you plan for, not ignore and assume it will somehow never happen to you.
For 98% of people in the world ownership is a great big hassle.
Why am I not surprised that 98% of the people in the world are that shortsighted and ignorant about the true value of ownership.
liability and legislation will work to prohibit owning the vehicle, due to the fear that consumers won't maintain the vehicles
Wrong. Nothing prevents you from owning aircraft. Of course, you had better follow some very strict maintenance schedules if you want to operate them.
Americans that own and fly planes aren't killing 40,000 people every year. If airplane ownership started to create that kind of liabilty then yes, we would likely be talking about prohibiting ownership instead of merely enforcing enough regulation that ownership becomes cost prohibitive as it is today.
Cars are headed in that direction. You can own them, but you may eventually be forced into a maintenance schedule for safety reasons. We already have that in Europe, if you want to keep your licence plates, you have to pass a mandatory safety checkup every two years. (Brakes, steering, lights, glass, doors - they check anything that could be dangerous if missing/broken). So no old cars being driven around with a big hole in the floor, missing door, or brakes that work on one side only.
You can still own the car - and you may do your own maintenance if you like too.
Sadly, when it comes to the rather fucked legal landscape of liability, the rest of the planet cannot readily compare to the United States. For that reason, it's not easy to compare it to Europe. Hell, we used to have vehicle inspections in my state, to include emissions testing. For reasons unknown, those checks were removed some years ago. Due to the inexplicable nature of laws not following common sense, I would not expect anything less than a continuance of stupidity to the extreme in either direction, to include anything from no rules or regulations to removing car ownership altogether.
Yes, I get the fact that cigarettes are addictive. So is meth, heroin, and opium in a prescription bottle. That doesn't mean people need to become an drug addict in order to "understand" addicts or help them. Former addict is not a prerequisite to work at a treatment center or attend an AA meeting. Plenty of people who were addicted choose to become sober because of the impact of loved ones in their lives urging them to quit, and creating a support system. It's not always a life-threatening incident that creates a path to sobriety.
Read carefully. There is no such thing as a former addict.
If you become addicted to a substance, you will ALWAYS and forever more, be an addict. Addiction never stops. You don't get over it. It doesn't go away. It is as permanent as chopping off a limb.
Cigarettes are undoubtedly the most fucking horribly addictive product mankind has ever created. 480,000 Americans die every year from it, more than any other product. 7 million worldwide deaths per year. It remains our #1 cause of preventable death, and has held that crown for a long time. Alcohol is likely the next worst.
That said, not every addition creates a permanent effect as those I've outlined above. A good example would be the potheads I knew in high school. Smoked weed all day every day. They were addicts by every definition. After high school, they stopped using it. Never even had a small desire to go back to it. I also knew many who would occasionally use pot with zero chance of becoming a daily addict again.
Why would you want to repair it when you could throw it away and buy another?
- Epitaph of Planet Earth
Greed is the true problem mankind needs to solve for.
You want to own something you can't get repaired?
Merely pointing out the priority here.
There's little point in worrying about a cart if you have no horse.
Once autonomous vehicles become the norm, liability and legislation will work to prohibit owning the vehicle, due to the fear that consumers won't maintain the vehicles properly (software or hardware), putting others at high risk on the road. Car ownership will become obsolete.
Electronics ownership is already becoming obsolete due to the general risk and liability of insecurity. Manufacturers won't offer more than 2-3 years to cover the hardware, and security updates usually stop by then as well. We already essentially lease smartphones these days, placating to some form of forced upgrade every other year due to anything from a lack of support to irreplaceable failing batteries that inevitably mandate replacement. Desktops were something you could actually turn a proverbial wrench on, but no one buys desktops anymore. Repairing portable electronics? Are you kidding me? Wafer-thin designs and sealed chassis aren't easy for anyone to try and work on these days. Often times, it's not even worth the effort.
SaaS models are consuming our digital lives. We don't own DVDs or CDs anymore; we perpetually rent the ability to stream content. Same goes for many larger software suites that you now pay a monthly fee to simply maintain a usage license.
It's not the Right to Repair we need to be fighting for. It's fighting to preserve the Right to Ownership and get the fuck away from everything in your life being consumed at the "bargain" rate of only $9.99 per month.
...If you aren't addicted, you have zero chance of understanding it, and worse, a negative chance to change others. People that are addicted have to choose to change. Logic, proof, and all the AMA studies in the world won't move a truly addicted person one angstrom. Yes - it's not logical. But it is human nature.
Human nature also includes a general propensity to want to help others. You should probably be thankful for that. Without that human trait, there probably would be few doctors or nurses around to help save those who have heart attacks.
Yes, I get the fact that cigarettes are addictive. So is meth, heroin, and opium in a prescription bottle. That doesn't mean people need to become an drug addict in order to "understand" addicts or help them. Former addict is not a prerequisite to work at a treatment center or attend an AA meeting. Plenty of people who were addicted choose to become sober because of the impact of loved ones in their lives urging them to quit, and creating a support system. It's not always a life-threatening incident that creates a path to sobriety.
...your right to partake does not include the right to force others to imbibe in your vice as well. All I ask is that you consider how you'd feel of others felt they could force you to breathe flatulence. I doubt you'd be best pleased.
This is funny. I pictured a large group of flatulent fanatics attacking the vaping crowd by surrounding them in a fart flash mob. Don't light a match.
I thought this was an article of people getting paid $300-$500k/year for jobs. Well within the 1%. That's more than the president of my company made. Not all CEOs are billionaires.
I wasn't referring to the ones writing code. I was referring to the impact of that activity, and the risk of society not adopting quickly enough.
1. Most kids under 8 will not be searching for Porn, at this age it doesn't really interest them the same way it does say a 12 year old.
Hormones have existed since the dawn of time. And fine, replace 8-year old with 12-year old. Or 14-year old. What does it matter? Hardcore porn is still able to be accessed by a minor very easily, and ironically with the very tool given to them by their parents.
2. Tablets are in general safer to browse then PC.
I said porn, not virus. The infection is in the mind, not the PC.
3. Kids under 8 mostly have very poor reading and writing skills, and will not be able to fill out an online form to sign up to particular sites.
All it takes is a typo these days to accidentally stumble across hardcore porn. No sign-up necessary.
As well just like TV, Video Games... The child still needs to be monitored not just blindly abandoned, but the parent doesn't need to be actively participating in the child's activity for this time.
We're calling it a pacifier for a reason; so parents can assume someone or something else is taking on their responsibility for a while.
Not too surprising. Just as the Boomers, were suck in front of the TV, Gen X were given Video Games, Menials have Cell Phones. It makes scene that today's kids have the newest technology to pacify them. We can tout bad parenting... But in truth having an outlet where the child is out of your hands for an hour or so, it overall beneficial. Kids before that technology were just beaten if they were too much of a problem... So having a kid, watch a movie on a tablet in terms of perspective is a good thing.
Given the utter lack of controls being applied, is having a kid watch hardcore porn a "good thing"? Seems few adults really understand the dangers of the internet these days, and I'm willing to bet 99% of tablets in children's hands have an unfiltered internet connection. Perhaps it's time we start considering that perspective for a minute before labeling this a mere pacifier...
They aren't coding the demise of jobs, they are coding a change to the economy. as our current system won't work if no one has jobs. so it means that the entire system will need to change
As companies work to replace human cashiers with automated tellers, tell me again how the CEO gives a shit about the "entire system"? This is but one example. Rinse and repeat as automation drives forward.
That ever-widening gap between the 1% and the 99% represents a growing I-don't-give-a-shit mentality. The masses will eventually be unemployable, driven by the insatiable greed of the wealthy elite who could care less about long term consequences. They can't even see past the next fiscal quarter.
Since man has been infected with the disease of Greed since the dawn of time, don't expect the "system" to change fast enough to prevent a massive impact or even its own demise.