With regard to VPNs, however, I must disagree. VPNs are a valuable tool in subverting censorship and giving those who live in censored countries access to the information they need to make changes.
I spent 6 years behind the Great Firewall. I know what it's like to be in a country that controls the internet with a heavy hand. If all the VPNs pulled out it would just bolster the power of the oppressive governments.
We don't want "echo chambers". We want free and open discourse, the exchange of ideas, and mutual understanding between countries and cultures. The way to overthrow oppressive regimes is to give the citizens access to information, insight, and opinion and let them make their own decisions.
This is by far not nothing. Ever heard of a zip gun?
Yep. My dad and his buddies used to make them back in the 1930s. They're slow, unreliable, easy to spot on an airplane, and as likely to kill the shooter as whomever he's aiming at.
And, of course, on an airplane, you'd only get one shot (passengers would take you down while you try to reload--assuming they don't do it far earlier). The best you could hope for is shooting a hole through a window (which, depending on caliber, might not even happen.) This assumes that a person could A) assemble the parts of the zip gun B) handle and load the ammunition, and C) aim and fire the weapon--all without anyone else noticing.
One thing I've wondered is how the fix some things without a real lift - like if they need to replace some parts of the suspension. Seems like they would still have to take it to a real shop for some more advanced repairs.
Nope. Thousands of people do these repairs on their own cars in their garage or driveway. They use jacks, chain hoists, and ramps (depending on the repair). Lifting an entire car 7-feet in the air is a convenience, not a necessity.
Because I only pay for that song once. I can listen to it for the next 50 years without paying anything more, and it can't be "discontinued".
I have vinyl going back 70+ years. It was paid for once, and generations of our family can still listen to it.
If you want to rent your music and have its availability subject to the whims of someone else, that's your choice. Some of us, however, prefer ownership.
City governments may be looking at uneven wear patterns on bearings, rollers or belts that an escalator uses. I am guessing that keeping maintenance cycles down they would be saving money.
That's a valid point. But there's an easy solution to that: Alternate the sides. A lot of highways in the US have signs that say "Trucks use X lane". That lane changes to move the heavy vehicles to different lanes (and, thereby, extending the life of the road). It would be a simple (and cheap) solution to have digital signs that say "Stand on X side, Walk on Y side".
And... now you've tweaked my "inner engineer" to wonder which side puts more stress on the system. The "standing" lane is a constant, static load. The "walking" lane is an intermittent, dynamic load (of higher frequency).
Are there any mechanical engineers (or maintenance workers) who can chime in?
When one side isn't reserved for walkers, it saves time for everyone.
Let's call the escalator speed "1". If you have an escalator capable of holding two persons per step, the output would be 2/step-arrival if everyone stands still.
If 25% of the users are walkers, and ascend twice as fast as the escalator, that would result in a 2/sa metric. If more than 25% use the "walk" lane, throughput increases. If fewer use it, throughput decreases.
The critical factor is not "have a walk lane or not", it's "how do people use the escalator". And that is completely ignoring the "perception factor". A certain setup may be less efficient than the optimum, but if people like it better, it should be used. The amount of time and money spent dealing with complaints about the "better" system almost always outweigh the efficiency benefits.
Not just in Japan. I've been to quite a few countries in Asia, and the escalators are all "double-wide". In most places I've been, there are actually signs that say some version of "stand on the right, walk on the left".
Because deciding if "lab-grown pig" is the same as "real pig" is the start of the ethical discussion which we are likely to get to later: Is a "lab-grown person" the same as a "real person"?
If we are to have serious discussions about the ethics and morals of scientific discovery and pushing the limits of what we can do with it, it seems entirely reasonable to bring in the "experts" on ethics and morals. All the ethical issues that are being discussed with regards to modern technology and law are old-hat in religious circles.
Scientists (and geeks) are asking "when does AI become real sapience?" Religion has been asking the same question for millennia, but couching it in different jargon: "Who has a soul?" The debate over whether or not Judas was allowed into Heaven isn't about Judas; it's a debate about finding the line between forced action and personal choice (Judas was just fulfilling God's plan--but then he committed suicide, which is a mortal sin. Is he guiltless because God's plan drove him to do it?)
A good scientist looks at all sources of information--all tools--and uses anything relevant. Religious scholars are a great source of information and insight into almost every ethical issue facing science. Engaging religious leaders and listening to their arguments doesn't mean that science has to follow their advice. Dismissing them all as "useless" or "stupid" is irresponsible and negligent.
And... FWIW: I'm somewhere between "agnostic" and "atheist". I don't believe in God, but--like a good scientist--I'm aware you can't prove a negative; and if He were to knock on my door, I'd invite him in for a glass of scotch.
US Federal law prohibits the use of (added) hormones in most meat animals. The use of antibiotics (for treating illness) must be followed by sufficient time to clear the system before slaughter. The EU has similar legislation in place, and just passed even stricter legislation, set to take effect in 2020.
The meat you're buying right now is "hormone and antibiotic free"[1].
[1] All meat contains naturally-occurring hormones to some degree
Then you go ahead and pay more for such a phone--that's your choice.
Xiaomi operates differently--and they've never hidden this fact. They sell high-quality handsets at razor-thin margins, openly stating that they will make their money from advertisements, in-app purchases, add-ons, and up-sells. This is the way the economy works in China, India, and most of Asia. People there are happy to watch ads if it means they get a phone for under a third the price (iPhone 8 = $699, Xiaomi 8 = $204).
This whole kerfluffle just highlights how oblivious people are to how things work in the rest of the world.
Every company has a goal. It may be teaching kids, providing entertainment, or reaching Mars.
Goals require resources. Resources are purchased with money. If an asset does not bring in money--or provide access to others who bring in money, or preserve (or reduce loss of) assets--then they are a liability. A liability reduces the chance of a company reaching its goal.
You can't "go to Mars" without money. A lot of money. SpaceX isn't going to hire people who "sit around an dream of going to Mars". And SpaceX isn't going to Mars unless they can generate enough income to do so. And it's a fair bet that the reason they want to go to Mars is closely tied to making more money.
If SpaceX were a charitable organization (501(c)3 in US legal terms), then you might have an argument. However.... I've spent far too many hours at "fundraising events" for organizations that have goals that (supposedly) "don't involve money" to question even that.
There are organizations that are primarily focused on "giving", but they are few and far between. But even those run on money, and not some nebulous "having developers".
The goal of any company is to make money. They may restrict or target their approach, but the bottom line is... well... the bottom line.
The headline is "semantic bullshit". Does it mean "Devs are more valuable than a cash stack of cash"? or does it mean "Devs are more valuable than the income they can produce"?
For the former: Absolutely. As is every class of employee. That's the entire purpose of employees: to generate more income than it costs to employ them. (The only source of income for a company is sales. Every other department is there to support sales or reduce overhead.)
For the latter: Absolutely not. The only value of a company is money. Absolutely every other "thing of value" is given its value according to it's potential to bring in money or save money.
The premise assumes that "travel time = waste". That's a false assumption.
Let's assume a 2-hour commute (round-trip) for every work day. What is 2 hours worth to you?
The nearest city to me is about a 45-minute commute one-way. Were I to live there, the difference in cost of living between "in the city" and where I live (1.5 hours/day) would double my mortgage payment and double my property taxes. That would be about $20k per year.
It's not "wasted time". It's an investment with a higher ROI than living in the city. Add on quality of life and all those other things that can't be quantified in dollar amounts, and.... The author of the article has no clue.
Oh? Why didn't they respond when you were standing in their building lobby? Or do you not know what the interview stage means?
I think you misunderstand.
I participated in 3 interviews. We talked (on the phone or in person). They asked questions; I answered. I asked questions; they answered. It was an actual interview.
After having had the interviews, I received no further communication. As per my original post, I had to prompt 2 of them (who said "Oh. Yeah. We didn't choose you.") and one never replied at all. (And, thinking about it further, I had 2 other phone interviews that ended in limbo--zero communication after talking to them).
I've no clue what this "standing in the lobby" thing is supposed to mean.
I am willing to bet no one has ever gotten to the interview stage only to hear no correspondence anymore.
I've had it happen 3 times in the past year. Two of those times, the prospective employer responded when I contacted them again, and the other ceased all communication.
A) I might take you more seriously if you knew the difference between a "rite" and a "right", a "dam" & a "damn"--not to mention basic grammar.
B) I've "fought this fight" 3 times. I won twice. The other time I wasn't given the opportunity to directly contest the employer, and chose not to pursue it further.
If you fight against an actual wrong and get slapped down, I support your right to seek justice. If you act like a sheep, expect to get treated like a sheep. I've got zero sympathy.
The notion that "We can't protest because the big bad corporations will be mean to us" is absolute bullshit. To put it colloquially: Y'ain't willing to fight for it? It ain't yours.
I got no stomach for sheep--less'n they're properly seasoned and roasted on a spit, sliced thin, and served on pita bread with onions, tomatoes, and tsatziki sauce.
OSHA is a federal agency, so it frequently attracts staff (especially inspectors) that aren't on the same side as the state businesses. That's a double-edged sword, certainly, but it may have been a balance in this situation.
And... That guy you used to work with probably had fair standing for an unlawful-termination suit under a host of ADA and Whistleblower laws & regs. If you need to call the feds, do so--but document *everything* you can. "A few months" shouldn't matter if you can provide credible evidence of retaliation. Not proof, just "credible evidence". That's enough to bring out the lawyers--and that costs the company money.
It only takes a couple lawsuits (or just one) for management to realize that it's far cheaper to just buy the desk. $500 desk.... $5M lawsuit that costs a minimum of $50k in lawyer fees before it even gets to court.... Hey! Here's that desk you want.
Hell... a devious company worth its salt would have written policies for these sorts of situations that say "Of course we'll provide it for you.... just meet these non-discriminatory criteria that have been approved by our legal department and are in no way labyrinthine and incomprehensible."
1) OSHA. If it's a safety violation, don't just ignore it (or jury-rig a solution)--call it in.
2) It took her "a few weeks" to "push for" workman's comp? That's a day-one call. If you don't get it, you call the state Dept. of Labor (whatever the name is in that particular state).
3) When she came back, the guard was still not in place? a) refuse to work until it's fixed. b) see point (1).
Would a union help this? Probably. But unions also come with downsides (I've been a member of 3 unions and interacted with a few hundred). The plaintiff could have dealt with this a long time ago if she'd just called the appropriate government agencies--they *love* to fine big corporations for safety violations. Unions fought for--and got--these laws. But they're meaningless if people don't use them to protect themselves.
Honestly? 10 minutes on Google should have given this woman all the correct answers she needed to solve the issues. The original safety issues fall on Amazon, but after that? Most of her problems are the result of her "waiting for someone to fix it", rather than using the tools available to her.
There are too many people for the current population to survive in the manner described>
That's been said for 50 years. And it's always been wrong. in 1968 Paul Erlich said that the (then) current population of the world was unsustainable. That population was about half of what it is today, and by almost every measurable criteria, we're doing far better now than we were then.
You're parroting a meme that's long dead. It's the Malthusian Catastrophe scenario. And it's been wrong for over 50 years.
I'm done with this thread.
You're right. And the hundreds of years of economic actions that allowed for the creation of the computer you are using to post on the internet to this website... are wrong and should be abolished..
Got it..
If you're looking to escape the "wrecking [of] this planet", might I suggest the northwoods of Minnesota or Wisconsin, or the foothills of Montana or the Dakotas. You'll need to learn how to subsistence farm--though in MN & WI you can get quite a bit by "gathering". And you'll need to learn how to hunt (I guess with a bow, since guns are part of that abstract thing that is "wrecking this planet"--and you wouldn't want to participate in that) and, of course skin and butcher your meat. I'd suggest canning the veggies you get, but that would require purchasing mason jars and canning lids (to avoid botulism--and the resulting painful death), and freezing things would require purchasing "planet-wrecking" freezer. So you'll have to dry everything. Hopefully it's sunny wherever you choose to live..
And... I'm sorry to say that things will get rather bleak as you get older. When your eyesight goes and the arthritis sets in, it's going to be a pain in the ass to walk to the outhouse (plumbing is a major part of the economy, therefore bad...right?)..
Agreed. I border on a Freegan -- most of my "stuff" except for food is either second-hand or street finds.
Which requires that someone else:
A) Purchases those things new
and
B) Purchases something newer and/or better to replace those things
If everyone adopted your way of life, it would collapse in upon itself within a decade or less (completely ignoring the economic impact resulting from the lack of purchasing new products).
Slashdot Mirror
In most cases, I agree with you.
With regard to VPNs, however, I must disagree. VPNs are a valuable tool in subverting censorship and giving those who live in censored countries access to the information they need to make changes.
I spent 6 years behind the Great Firewall. I know what it's like to be in a country that controls the internet with a heavy hand. If all the VPNs pulled out it would just bolster the power of the oppressive governments.
We don't want "echo chambers". We want free and open discourse, the exchange of ideas, and mutual understanding between countries and cultures. The way to overthrow oppressive regimes is to give the citizens access to information, insight, and opinion and let them make their own decisions.
This is by far not nothing. Ever heard of a zip gun?
Yep. My dad and his buddies used to make them back in the 1930s. They're slow, unreliable, easy to spot on an airplane, and as likely to kill the shooter as whomever he's aiming at.
And, of course, on an airplane, you'd only get one shot (passengers would take you down while you try to reload--assuming they don't do it far earlier). The best you could hope for is shooting a hole through a window (which, depending on caliber, might not even happen.) This assumes that a person could A) assemble the parts of the zip gun B) handle and load the ammunition, and C) aim and fire the weapon--all without anyone else noticing.
One thing I've wondered is how the fix some things without a real lift - like if they need to replace some parts of the suspension. Seems like they would still have to take it to a real shop for some more advanced repairs.
Nope. Thousands of people do these repairs on their own cars in their garage or driveway. They use jacks, chain hoists, and ramps (depending on the repair). Lifting an entire car 7-feet in the air is a convenience, not a necessity.
Because I only pay for that song once. I can listen to it for the next 50 years without paying anything more, and it can't be "discontinued".
I have vinyl going back 70+ years. It was paid for once, and generations of our family can still listen to it.
If you want to rent your music and have its availability subject to the whims of someone else, that's your choice. Some of us, however, prefer ownership.
Farmers don't make the cheese. They raise cows that produce milk.
City governments may be looking at uneven wear patterns on bearings, rollers or belts that an escalator uses. I am guessing that keeping maintenance cycles down they would be saving money.
That's a valid point. But there's an easy solution to that: Alternate the sides. A lot of highways in the US have signs that say "Trucks use X lane". That lane changes to move the heavy vehicles to different lanes (and, thereby, extending the life of the road). It would be a simple (and cheap) solution to have digital signs that say "Stand on X side, Walk on Y side".
And... now you've tweaked my "inner engineer" to wonder which side puts more stress on the system. The "standing" lane is a constant, static load. The "walking" lane is an intermittent, dynamic load (of higher frequency).
Are there any mechanical engineers (or maintenance workers) who can chime in?
Let's call the escalator speed "1". If you have an escalator capable of holding two persons per step, the output would be 2/step-arrival if everyone stands still.
If 25% of the users are walkers, and ascend twice as fast as the escalator, that would result in a 2/sa metric. If more than 25% use the "walk" lane, throughput increases. If fewer use it, throughput decreases.
The critical factor is not "have a walk lane or not", it's "how do people use the escalator". And that is completely ignoring the "perception factor". A certain setup may be less efficient than the optimum, but if people like it better, it should be used. The amount of time and money spent dealing with complaints about the "better" system almost always outweigh the efficiency benefits.
Not just in Japan. I've been to quite a few countries in Asia, and the escalators are all "double-wide". In most places I've been, there are actually signs that say some version of "stand on the right, walk on the left".
Because deciding if "lab-grown pig" is the same as "real pig" is the start of the ethical discussion which we are likely to get to later: Is a "lab-grown person" the same as a "real person"?
If we are to have serious discussions about the ethics and morals of scientific discovery and pushing the limits of what we can do with it, it seems entirely reasonable to bring in the "experts" on ethics and morals. All the ethical issues that are being discussed with regards to modern technology and law are old-hat in religious circles.
Scientists (and geeks) are asking "when does AI become real sapience?" Religion has been asking the same question for millennia, but couching it in different jargon: "Who has a soul?" The debate over whether or not Judas was allowed into Heaven isn't about Judas; it's a debate about finding the line between forced action and personal choice (Judas was just fulfilling God's plan--but then he committed suicide, which is a mortal sin. Is he guiltless because God's plan drove him to do it?)
A good scientist looks at all sources of information--all tools--and uses anything relevant. Religious scholars are a great source of information and insight into almost every ethical issue facing science. Engaging religious leaders and listening to their arguments doesn't mean that science has to follow their advice. Dismissing them all as "useless" or "stupid" is irresponsible and negligent.
And... FWIW: I'm somewhere between "agnostic" and "atheist". I don't believe in God, but--like a good scientist--I'm aware you can't prove a negative; and if He were to knock on my door, I'd invite him in for a glass of scotch.
US Federal law prohibits the use of (added) hormones in most meat animals. The use of antibiotics (for treating illness) must be followed by sufficient time to clear the system before slaughter. The EU has similar legislation in place, and just passed even stricter legislation, set to take effect in 2020.
The meat you're buying right now is "hormone and antibiotic free"[1].
[1] All meat contains naturally-occurring hormones to some degree
Then you go ahead and pay more for such a phone--that's your choice.
Xiaomi operates differently--and they've never hidden this fact. They sell high-quality handsets at razor-thin margins, openly stating that they will make their money from advertisements, in-app purchases, add-ons, and up-sells. This is the way the economy works in China, India, and most of Asia. People there are happy to watch ads if it means they get a phone for under a third the price (iPhone 8 = $699, Xiaomi 8 = $204).
This whole kerfluffle just highlights how oblivious people are to how things work in the rest of the world.
Every company has a goal. It may be teaching kids, providing entertainment, or reaching Mars.
Goals require resources. Resources are purchased with money. If an asset does not bring in money--or provide access to others who bring in money, or preserve (or reduce loss of) assets--then they are a liability. A liability reduces the chance of a company reaching its goal.
You can't "go to Mars" without money. A lot of money. SpaceX isn't going to hire people who "sit around an dream of going to Mars". And SpaceX isn't going to Mars unless they can generate enough income to do so. And it's a fair bet that the reason they want to go to Mars is closely tied to making more money. If SpaceX were a charitable organization (501(c)3 in US legal terms), then you might have an argument. However.... I've spent far too many hours at "fundraising events" for organizations that have goals that (supposedly) "don't involve money" to question even that.
There are organizations that are primarily focused on "giving", but they are few and far between. But even those run on money, and not some nebulous "having developers".
The goal of any company is to make money. They may restrict or target their approach, but the bottom line is... well... the bottom line. The headline is "semantic bullshit". Does it mean "Devs are more valuable than a cash stack of cash"? or does it mean "Devs are more valuable than the income they can produce"?
For the former: Absolutely. As is every class of employee. That's the entire purpose of employees: to generate more income than it costs to employ them. (The only source of income for a company is sales. Every other department is there to support sales or reduce overhead.)
For the latter: Absolutely not. The only value of a company is money. Absolutely every other "thing of value" is given its value according to it's potential to bring in money or save money.
The premise assumes that "travel time = waste". That's a false assumption. Let's assume a 2-hour commute (round-trip) for every work day. What is 2 hours worth to you?
The nearest city to me is about a 45-minute commute one-way. Were I to live there, the difference in cost of living between "in the city" and where I live (1.5 hours/day) would double my mortgage payment and double my property taxes. That would be about $20k per year.
It's not "wasted time". It's an investment with a higher ROI than living in the city. Add on quality of life and all those other things that can't be quantified in dollar amounts, and.... The author of the article has no clue.
Oh? Why didn't they respond when you were standing in their building lobby? Or do you not know what the interview stage means?
I think you misunderstand.
I participated in 3 interviews. We talked (on the phone or in person). They asked questions; I answered. I asked questions; they answered. It was an actual interview.
After having had the interviews, I received no further communication. As per my original post, I had to prompt 2 of them (who said "Oh. Yeah. We didn't choose you.") and one never replied at all. (And, thinking about it further, I had 2 other phone interviews that ended in limbo--zero communication after talking to them).
I've no clue what this "standing in the lobby" thing is supposed to mean.
I am willing to bet no one has ever gotten to the interview stage only to hear no correspondence anymore.
I've had it happen 3 times in the past year. Two of those times, the prospective employer responded when I contacted them again, and the other ceased all communication.
A) I might take you more seriously if you knew the difference between a "rite" and a "right", a "dam" & a "damn"--not to mention basic grammar.
B) I've "fought this fight" 3 times. I won twice. The other time I wasn't given the opportunity to directly contest the employer, and chose not to pursue it further.
If you fight against an actual wrong and get slapped down, I support your right to seek justice. If you act like a sheep, expect to get treated like a sheep. I've got zero sympathy.
The notion that "We can't protest because the big bad corporations will be mean to us" is absolute bullshit. To put it colloquially: Y'ain't willing to fight for it? It ain't yours.
I got no stomach for sheep--less'n they're properly seasoned and roasted on a spit, sliced thin, and served on pita bread with onions, tomatoes, and tsatziki sauce.
OSHA is a federal agency, so it frequently attracts staff (especially inspectors) that aren't on the same side as the state businesses. That's a double-edged sword, certainly, but it may have been a balance in this situation.
And... That guy you used to work with probably had fair standing for an unlawful-termination suit under a host of ADA and Whistleblower laws & regs. If you need to call the feds, do so--but document *everything* you can. "A few months" shouldn't matter if you can provide credible evidence of retaliation. Not proof, just "credible evidence". That's enough to bring out the lawyers--and that costs the company money.
It only takes a couple lawsuits (or just one) for management to realize that it's far cheaper to just buy the desk. $500 desk.... $5M lawsuit that costs a minimum of $50k in lawyer fees before it even gets to court.... Hey! Here's that desk you want. Hell... a devious company worth its salt would have written policies for these sorts of situations that say "Of course we'll provide it for you.... just meet these non-discriminatory criteria that have been approved by our legal department and are in no way labyrinthine and incomprehensible."
1) OSHA. If it's a safety violation, don't just ignore it (or jury-rig a solution)--call it in.
2) It took her "a few weeks" to "push for" workman's comp? That's a day-one call. If you don't get it, you call the state Dept. of Labor (whatever the name is in that particular state).
3) When she came back, the guard was still not in place? a) refuse to work until it's fixed. b) see point (1).
Would a union help this? Probably. But unions also come with downsides (I've been a member of 3 unions and interacted with a few hundred). The plaintiff could have dealt with this a long time ago if she'd just called the appropriate government agencies--they *love* to fine big corporations for safety violations. Unions fought for--and got--these laws. But they're meaningless if people don't use them to protect themselves.
Honestly? 10 minutes on Google should have given this woman all the correct answers she needed to solve the issues. The original safety issues fall on Amazon, but after that? Most of her problems are the result of her "waiting for someone to fix it", rather than using the tools available to her.
There are too many people for the current population to survive in the manner described>
That's been said for 50 years. And it's always been wrong. in 1968 Paul Erlich said that the (then) current population of the world was unsustainable. That population was about half of what it is today, and by almost every measurable criteria, we're doing far better now than we were then. You're parroting a meme that's long dead. It's the Malthusian Catastrophe scenario. And it's been wrong for over 50 years. I'm done with this thread.
It's not an either/or choice -- you seem to be framing it as one.
No, you do. I'm mocking that.
Ah. I see.
You're right. And the hundreds of years of economic actions that allowed for the creation of the computer you are using to post on the internet to this website... are wrong and should be abolished..
Got it..
If you're looking to escape the "wrecking [of] this planet", might I suggest the northwoods of Minnesota or Wisconsin, or the foothills of Montana or the Dakotas. You'll need to learn how to subsistence farm--though in MN & WI you can get quite a bit by "gathering". And you'll need to learn how to hunt (I guess with a bow, since guns are part of that abstract thing that is "wrecking this planet"--and you wouldn't want to participate in that) and, of course skin and butcher your meat. I'd suggest canning the veggies you get, but that would require purchasing mason jars and canning lids (to avoid botulism--and the resulting painful death), and freezing things would require purchasing "planet-wrecking" freezer. So you'll have to dry everything. Hopefully it's sunny wherever you choose to live..
And... I'm sorry to say that things will get rather bleak as you get older. When your eyesight goes and the arthritis sets in, it's going to be a pain in the ass to walk to the outhouse (plumbing is a major part of the economy, therefore bad...right?)..
TL;DR:.
Grow up.
FYI: Most local colleges let you audit Econ 101 for a very affordable price.
Agreed. I border on a Freegan -- most of my "stuff" except for food is either second-hand or street finds.
Which requires that someone else: A) Purchases those things new and B) Purchases something newer and/or better to replace those things If everyone adopted your way of life, it would collapse in upon itself within a decade or less (completely ignoring the economic impact resulting from the lack of purchasing new products).
NO, the best solution is to quit consuming stuff you don't fucking need.
Stuff like... computers, internet access, and electricity?