If I ever see your "friend" talking and driving around me, I'll shoot him in the fucking face.
You need to look out the window more. Probably 25-50% of the cars I pass are talking on their phones in my town. And that's not even counting the people like my friend who use a handsfree headset. I'm actually surprised that only 25% of accidents involve someone using a cellphone.
Far better than the assumption that they would have had the accident anyway. The figures aren't sensationalist when they're true.
They aren't true. They are meaningless. I have a friend who is a real estate agent who is always on his phone when he is in the car. Close to 100%. Extrapolating out these meaningless statitics to 100% it would mean that if everybody constantly talked on their phones while in the car like my friend then 100% of all accidents are caused by cell phone use.
These stats are the equivalent of saying 1 in 4 accidents involve the radio or 1 in 4 accidents involve someone drinking a soft drink while driving. People talk on cell phones, listen to the radio, and drink soft drinks while driving but that doesn't mean any of the 3 cause a 25% increase in accidents anymore than saying 25% of accidents involve passengers means that the passengers are a direct cause of the accidents.
That's why I made the distinction of "superstitious hope". If you have a miserable existance and are not enjoying this life, hanging on to the belief that it'll be better in the next life if I do a good job in this life helps ease the pain and give you something to look forward to. The inverse though is that if you're a nihlist and don't believe there is any point of life and there is no next life then you probably have a greater drive to find a way to at least enjoy your current life.
Last I checked - this week - even young 22 year old university graduates are facing uncertain job prospects these days.
There is no shortage of jobs. There is also no shortage of employees. Mostly what there is is a mismatch in pay. Companies don't want to pay what it takes to get good talent and good talent doesn't want to take jobs that pay less than average. There are lots of programming jobs for someone decent if they are willing to work for 50k. There are also plenty of programmers if you are willing to pay 100k. The perceived shortage on both sides is caused by the spread. The company I work for is always hiring and can't find any programmers solely because they are unable and/or unwilling to pay the price necessary to attract them.
So if the average graduate at age 22, spent 4 years learning the latest and greatest and is obsolete at age 40, that makes his degree good for 18 years. Couldn't that same person at age 40 go back to school for 4 years, graduate at age 44 and be good for another 18 years which would get him all the way to age 62 and ready to retire.
He is combining several common plotlines into a single exagerated story. There are multiple movies I know of where someone gets amnesia from falling off a boat. "Overboard" and "Bourne Identity" are two that I know but I guarantee there are several more and tons where someone gets amnesia and/or unknowningly falls in love with a relative, etc.. but none that I know of that are these exact parameters.
You have a bug zapper which is able to detect not only distinguish a mosquito from a fly but also distinguish a male mosquito from a female mosquito. You are worried that it will be unable to tell the difference between you and a mosquito.
I do not know what to say to that.
You don't think a fluttering piece of paper, fabric, etc... might not eventually cause a false positive? Also, unlike in star wars, lasers don't actually stop after a short distance. If you are using them to either target and/or kill the target, they will eventually miss or go right through, etc... A backdrop would solve the problem but then that kindof defeats the advantage of being able to identify them from several meters away.
Let's see, an automated laser that can fry bugs from several meters away based on learned heuristics in an optimal environment and then presumably ment to operate within close proximity of humans. What happens when this system overshoots it's target or misidentifies some random body part or body accessory as a target?
Yes, in the stricted sense, a product is only the sum of it's inputs whether that input is labor,sunlight,expertise,etc... but that's not the view typically taken in economics and that would mean that wealth is never created. If I can make 2 tables a year and 4 chairs a year and you can make 1 table a year and 8 chairs a year, then in both cases there is the same amount of labor involved but if I only make tables and you only make chairs and we trade then we both come out ahead. In economics one of the inputs is usually either labor or capital in order to generate something out the other end but that doesn't mean it's a zero sum game. A zero sum game typically means that as a whole everyone would be better off not playing. That's not the case with converting labor/money into something else of value.
Running a farm does not create wealth. You assume that by someone generating an income, they are creating wealth. The problem with this assumption is income is complex: it comes exclusively from other people losing exactly as much money, and so is zero-sum. It's all the other assets and all the other effects that you must examine.
Generating income is not a zero sum game. If I buy a car and fix it up. I have created wealth. If I buy a box of lumber and create a table. I have created more wealth for me and for the person I sell the table for who otherwise would have to spend their own time/energy/expertise/etc... making the table. Likewise running a farm very much does create wealth. If I grow tomatoes in a garden in my backyard, I am creating something that didn't exist before, reducing the scarcity of tomatoes, and generating wealth for me and the people I sell those tomatoes to.
Taxing consumption disproportionately hits the lower and middle classes, who consume a greater percentage of their income than do the upper classes.
This is true if you tax equally. What many countries do is charge progressively more for water/electricity the more you consume per capita. This makes having a large house, being inefficient, etc... more costly. To me this is a better solution that taxing income directly.
Taxing income taxes you for ripping people off. Note, ripping people off is not the same thing as generating wealth. Or you can buy $1 of raw materials and sell $1 of finished goods (at cost, below market rate), turning no profit, and paying no taxes. In either case, the same amount of wealth (indeed, the same end product) is generated.
WRONG. Wealth is created when you spend time/energy turning that raw material into something worth more to someone. A cabinet is worth more than a pile of lumber. You didn't rip someone off. You created value. If I buy an old car, fix it up, and sell it for more I didn't rip someone off because I bought it for less than I sold it for it is actually worth more now.
Taxing consumption is taxing income. Tarrifs are market meddling.
Taxing consumption is not the same as taxing income at all. Taxing consumption in the way of sales tax, luxury tax, etc... taxes you for consuming resources. Taxing income taxes you for generating wealth. It penalizes you for creating value. As we have a finite amount of resources and wealth it makes a lot more sense to tax someone for consuming resources that it does to tax someone for creating resources and wealth. I realize for someone living paycheck to paycheck that these are sometimes close to the same but for the wealthy there is a huge difference between someone like Warren Buffet who creates alot of wealth and spends very little of it and someone like Paris Hilton that consumes alot of resources with a lavish lifestyle.
You and the OP are still seeing the wrong side of this....
Why is there an estate tax of 45% upon anyone's death!!! That income has been taxed already. Bequeathment is not a fucking INCOME issue.
I think YOU are seeing the wrong side of it. Why is taxing income the best way to tax people? Income is wealth generation, we shouldn't tax it. Taxing consumption would be much better. Originally in the USA estate tax was the only form of taxes. This also makes sense to me as you're only taxing people after they are dead. Especially today as people generally live long enough to see their grandchildren established, I think this is a great idea. Taxing people after they are dead with maybe an exception for people who die while still having young dependents seems like the least painful way of collecting revenue for the government. And as far as the "that income has been taxed already", all money has been taxed already, most forms of taxes including income tax, sales tax, estate tax, etc... are a tax on the transfer of money from one person or company to another.
i doubt there would be much gain from such a group. Maybe at first but eventually discord will ruin it - unless a new religion evolves from it.
You mean like the same kind of discord that has caused splintering and created thousands of different denominations? You can't group all the different non-religious into the same group anymore than you can group all "non-country music" into the same group. I think that's one of the reasons that these groups don't really exist. You wouldn't just need one such group, you would need dozens of such groups in order for non-religious people to have a high probability of finding a group that mostly fits them.
As much as people hate facebook and their fixed format, I think myspace's downfall was that it allowed too much customization. Facebook is a glorified address book. It's "friend list" is what holds it together. It would be nice if eventually facebook/google+/etc... talked together like pidgin allows for icq/msn/etc... but until then people will continue to use the ones that have the most critical mass.
You can do any of those things without all the associated religious nuttery involved.
It's hard to get the common group of values without religion and it's impossible to get the delusion of hope without religion. The delusion of hope probably has a huge evolutionary value during times of hardship. This may be why religion starts to fade anytime society becomes more prosperous. When you are struggling to survive having a little extra hope that everything will turn out ok makes you more likely to keep working towards the goal of surviving and also probably more likely to try to reproduce and protect your offspring. Once you are no longer fighting to survive, the advantages of hanging on to superstitious hope diminishes.
The point isn't just prayer/meditation. It's that religion combines a half dozen or so different activities together that are good for your health. There are currently no non-religious avenues that I know of that provide the complete package like religions do. Yes, you can meditate, take philosophy classes, join a book club, try to find like minded people, start a supper club, make a pact with people to take care of each other when sick, etc... but it's alot more work than to just "accept" a religion and they do all the work for you. I know plenty of "non-religious" people that are members of church just for the social and other benefits. There are even books and articles written about the many benefits an atheist gets "for free" by joining a church. I also know people who joined a church for the social and latter got sucked into the doctrine or joined the church because "it was the first place I felt like I really belonged" People also join gangs for the same reason but the point is, that sense of belonging is an important part of the human psyche and is why many people are drawn to and stay with religion even if they don't believe it.
No only that but if you are suffering with an inoperable condition chances are that they'll have to morn your passing very soon anyways so it seems less selfish to say goodbye to everyone and save them the extra months of suffering.
But the footage can be lost and blamed on an "off" camera.
If I was on a jury and it came down to a "he said/she said debate" then I would probably be more likely to side with the cop. On the other hand, if I was on a jury and the cop had a head mounted camera which was off, malfunctioning, or had missing footage then I would immediately favor the other person as I assume most people would. As a cop it would be in your best interest to leave it on as any attempt to turn it off would look like an attempt to cover up evidence.
If they acclimate. My dog has been around fire all her life and is still scared to death of it even at a safe distance. Wild animals don't necessarily acclimate to everything especially if it is something (like a car) that they know causes harm. It's not like roads provide food. On a non-busy road (which is where most deer accidents occur), a deer would be glad to avoid you if they had a reliable early warnings.
You wouldn't need to run high voltage up and down every road to acheive the same effect. A small light like wreckers or volunteer fire/police use except in the UV spectrum would probably do the trick. Would also want to check and make sure it was legal first so you don't get charged with "impersonating a cop" but if it was restricted to the UV spectrum you should be fine.
So just encrypt it before you upload it. problem solved. If I were to use it, I would probably use it for archiving. I would prefer rsync but for the average person it would probably be enough to just upload a zip file of last year's photos. It would be easy enough to encrypt it while you were zipping it.
I'm the exact opposite. For me, the streaming is what I want and the 2-day shipping is just a bonus. Why bundle and force everyone to pay for things they don't use? Some people want the streaming, some people want the free expedited shipping and some people want the kindle sharing. It would be better to sell them individually and then maybe offer a discount for people that bundle. $80/year was not a bad deal for streaming as it was slightly cheaper than netflix with slightly better (for me) selection. $99 is a deal breaker for me as I only ever used the streaming and now netflix is cheaper and doesn't charge me a full year at a time.
Slashdot Mirror
If I ever see your "friend" talking and driving around me, I'll shoot him in the fucking face.
You need to look out the window more. Probably 25-50% of the cars I pass are talking on their phones in my town.
And that's not even counting the people like my friend who use a handsfree headset. I'm actually surprised that
only 25% of accidents involve someone using a cellphone.
When are we going to see a call for idiots to be banned from driving?
Google is working on this. As soon as they outlaw talking while driving and raise the insurance for people who don't have self driving cars.
Politicians are idiots, so its not going to ahppen anytime soon
Alot of politicians already don't drive: http://www.theguardian.com/lif...
Far better than the assumption that they would have had the accident anyway.
The figures aren't sensationalist when they're true.
They aren't true. They are meaningless. I have a friend who is a real estate
agent who is always on his phone when he is in the car. Close to 100%.
Extrapolating out these meaningless statitics to 100% it would mean that
if everybody constantly talked on their phones while in the car like my friend
then 100% of all accidents are caused by cell phone use.
These stats are the equivalent of saying 1 in 4 accidents involve the radio
or 1 in 4 accidents involve someone drinking a soft drink while driving.
People talk on cell phones, listen to the radio, and drink soft drinks while
driving but that doesn't mean any of the 3 cause a 25% increase in accidents
anymore than saying 25% of accidents involve passengers means that
the passengers are a direct cause of the accidents.
That's why I made the distinction of "superstitious hope". If you have a miserable existance and are not enjoying
this life, hanging on to the belief that it'll be better in the next life if I do a good job in this life helps ease the pain
and give you something to look forward to. The inverse though is that if you're a nihlist and don't believe there is
any point of life and there is no next life then you probably have a greater drive to find a way to at least enjoy your
current life.
Last I checked - this week - even young 22 year old university graduates are facing uncertain job prospects these days.
There is no shortage of jobs. There is also no shortage of employees. Mostly what there is is a mismatch in pay.
Companies don't want to pay what it takes to get good talent and good talent doesn't want to take jobs that pay less
than average. There are lots of programming jobs for someone decent if they are willing to work for 50k. There are
also plenty of programmers if you are willing to pay 100k. The perceived shortage on both sides is caused by the spread.
The company I work for is always hiring and can't find any programmers solely because they are unable and/or unwilling
to pay the price necessary to attract them.
So if the average graduate at age 22, spent 4 years learning the latest and greatest and is obsolete at age 40,
that makes his degree good for 18 years. Couldn't that same person at age 40 go back to school for 4 years,
graduate at age 44 and be good for another 18 years which would get him all the way to age 62 and ready to
retire.
Pardon the ignorance, what are you referencing?
He is combining several common plotlines into a single exagerated story. There are multiple movies I know of
where someone gets amnesia from falling off a boat. "Overboard" and "Bourne Identity" are two that I know but
I guarantee there are several more and tons where someone gets amnesia and/or unknowningly falls in love with a
relative, etc.. but none that I know of that are these exact parameters.
You have a bug zapper which is able to detect not only distinguish a mosquito from a fly but also distinguish a male mosquito from a female mosquito. You are worried that it will be unable to tell the difference between you and a mosquito.
I do not know what to say to that.
You don't think a fluttering piece of paper, fabric, etc... might not eventually cause a false positive?
Also, unlike in star wars, lasers don't actually stop after a short distance. If you are using them to
either target and/or kill the target, they will eventually miss or go right through, etc... A backdrop
would solve the problem but then that kindof defeats the advantage of being able to identify them
from several meters away.
Let's see, an automated laser that can fry bugs from several meters away based on learned heuristics in an optimal
environment and then presumably ment to operate within close proximity of humans.
What happens when this system overshoots it's target or misidentifies some random body part or body accessory as
a target?
Yes, in the stricted sense, a product is only the sum of it's inputs whether that input is labor,sunlight,expertise,etc... but that's
not the view typically taken in economics and that would mean that wealth is never created.
If I can make 2 tables a year and 4 chairs a year and you can make 1 table a year and 8 chairs a year, then in both cases there
is the same amount of labor involved but if I only make tables and you only make chairs and we trade then we both come out ahead.
In economics one of the inputs is usually either labor or capital in order to generate something out the other end but that doesn't
mean it's a zero sum game. A zero sum game typically means that as a whole everyone would be better off not playing.
That's not the case with converting labor/money into something else of value.
Running a farm does not create wealth.
You assume that by someone generating an income, they are creating wealth. The problem with this assumption is income is complex: it comes exclusively from other people losing exactly as much money, and so is zero-sum. It's all the other assets and all the other effects that you must examine.
Generating income is not a zero sum game. If I buy a car and fix it up. I have created wealth.
If I buy a box of lumber and create a table. I have created more wealth for me and for the person I sell the table for who
otherwise would have to spend their own time/energy/expertise/etc... making the table.
Likewise running a farm very much does create wealth. If I grow tomatoes in a garden in my backyard, I am
creating something that didn't exist before, reducing the scarcity of tomatoes, and generating wealth for me and the people
I sell those tomatoes to.
Taxing consumption disproportionately hits the lower and middle classes, who consume a greater percentage of their income than do the upper classes.
This is true if you tax equally. What many countries do is charge progressively more for water/electricity the more you consume per capita.
This makes having a large house, being inefficient, etc... more costly. To me this is a better solution that taxing income directly.
Taxing income taxes you for ripping people off. Note, ripping people off is not the same thing as generating wealth.
Or you can buy $1 of raw materials and sell $1 of finished goods (at cost, below market rate), turning no profit, and paying no taxes.
In either case, the same amount of wealth (indeed, the same end product) is generated.
WRONG. Wealth is created when you spend time/energy turning that raw material into something worth more to someone.
A cabinet is worth more than a pile of lumber. You didn't rip someone off. You created value.
If I buy an old car, fix it up, and sell it for more I didn't rip someone off because I bought it for less than I sold it for it is
actually worth more now.
Taxing consumption is taxing income. Tarrifs are market meddling.
Taxing consumption is not the same as taxing income at all.
Taxing consumption in the way of sales tax, luxury tax, etc... taxes you for consuming resources.
Taxing income taxes you for generating wealth. It penalizes you for creating value.
As we have a finite amount of resources and wealth it makes a lot more sense to tax someone for
consuming resources that it does to tax someone for creating resources and wealth.
I realize for someone living paycheck to paycheck that these are sometimes close to the same
but for the wealthy there is a huge difference between someone like Warren Buffet who creates
alot of wealth and spends very little of it and someone like Paris Hilton that consumes alot of
resources with a lavish lifestyle.
You and the OP are still seeing the wrong side of this....
Why is there an estate tax of 45% upon anyone's death!!! That income has been taxed already. Bequeathment is not a fucking INCOME issue.
I think YOU are seeing the wrong side of it. Why is taxing income the best way to tax people? Income is wealth generation,
we shouldn't tax it. Taxing consumption would be much better. Originally in the USA estate tax was the only form of taxes.
This also makes sense to me as you're only taxing people after they are dead. Especially today as people generally live long
enough to see their grandchildren established, I think this is a great idea. Taxing people after they are dead with maybe an
exception for people who die while still having young dependents seems like the least painful way of collecting revenue for
the government. And as far as the "that income has been taxed already", all money has been taxed already, most forms of
taxes including income tax, sales tax, estate tax, etc... are a tax on the transfer of money from one person or company to another.
i doubt there would be much gain from such a group. Maybe at first but eventually discord will ruin it - unless a new religion evolves from it.
You mean like the same kind of discord that has caused splintering and created thousands of different denominations?
You can't group all the different non-religious into the same group anymore than you can group all "non-country music"
into the same group. I think that's one of the reasons that these groups don't really exist. You wouldn't just need one
such group, you would need dozens of such groups in order for non-religious people to have a high probability of
finding a group that mostly fits them.
As much as people hate facebook and their fixed format, I think myspace's downfall was that it allowed too much
customization. Facebook is a glorified address book. It's "friend list" is what holds it together. It would be nice
if eventually facebook/google+/etc... talked together like pidgin allows for icq/msn/etc... but until then people will
continue to use the ones that have the most critical mass.
You can do any of those things without all the associated religious nuttery involved.
It's hard to get the common group of values without religion and it's impossible to get the delusion of hope
without religion. The delusion of hope probably has a huge evolutionary value during times of hardship.
This may be why religion starts to fade anytime society becomes more prosperous. When you are
struggling to survive having a little extra hope that everything will turn out ok makes you more likely to
keep working towards the goal of surviving and also probably more likely to try to reproduce and protect
your offspring. Once you are no longer fighting to survive, the advantages of hanging on to superstitious
hope diminishes.
The point isn't just prayer/meditation. It's that religion combines a half dozen or so different
activities together that are good for your health. There are currently no non-religious avenues
that I know of that provide the complete package like religions do. Yes, you can meditate,
take philosophy classes, join a book club, try to find like minded people, start a supper club,
make a pact with people to take care of each other when sick, etc... but it's alot more work than
to just "accept" a religion and they do all the work for you. I know plenty of "non-religious"
people that are members of church just for the social and other benefits. There are even books
and articles written about the many benefits an atheist gets "for free" by joining a church.
I also know people who joined a church for the social and latter got sucked into the doctrine
or joined the church because "it was the first place I felt like I really belonged" People also
join gangs for the same reason but the point is, that sense of belonging is an important part
of the human psyche and is why many people are drawn to and stay with religion even if they
don't believe it.
No only that but if you are suffering with an inoperable condition chances are that they'll have to morn your passing
very soon anyways so it seems less selfish to say goodbye to everyone and save them the extra months of suffering.
But the footage can be lost and blamed on an "off" camera.
If I was on a jury and it came down to a "he said/she said debate" then I would probably be more likely to side with the cop.
On the other hand, if I was on a jury and the cop had a head mounted camera which was off, malfunctioning, or had missing
footage then I would immediately favor the other person as I assume most people would. As a cop it would be in your
best interest to leave it on as any attempt to turn it off would look like an attempt to cover up evidence.
One deer acclimate they won't care any more.
If they acclimate. My dog has been around fire all her life and is still scared to death of
it even at a safe distance. Wild animals don't necessarily acclimate to everything
especially if it is something (like a car) that they know causes harm. It's not like
roads provide food. On a non-busy road (which is where most deer accidents occur),
a deer would be glad to avoid you if they had a reliable early warnings.
You wouldn't need to run high voltage up and down every road to acheive the same effect.
A small light like wreckers or volunteer fire/police use except in the UV spectrum would
probably do the trick. Would also want to check and make sure it was legal first so you
don't get charged with "impersonating a cop" but if it was restricted to the UV spectrum
you should be fine.
So just encrypt it before you upload it. problem solved. If I were to use it, I would probably use it for
archiving. I would prefer rsync but for the average person it would probably be enough to just upload
a zip file of last year's photos. It would be easy enough to encrypt it while you were zipping it.
I'm the exact opposite. For me, the streaming is what I want and the 2-day shipping is just a bonus.
Why bundle and force everyone to pay for things they don't use? Some people want the streaming,
some people want the free expedited shipping and some people want the kindle sharing.
It would be better to sell them individually and then maybe offer a discount for people that bundle.
$80/year was not a bad deal for streaming as it was slightly cheaper than netflix with slightly
better (for me) selection. $99 is a deal breaker for me as I only ever used the streaming and
now netflix is cheaper and doesn't charge me a full year at a time.