Voting with your wallet is indeed one approach and not opposed to the approach taken with DDT
The "indeed one approach" was the only one mentioned in the post I was replying to. It did not mention that take any approach "not opposed to" voting with your wallets.
BTW government banning things suo moto is also "one approach" and it is also "not opposed to" "voting with your wallets". Posting on/. is also one approach and this approach is also not opposed to voting with your wallets.
If you are only arguing against approaches " opposed " to voting with your wallets, you are highly unlikely to ever get any from me ; and somewhat less likely to get anywhere in/.
industry tends to be good at coming up with clever ways of solving sticky problems if profits are at stake
In most of the world, they already solved it. By buying the laws to not make it mandatory for industries to be responsible for recycling their product.
Why were the buyers of pesticides not allowed to let "market forces" determine which pesticide to use ? If DDT were truly as bad as it was made out to be, people wouldn't buy it, would they ?
Hinduism and Buddhism both have multiple interpretations - but largely both do not prohibit contraception. Large families are not encouraged directly by religious texts, or "experts" - seers, Gurus, monks.
If religious types in India and Nepal are starting to encourage large families for Hindus - it is largely due to their Muslim phobia. To avoid having a larger proportion of Muslims, and hence Muslim voters, Hindus are urged to have larger families. They say so explicitly, very nearly always when encouraging large families for Hindus. Even they don't believe that Hinduism in itself has any role in encouraging large families.
Poor Muslim couples having 10 kids is a narrative that has many takers. Middle class Muslim couples having 2 kids are ignored.
Indeed they should be happy if automation kills 1/3rd of the jobs but leaves the remaining workers better off in terms of pay & conditions -- that's surely in the interest of the workers to get more money after all.
Have you heard of diminishing marginal utility ? Zero pay for some people is surely an infinite misery for them : whereas higher pay for some people is a finite, sometimes a small joy.
Got it. Every software in "the field of user-behavior analytics" works exactly the same.
BTW I have written a search engine for my 23.2 MB personal notes. That qualifies me to comment on how Google works internally. Source code shmource code - what matters is that I comment on it with confidence.
Even if the phone call to SWAT were completely correct : the person that appears on the door could easily have been a hostage. Who was made to behave in these ways by the "terrorist". Having 2 motivations : escaping the bullet of the "terrorist" and indicating secretly his predicament to police - he behaved seemingly weirdly.
By "completely correct" I mean the SWAT caller could have not noticed a few hostages, or a new hostage could have been acquired after the call so SWAT could not have depended on only the list of hostages specified to them. But even if the content of the call to SWAT, if it were completely true, police still ended up potentially killing the hostage.
This determination that a person appearing may be a hostage and hence behaving weirdly - did not have to be taken in the field of potential fire. This could have been planned / discussed in advance and taught in all hostage training manuals of last 2000 years.
Rest assured based on what evidence that you just provided ?
They are in the business of making overall profit. Along the way, a few racist decisions to sacrifice some unlucky people are not at all a diversion from that purpose.
No I don't - because that was Top Gear's claim. Not Tesla's.
That is OK, I am looking for more evidence but not finding any. Not that you helped. Nor did the original poster who is filling slashdot with fanboyism of Tesla. Other websites "admitting" on behalf of TopGear is not my idea of evidence.
I am completely open to TopGear being in the wrong. But the court did not convict TopGear , and did not entertain Tesla's complaint. It is a mild evidence in favour of TopGear.
If you needed evidence to believe things, you would be as undecided here as I am. So there is a mild evidence to show you don't need evidence to believe things. It is possible that you have the evidence and you are not providing it. In which case you are the classic case of troll - not that I mind.
So TopGear pretended to drive 55 miles and then pretended to push the car, charge the car, all the motions one would go through if Tesla is not lying about its own car.
Which BBC knew about as soon as it got them in court, which was the point to begin with.
No, TopGear knew about it much before "it" got them in court because they did the whole thing. This was definitely not the point to begin with. The point is that you believe Superman actually flies in a TV programme and it is not "staged".
Talking about BBC here might confuse things further - you are already quite confused about who is authorized to admit on behalf of whom, so keeping things simple by talking about TopGear vs Tesla. If your actual point is about BBC (as opposed to TopGear), you have not made it yet.
Tesla told TopGear that the car would last 55 miles on TopGear's track, remember ? So TopGear pretended to drive 55 miles and then pretended to push the car, charge the car, all the motions one would go through if Tesla is not lying about its own car. It's a TV programme, everything is staged.
Anyway, since you like people admitting on behalf of others : I can admit for you that YOU are being willfully obtuse. Whenever you want.
It is difficult to prove a negative, but I only find evidence of a judge throwing out the claim of Tesla twice. I don't find any evidence of TopGear admitting anything in court in this case.
Of course, if you find evidence, I will admit it freely.
As of hair splitting, Uberbah has already admitted that he loves hair splitting , I quote:
If "not mind" necessarily has the meaning "to accept", why are you unable to replace "accept" with "not mind" in the snippet from your post that I quoted earlier ?
No other race has been subjected to such self-guilt that they are expected to hold their heads in perpetual shame.
Would Christianity make any sense without the original sin - that the individual believing in Christianity hasn't even committed himself ? Isn't a Christian self-selected for propensity for holding their heads in perpetual shame for no fault of their own ?
The definition of socialist, also, then, should be uncontaminated with politics. Socialism was hijacked long before liberalism - so its contamination has reached the root - but actually socialism just means a perspective of the welfare of the society as opposed to individuals looking out for their own welfare.
"Ownership", "means of production", "government", "goods" are all concepts tacked on to it by the hijack. In the real un-hijacked definition, none of these things even need to exist or matter.
Indeed, the BBC has admitted [jalopnik.com] that the
Why is BBC admitting things on jalopnik.com ? Appears fishy. Do you have a BBC or topgear page about it ? Especially since the widely quoted statement from Andy Wilman is completely different : https://www.theguardian.com/en... .
Though it is also fishy that the blog is not accessible anymore - but I don't see people worrying too much about keeping blogs for 7 years. Topgear seems to have moved to blogging in different ways - unlikely they would move their whole blog platform for a Tesla controversy.
Slashdot Mirror
Voting with your wallet is indeed one approach and not opposed to the approach taken with DDT
The "indeed one approach" was the only one mentioned in the post I was replying to. It did not mention that take any approach "not opposed to" voting with your wallets.
BTW government banning things suo moto is also "one approach" and it is also "not opposed to" "voting with your wallets". Posting on /. is also one approach and this approach is also not opposed to voting with your wallets.
If you are only arguing against approaches " opposed " to voting with your wallets, you are highly unlikely to ever get any from me ; and somewhat less likely to get anywhere in /.
Others have given some reasons, here is one more :
Make-up industry is worth billions of dollars per year. Most of their product is not as smudge free as they want it to be.
industry tends to be good at coming up with clever ways of solving sticky problems if profits are at stake
In most of the world, they already solved it. By buying the laws to not make it mandatory for industries to be responsible for recycling their product.
The post of yours I replied to, said "vote with their wallets". There was no voting with any wallets in the case of DDT.
I welcome your change of opinion.
Why were the buyers of pesticides not allowed to let "market forces" determine which pesticide to use ? If DDT were truly as bad as it was made out to be, people wouldn't buy it, would they ?
If you're that worried about it then you should start a campaign to educate people about it
Was DDT banned due to lots of people voicing their opinions on it ? Or was it banned undemocratically, with a mandate from powers that be ?
About technical matters, where the populace is not expected to understand the implications of their choice, how are decisions taken in your world ?
Hinduism and Buddhism both have multiple interpretations - but largely both do not prohibit contraception. Large families are not encouraged directly by religious texts, or "experts" - seers, Gurus, monks.
If religious types in India and Nepal are starting to encourage large families for Hindus - it is largely due to their Muslim phobia. To avoid having a larger proportion of Muslims, and hence Muslim voters, Hindus are urged to have larger families. They say so explicitly, very nearly always when encouraging large families for Hindus. Even they don't believe that Hinduism in itself has any role in encouraging large families.
Poor Muslim couples having 10 kids is a narrative that has many takers. Middle class Muslim couples having 2 kids are ignored.
The infinite cost that I an talking about is being inflicted on people who are currently employees. Whom the unions represent currently.
Indeed they should be happy if automation kills 1/3rd of the jobs but leaves the remaining workers better off in terms of pay & conditions -- that's surely in the interest of the workers to get more money after all.
Have you heard of diminishing marginal utility ? Zero pay for some people is surely an infinite misery for them : whereas higher pay for some people is a finite, sometimes a small joy.
Got it. Every software in "the field of user-behavior analytics" works exactly the same.
BTW I have written a search engine for my 23.2 MB personal notes. That qualifies me to comment on how Google works internally. Source code shmource code - what matters is that I comment on it with confidence.
https://www.theguardian.com/co...
http://ide.mit.edu/news-blog/b...
Even if the phone call to SWAT were completely correct : the person that appears on the door could easily have been a hostage. Who was made to behave in these ways by the "terrorist". Having 2 motivations : escaping the bullet of the "terrorist" and indicating secretly his predicament to police - he behaved seemingly weirdly.
By "completely correct" I mean the SWAT caller could have not noticed a few hostages, or a new hostage could have been acquired after the call so SWAT could not have depended on only the list of hostages specified to them. But even if the content of the call to SWAT, if it were completely true, police still ended up potentially killing the hostage.
This determination that a person appearing may be a hostage and hence behaving weirdly - did not have to be taken in the field of potential fire. This could have been planned / discussed in advance and taught in all hostage training manuals of last 2000 years.
Why even have more than a headline if we are going to assume everything is known?
So that we can proudly claim to not have read the article or summary. Duh. You have a lot to catch up on ;)
Just kidding, actually I agree with you.
So Facebook is indulging in the childish argument of "pics or it didn't happen".
Rest assured based on what evidence that you just provided ?
They are in the business of making overall profit. Along the way, a few racist decisions to sacrifice some unlucky people are not at all a diversion from that purpose.
Wow! You must have their source code , for such detailed insight into its behaviour.
No I don't - because that was Top Gear's claim. Not Tesla's.
That is OK, I am looking for more evidence but not finding any. Not that you helped. Nor did the original poster who is filling slashdot with fanboyism of Tesla. Other websites "admitting" on behalf of TopGear is not my idea of evidence.
I am completely open to TopGear being in the wrong. But the court did not convict TopGear , and did not entertain Tesla's complaint. It is a mild evidence in favour of TopGear.
If you needed evidence to believe things, you would be as undecided here as I am. So there is a mild evidence to show you don't need evidence to believe things. It is possible that you have the evidence and you are not providing it. In which case you are the classic case of troll - not that I mind.
So TopGear pretended to drive 55 miles and then pretended to push the car, charge the car, all the motions one would go through if Tesla is not lying about its own car.
Which BBC knew about as soon as it got them in court, which was the point to begin with.
No, TopGear knew about it much before "it" got them in court because they did the whole thing. This was definitely not the point to begin with. The point is that you believe Superman actually flies in a TV programme and it is not "staged".
Talking about BBC here might confuse things further - you are already quite confused about who is authorized to admit on behalf of whom, so keeping things simple by talking about TopGear vs Tesla. If your actual point is about BBC (as opposed to TopGear), you have not made it yet.
Tesla told TopGear that the car would last 55 miles on TopGear's track, remember ? So TopGear pretended to drive 55 miles and then pretended to push the car, charge the car, all the motions one would go through if Tesla is not lying about its own car. It's a TV programme, everything is staged.
Anyway, since you like people admitting on behalf of others : I can admit for you that YOU are being willfully obtuse. Whenever you want.
It is difficult to prove a negative, but I only find evidence of a judge throwing out the claim of Tesla twice. I don't find any evidence of TopGear admitting anything in court in this case.
Of course, if you find evidence, I will admit it freely.
As of hair splitting, Uberbah has already admitted that he loves hair splitting , I quote :
I love hair splitting - Uberbah
Hence proved that Uberbah loves hair splitting ;)
Wow, yet another instance of dishonesty.
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
Accept (2) can be the consequence of not minding. But it is not used for gifts : which you used it for. Accept (1) is for gifts.
Do you never talk to educated people in person , who could catch your dishonesty ?
One more assertion.
If "not mind" necessarily has the meaning "to accept", why are you unable to replace "accept" with "not mind" in the snippet from your post that I quoted earlier ?
One more assertion.
If "not mind" necessarily means "to accept", why can't you replace "accept" with "not mind" in your sentence that I quoted earlier ?
No other race has been subjected to such self-guilt that they are expected to hold their heads in perpetual shame.
Would Christianity make any sense without the original sin - that the individual believing in Christianity hasn't even committed himself ? Isn't a Christian self-selected for propensity for holding their heads in perpetual shame for no fault of their own ?
The definition of socialist, also, then, should be uncontaminated with politics. Socialism was hijacked long before liberalism - so its contamination has reached the root - but actually socialism just means a perspective of the welfare of the society as opposed to individuals looking out for their own welfare.
"Ownership", "means of production", "government", "goods" are all concepts tacked on to it by the hijack. In the real un-hijacked definition, none of these things even need to exist or matter.
Indeed, the BBC has admitted [jalopnik.com] that the
Why is BBC admitting things on jalopnik.com ? Appears fishy. Do you have a BBC or topgear page about it ? Especially since the widely quoted statement from Andy Wilman is completely different : https://www.theguardian.com/en... .
Though it is also fishy that the blog is not accessible anymore - but I don't see people worrying too much about keeping blogs for 7 years. Topgear seems to have moved to blogging in different ways - unlikely they would move their whole blog platform for a Tesla controversy.
I already explained to you why "not mind" necessarily means "to accept". I won't repeat myself.
No , you just asserted it.
If "not mind" necessarily means "to accept", why can't you replace "accept" with "not mind" in your sentence that I quoted earlier ?