Youth is vibrant, active, fun, alive, colorful, energetic, and just plain better than being old.
Well, uhhh... ok. There are plenty of counters to that, but I don't want to argue against it, so I'll let it stand. But...
We need to focus far more resources and people towards anti-aging.
You just undercut your first argument with your second. Anti-aging basically means that you're stealing from the young. Or not allowing the young to exist in the first place, because space is taken by the old. Increasing the span of life means that every person has to be responsible for, on average, fewer children. How many fewer depends on how long we can extend life. If everyone was immortal, the replacement rate would have to limited to the murder/accidental death rate.
You have to be careful not to step on human feces in certain places.
In SF do not lean against a wall until you look first. In multiple visits I have seen homeless people actually shitting against the side of buildings.
These are not homeless. They are residents shitting on either municipal or tech companies property as a form of protest.
There are plenty of real homeless. SF spends tons of money on them, and the weather is far more inclement towards allowing homelessness than in many other areas of the country. Therefore, many travel to SF to be homeless.
Muir Woods is more like 554 acres, and sees only 6000 people per day during peak times. Far more than 3 acres and far less than eleventy billion visitors to share it with. And Muir Woods is only part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area which protects over 80,000 acres of land. This doesn't even count the numerous large parks within the city, like the Golden Gate Park, Presidio, and Land's End. Or the smaller neighborhood parks like Lafayette or Alta Plaza.
The "popular" section of Muir Woods sees most of that 6000 visitors, enough so that you're almost shoulder to shoulder with them. No surprise, it's the giant coastal redwoods that are the big attraction. There might be some lovely parts to the park that aren't nearly as traveled, but a much better bank for the travel buck if you're into giant sequoias is to spend the extra hour of travel time and head north to Armstrong Redwoods state preserve. Not very many visitors, some of the tallest trees in the world, and nice picnic areas.
In other words, there isn't a particularly high proportion of gay people in SF.
And there isn't a particularly high proportion of gambling in Vegas.
Sure.
The Castro used to be a gay mecca, but housing prices have gone up so high in the last 20 years that if you're not in tech, you're pretty much being priced out of the city.
Robocalls need no exemptions. Except for appointments I really appreciate getting a reminder a day before.
If companies can be considered persons enough that their unlimited campaign contributions can be considered "free speech," then I would think that a political call would absolutely be considered protected speech that the government cannot legislate against. I mean, the barrier to free political speech is pretty low now.
The middle class is being pushed out because of real estate developers taking advantage of the demand by the tech industry employees who have higher incomes. These middle class people are the writers, artists, musicians and other lower paid professions that made San Francisco such a vibrant place. The developers by up housing properties, evict the tenants and build higher priced housing that the former renters can no longer afford.
This is a totally predictable problem following the standard rules of supply and demand. The demand has been growing higher and higher and higher. I'm not entirely sure why so many people want to live in SF, it's a mystery to me too, but they do. Constricted supply and increasing demand will always lead to higher prices.
I mean, who wouldn't swoon at getting 720 whole square feet of 'living' space for only $3490 a month? Or $6800 a month for 1165 square feet? Hell, my rec room is almost that big. Or $9500 for 2500 square feet- that's about the size of my place but at ten times the cost and that's for renting, not owning.
Unless you have a ton of tech stock and you can afford SF prices, or you have 0 money and am an artist/beatnik/whatever and are caught up in the housing crisis, then chances are you don't use your SF home as a home anyway. It's more like a place to crash. You're probably some dot-com dude working 60+ hours a week, go out for dinner afterwards, maybe to a bar, and you come home late. Sure the studio lofts are the size of a rec room, but you don't need a large rec room to sit on a couch and watch TV for a few hours before bed. Even less room for a simple computer desk where you can play CoD or work on a python script before falling into bed.
Those places are not used for living, so no surprise that you don't get a lot of space.
They by definition are generally NOT REPRODUCING offspring....hence, you'd not be having many families in the area.
They still have the option of adopting children... which they apparently are not doing so much, either.
They do now, but for many many years, a gay couple adopting faced near-insurmountable hurdles. A friend of mine is in a gay relationship, and he had the hardest time gaining permanent custody of his nephew after the kid's father went to jail, mother checked into drug rehab, and grandmother was caught molesting him.
That requires a significantly increased police presence with tougher enforcement, and reversing the "homeless friendly" attitude which has made SF their mecca
Most residents of the area are not very homeless-friendly, but for whatever reason, they tend to vote** for their mayors and representatives based on their support/opposition to national issues, not local. Also, the various homeless advocacy groups wield incredible power. If you get on their bad side, you're in for a world of hurt since there's not much organized opposition.
This is too bad because growing up in a safe city is far better than suburban life. Kids gain travel freedom equivalent to their parents the moment they get a transit pass (no getting rides logistics to worry about). Hell one Saturday while I was in middle school I planned and took a solo day trip to Philadelphia from NYC
WHAT?? Are you talking about letting a kid go someplace without strict adult supervision? That is a VERY non-millenial and non-paniced reaction to have. Your parents are lucky people weren't calling child protection services on them all the time.
But I think having nature around rather than grey concrete buildings is much better for kids anyway.
** When they vote at all, that is. Voting locally does not seem to be that "liberal" of a thing to do.
The hate brigade have been chanting "dmca bad, dmca bad" for 20 years. You can't seriously expect an unbiased debate now.
The DMCA is a clear restriction on the rights of everyone in order to benefit a few, giving them special protections and rights (such as protections against reverse engineering) that they never had before. What is not to hate about that? 'Hate brigade?' Maybe everyone who hears about it dislikes it because it seems like such a bad idea on principle.
Since the software is in effect the operator of the vehicle
That's where your argument breaks down. The human is the operator of the vehicle, regardless of what software it's running.
The code is going to be the operator of the car. Right now it is not, but it will be. There's not a huge upside to all of this self-driving without that being the case. That's always been the end goal -- to have a car drive itself completely, such that the human doesn't even have to look at the road. The other big promise is a car that can drive itself without anyone inside of it. That's coming, too.
They banded together to fight proposals they disagreed with. Are you saying that the Dems aren't going to do the same now with Trump?
Democrats are pussies. They don't have the balls to have a united front. They rolled over for George Bush, they'll do the same for Trump. Sure, they'll grumble and stammer a lot, but they're far too "reach across the aisle" to make a united front.
Cats kill songbirds. Turbines kill raptors. Huge population differences. That's like comparing mice to wolves.
That's right. Wind farms get government waivers that allows them to kill raptors. The same government will charge me with a felony for picking up a feather I find on my property.
Unless you're a Native American, and then still not in every circumstance.
Ummm, unlike dogs, cats aren't fully domesticated. Some cats are outdoor type that only come in for warmth, protection, and regular food. It would be cruel to lock them in.
All cats -can- be indoor cats, but have to be kept indoors from birth. Once they start getting outside, then they're indoor/outdoor cats that you hold indoors.
They can be a threat for things like eagles that are already threatened and reproduce slowly, but wind turbines otherwise just don't kill enough birdies to matter, compared to, say, cats. Cats kill about a hundred times more birds, because they're good at it, and there's so many more of them than wind turbines.
There are not too many cats that can, or are dumb enough, to go after an eagle! Maybe a coon cat..
Well, I will admit that hardcore leftists are, one hand, very "Diversity is beautiful, we have our differences, and those should be celebrated." Then on the other hand, they will pull the "you don't believe in our particular doctrine, or are using the wrong terms so you deserve to lose your job/be shunned/be out on the street/shouted down at any event/etc." So they want it both ways. Their philosophy is quite change-oriented, but they brook no opposition. I'm not sure that 'brooking no opposition' is liberal as opposed to conservative. 'Inflexibility' is neither liberal nor conservative.
Yup, you're old. You forgot to shake your fist and tell those streams to get off your lawn, though.
I want streaming to be a good experience. I really do. But the technology is not there yet, and the legal restrictions make it a truly frustrating (and very expensive) environment.
The SJWs are very strongly against "the way things have been done," whether it's traditional gender roles or racism or class conflict or sexism or whatever -ism is fashionable to dislike at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
Meanwhile, AC trollers just shitpost all over everyone. I think I know which I prefer.
Youth is vibrant, active, fun, alive, colorful, energetic, and just plain better than being old.
Well, uhhh... ok. There are plenty of counters to that, but I don't want to argue against it, so I'll let it stand. But...
We need to focus far more resources and people towards anti-aging.
You just undercut your first argument with your second. Anti-aging basically means that you're stealing from the young. Or not allowing the young to exist in the first place, because space is taken by the old. Increasing the span of life means that every person has to be responsible for, on average, fewer children. How many fewer depends on how long we can extend life. If everyone was immortal, the replacement rate would have to limited to the murder/accidental death rate.
You have to be careful not to step on human feces in certain places.
In SF do not lean against a wall until you look first. In multiple visits I have seen homeless people actually shitting against the side of buildings.
These are not homeless. They are residents shitting on either municipal or tech companies property as a form of protest.
There are plenty of real homeless. SF spends tons of money on them, and the weather is far more inclement towards allowing homelessness than in many other areas of the country. Therefore, many travel to SF to be homeless.
Muir Woods is more like 554 acres, and sees only 6000 people per day during peak times. Far more than 3 acres and far less than eleventy billion visitors to share it with. And Muir Woods is only part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area which protects over 80,000 acres of land. This doesn't even count the numerous large parks within the city, like the Golden Gate Park, Presidio, and Land's End. Or the smaller neighborhood parks like Lafayette or Alta Plaza.
The "popular" section of Muir Woods sees most of that 6000 visitors, enough so that you're almost shoulder to shoulder with them. No surprise, it's the giant coastal redwoods that are the big attraction. There might be some lovely parts to the park that aren't nearly as traveled, but a much better bank for the travel buck if you're into giant sequoias is to spend the extra hour of travel time and head north to Armstrong Redwoods state preserve. Not very many visitors, some of the tallest trees in the world, and nice picnic areas.
In other words, there isn't a particularly high proportion of gay people in SF.
And there isn't a particularly high proportion of gambling in Vegas.
Sure.
The Castro used to be a gay mecca, but housing prices have gone up so high in the last 20 years that if you're not in tech, you're pretty much being priced out of the city.
Robocalls need no exemptions. Except for appointments I really appreciate getting a reminder a day before.
If companies can be considered persons enough that their unlimited campaign contributions can be considered "free speech," then I would think that a political call would absolutely be considered protected speech that the government cannot legislate against. I mean, the barrier to free political speech is pretty low now.
The weather there isn't good, it is terrible. Rainy and cloudy most of the time and not very warm. It's a dump if you ask me.
Not lately. Usually it doesn't rain at all (not a drop) between April and November, not even in San Francisco.
The middle class is being pushed out because of real estate developers taking advantage of the demand by the tech industry employees who have higher incomes. These middle class people are the writers, artists, musicians and other lower paid professions that made San Francisco such a vibrant place. The developers by up housing properties, evict the tenants and build higher priced housing that the former renters can no longer afford.
This is a totally predictable problem following the standard rules of supply and demand. The demand has been growing higher and higher and higher. I'm not entirely sure why so many people want to live in SF, it's a mystery to me too, but they do. Constricted supply and increasing demand will always lead to higher prices.
I mean, who wouldn't swoon at getting 720 whole square feet of 'living' space for only $3490 a month? Or $6800 a month for 1165 square feet? Hell, my rec room is almost that big. Or $9500 for 2500 square feet- that's about the size of my place but at ten times the cost and that's for renting, not owning.
Unless you have a ton of tech stock and you can afford SF prices, or you have 0 money and am an artist/beatnik/whatever and are caught up in the housing crisis, then chances are you don't use your SF home as a home anyway. It's more like a place to crash. You're probably some dot-com dude working 60+ hours a week, go out for dinner afterwards, maybe to a bar, and you come home late. Sure the studio lofts are the size of a rec room, but you don't need a large rec room to sit on a couch and watch TV for a few hours before bed. Even less room for a simple computer desk where you can play CoD or work on a python script before falling into bed.
Those places are not used for living, so no surprise that you don't get a lot of space.
They by definition are generally NOT REPRODUCING offspring....hence, you'd not be having many families in the area.
They still have the option of adopting children ... which they apparently are not doing so much, either.
They do now, but for many many years, a gay couple adopting faced near-insurmountable hurdles. A friend of mine is in a gay relationship, and he had the hardest time gaining permanent custody of his nephew after the kid's father went to jail, mother checked into drug rehab, and grandmother was caught molesting him.
That requires a significantly increased police presence with tougher enforcement, and reversing the "homeless friendly" attitude which has made SF their mecca
Most residents of the area are not very homeless-friendly, but for whatever reason, they tend to vote** for their mayors and representatives based on their support/opposition to national issues, not local. Also, the various homeless advocacy groups wield incredible power. If you get on their bad side, you're in for a world of hurt since there's not much organized opposition.
This is too bad because growing up in a safe city is far better than suburban life. Kids gain travel freedom equivalent to their parents the moment they get a transit pass (no getting rides logistics to worry about). Hell one Saturday while I was in middle school I planned and took a solo day trip to Philadelphia from NYC
WHAT?? Are you talking about letting a kid go someplace without strict adult supervision? That is a VERY non-millenial and non-paniced reaction to have. Your parents are lucky people weren't calling child protection services on them all the time.
But I think having nature around rather than grey concrete buildings is much better for kids anyway.
** When they vote at all, that is. Voting locally does not seem to be that "liberal" of a thing to do.
The hate brigade have been chanting "dmca bad, dmca bad" for 20 years. You can't seriously expect an unbiased debate now.
The DMCA is a clear restriction on the rights of everyone in order to benefit a few, giving them special protections and rights (such as protections against reverse engineering) that they never had before. What is not to hate about that? 'Hate brigade?' Maybe everyone who hears about it dislikes it because it seems like such a bad idea on principle.
That's where your argument breaks down. The human is the operator of the vehicle, regardless of what software it's running.
The code is going to be the operator of the car. Right now it is not, but it will be. There's not a huge upside to all of this self-driving without that being the case. That's always been the end goal -- to have a car drive itself completely, such that the human doesn't even have to look at the road. The other big promise is a car that can drive itself without anyone inside of it. That's coming, too.
Their products, their rules. Don't like them? Walk.
It's called the right of first sale.
Looks like a sale, smells like a sale, then it's a sale, and it's not their product anymore.
Those years are well and truly over, Bernie Sanders and Trump both pretty much shattered that consensus.
I'm not sure, it didn't seem like Sanders was the base of the Democratic Party, and he didn't run it for the last year.
They banded together to fight proposals they disagreed with. Are you saying that the Dems aren't going to do the same now with Trump?
Democrats are pussies. They don't have the balls to have a united front. They rolled over for George Bush, they'll do the same for Trump.
Sure, they'll grumble and stammer a lot, but they're far too "reach across the aisle" to make a united front.
We keep trying, and they keep turning into really really weird minority parties that are crazier than the existing ones...
Or getting absorbed into the major two parties, like the Tea Party did.
Come on man, are you totally blind to who the support base for the Hollywood studios who wrote and pushed for the DMCA are?
And who will buy a car that will need to go to the dealer for an oil change each 3000 miles?
No problem, the car will just drive itself to the dealership at night when it's due, then drive back home after the change is done!
Cats kill songbirds. Turbines kill raptors. Huge population differences. That's like comparing mice to wolves.
That's right. Wind farms get government waivers that allows them to kill raptors. The same government will charge me with a felony for picking up a feather I find on my property.
Unless you're a Native American, and then still not in every circumstance.
Ummm, unlike dogs, cats aren't fully domesticated. Some cats are outdoor type that only come in for warmth, protection, and regular food. It would be cruel to lock them in.
All cats -can- be indoor cats, but have to be kept indoors from birth. Once they start getting outside, then they're indoor/outdoor cats that you hold indoors.
They can be a threat for things like eagles that are already threatened and reproduce slowly, but wind turbines otherwise just don't kill enough birdies to matter, compared to, say, cats. Cats kill about a hundred times more birds, because they're good at it, and there's so many more of them than wind turbines.
There are not too many cats that can, or are dumb enough, to go after an eagle!
Maybe a coon cat..
Well, I will admit that hardcore leftists are, one hand, very "Diversity is beautiful, we have our differences, and those should be celebrated." Then on the other hand, they will pull the "you don't believe in our particular doctrine, or are using the wrong terms so you deserve to lose your job/be shunned/be out on the street/shouted down at any event/etc." So they want it both ways. Their philosophy is quite change-oriented, but they brook no opposition. I'm not sure that 'brooking no opposition' is liberal as opposed to conservative. 'Inflexibility' is neither liberal nor conservative.
Yup, you're old. You forgot to shake your fist and tell those streams to get off your lawn, though.
I want streaming to be a good experience. I really do. But the technology is not there yet, and the legal restrictions make it a truly frustrating (and very expensive) environment.
The SJWs are very strongly against "the way things have been done," whether it's traditional gender roles or racism or class conflict or sexism or whatever -ism is fashionable to dislike at the moment.