Automation can't replace all jobs, but from what I've read there are a couple of concerns.
A lot of the jobs that seem to be most easily automatable are "good" white collar jobs that previously had required some skill. There's a lot less manufacturing left (partly due to automation, but partly due to offshoring of manufacturing), so there's a lot less fallback jobs outside of very low wage service jobs.
Even if the job loss ends up being only 20%, 20% unemployment is a big deal. It can have higher-order economic impacts on significant markets, like real estate, it can have potentially destabilizing political effects which can feed back into the economic system through bad policy,
There is also an amplification of inequality from automation, as technology allows greater amounts of capital to be controlled by fewer people, usually with a feedback loop that allows them access to superior technology, enabling advantages in capital control.
Get rid of the incentives. All they do is complicate the situation and distort the market economics.
Solar should stand or fall on its own merits. Incentives and net metering just creates a a hocus-pocus accounting situation where the people who have the panels installed don't pay the true cost of owning them, they shift it to the taxpayer in the form of tax credits and rebates and to other utility customers in the form of overpriced electricity.
I'm sure there are many who will argue that solar is a social good and should be subsidized by the government and utilities, but you can't take altruism to the bank. I'd like to know how many residential solar installs would exist if people weren't shown spreadsheets showing their solar install paid for itself with net metering and rebates. I'll bet a significant number of people wouldn't have bothered if it only meant offsetting the power they actually used during the day AND they didn't get rebates.
I actually think eliminating the net metering requirement would actually be a better incentive for power storage technologies, as the excess generation capacity would be something valuable that panel owners would want to keep. Realistically, the panels themselves aren't where we need incentives for new technologies, its the storage.
I agree with you in principal, but they don't want to just get the job done. They want to get the job done faster so they can get more jobs done overall in as little time as possible. Reducing labor costs is the name of the game.
The problem with positional tracking is it doesn't tell you why X was in some location. Because he needed to be there to do some job or because he was trying to chat up some woman?
In true Slashdot fashion, I didn't RTFA but is he suggesting:
1) Hard encryption should be illegal -- ie, you can't actually sell software that does encryption that either the NSA can't break or that doesn't provide key escrow?
2) Third party vendors (eg, Apple) can't sell devices which self-encrypt in a way that Apple doesn't have access to? Ie, if you buy an iPhone it will self-encrypt but with a key that Apple has access to?
My guess is he's aiming at the latter, he wants most products that do encryption that are sold commercially to be done in a way that preserves the ability for vendors to decrypt on demand.
I guess part of what I was commenting on is that the trend seems to be away from all the trappings of "pro" porn -- perfect bodies, fake tits, and the fairly robotic sex routine of 3-4 positions ending with a facial.
It seems to me that there is a much greater interest (or at least availability) of porn with women that don't look like porn stars (varied bodies with imperfections), sex that seems a little less artificial and more real than the traditional all-pro porn. Sure, some of it is fake amateur but many of the women seem semi-pro at best if not actual non-porn-actresses doing it for a quick buck, not as a career, which seems to add to the verisimilitude of the amateur nature of it.
And actual amateur home-made porn is often bad from a technical perspective, you wouldn't know it from online reviews and view counts. I think the fact that it is real has an appeal that traditional pro porn can't match.
The trend in adult content seems to be amateur, whether that means actual amateurs in purloined home-made photos and videos or "prosumer" amateurs where some money changed hands but nobody other than the male/cameraman/site owner (the same guy) is actually trying to make a living at it -- certainly the female talent doesn't seem to be a prototypical porn star.
And even when the content is for sale, the same companies selling it often have all you need to see for free on their own YouPorn channels, whether its pro all the way or the sort of semi-pro stuff.
One of my questions would be why are they even bother producing pro porn. There seems to be so many people willing to get naked and have their picture taken out there that actually paying people to do it seems to be a waste of time.
Why not both? AFAIK there is no double-jeopardy protection between civil and criminal cases.
Sure, the lawyers could get rich on a class action settlement but you never know, the class could get something useful out of this. I don't know what's involved in removing this spyware, but you could potentially argue for something like 4 hours of skilled time per system just to clean it as a rough median (maybe much less for brand new systems, maybe much more for systems that would need to be wiped, re-setup and have apps and data put back on). And that doesn't include any claims for damages resulting from the infection itself, just remediation. Even if Lenovo bargained that down to half, in theory they could be on the hook for $200 per machine.
6 months probation for committing an armed robbery? That's nuts.
From the victim's perspective, he thought his life was in danger because it likely looked like a real gun. From the perpetrator's perspective it was a bluff, but the victim didn't know that. In most states the victim could have used deadly force to defend himself and easily gotten away with it. Even the best police department wouldn't have even blinked if an officer shot him with it. And it's not like it's impossible to seriously hurt someone with a BB gun.
Further, the perpetrator showed the willingness to use violence and the implied threat of death to accomplish a robbery. It's reasonable to assume this person is dangerous and a threat to society -- maybe next time he has a real gun, and the time after that he's willing to pull the trigger.
The fact that he stole pot doesn't matter. If this same guy had robbed your grandma's purse with a BB gun would it still seem like a 6 months of probation crime?
Purchased certs are too expensive to buy for every possible thing you might want to encrypt without a certificate error. There's all manner of internally facing services that don't need public certificate verification and a perfectly useful method of distributing trust for those certificates.
I would grant you, though, that there should be some kind of security setting that makes adding a root CA much more difficult for non-domain members. But don't make it impossible, that could set an ugly precedent for taking away the ability to require only third party trust.
Well, western voters haven't been sufficiently motivated to get behind the kind of violence the grandparent alluded to. If a significant population center was hit by a suitcase nuke, I have complete faith that the American populace would demand nothing short of total victory. It wouldn't be labeled genocide and even white middle aged professors who said otherwise would probably be risking a lynching.
The U.S. would just apply maximal, scorched earth total warfare which would probably be on Dresden scales of brutality. We've done it before and half of it targeted white people. Add in a difference in race and how sympathetic do you think the American public will be about a bunch of Arabs getting their village burned and shot in the street? And how hard do you think it will be to find legions of Appalachian crackers willing to do it?
The good news is that you wouldn't actually have to commit active genocide. Once you've destroyed a couple of cities and their populstions and bombarded the rest you really can break their will to fight and get the population to submit. This has been demonstrated since before the Classical period. This is EXACTLY how you defeat an enemy and conquer him.
It sounds reasonable, but I don't find it compelling. One of the biggest trends anymore is the "home grown" terrorist, the one who who commits act of violence in his home country.
I'm still puzzled why so many apparently soft targets haven't been hit, at least once.
It could just be that the "threat" is greatly overstated.
I wonder why it hasn't happened already. Despite the panopticon and run of the mill police misbehavior, America still seems like a place where you can move around pretty freely without many obstacles.
Obtaining weapons isn't hard and I doubt there is a terror group out there worth their jihad who wouldn't also know how to convert a semi-automatic-only assault rifle into full auto capable fire, either via either illegal trigger group replacement or modification.
Crowd events are frequent and places like malls are often crowded, providing ample targets for assaults on civilians. Many significant industrial sites like oil refineries or power plants aren't well guarded (nuclear plants may be an exception) and even if a handful of key infrastructures like bridges and tunnels are well guarded, many aren't.
It just doesn't seem like there would be many barriers, require that much skill or planning to do what they have threatened. In terms of terror, the payoff seems immense.
So why hasn't it happened? Is the panopticon that good? Are they just burying all the stories of thwarted attempts?
I'm not asking the question whether armed civilians thwart crime generally; that's a different debate with evidence posited on both sides.
I'm wondering if the people who might plan an attack similar to the one at the Kenyan mall or the hotel in India and consider such an assault in the US take into consideration any risks associated with armed Americans, either carry permit holders or even those who carry illegally.
There's the risk of the assault being cut short or otherwise failing because the attackers themselves come under fire from armed civilians as well as the potential publicity failure of "armed citizens kill terrorists, stop attack" type headlines which would potentially demonstrate that against American citizens, terrorists are weaker than Americans.
I would suspect that such risks would be downplayed -- a terrorist event could be considered a "success" just from emptying an AK magazine into a crowd at a mall, even if the attacker(s) were killed immediately after opening fire. Plus there may be the belief that at best they would be up against unskilled persons who were outgunned (handguns versus rifles).
What's the Volt like for interior comfort? I'd guess that its better than most small cars simply because you don't have to listen to a lawnmower engine scream for mercy, but what about seats, climate controls, ride, noise, etc?
I'm pretty spoiled now, my current car is pretty much the opposite side of the automotive equation -- a Volvo S80 V8. Mileage is awful by any standard, about 18-20 for my typical driving (pure long-haul highway is about 25).
But about 2/3rds of the time my daily driving is 60 miles or more and it sure is nice to spend it in a quiet, comfortable car with good climate controls.
Obviously there will be a political response we'd kind of expect, restrictions of various sorts to limit materials, printers, exchange of designs someone owns the IP to, etc.
I'm more curious what the organic market response will be.
For items that could conceivably be 3D printed, will manufacturers sell 3D plans? Make a better product that can't be 3D printed with the same quality or materials?
The Leaf's sales numbers are probably all about price -- at $35k, it's much more in the range of the typical middle class income. I think the Tesla gets the most focus because of cool factor and also because it seems to have the fewest compromises -- long range and it's pretty big.
I think a lot of people look at it from a perspective of having it "just work" with their lifestyle. Enough range for pretty much any metro area driving and enough size that it would be comfortable.
The Volt would work for me since there's no specific range limit, although the size I find kind of limiting. I work as a consultant so I don't have a defined commute pattern, but 50 miles isn't uncommon and I'd like a vehicle that could do that on all electric which the Volt couldn't do.
IMHO, Chevy is kind of missing the boat on this. I think they get the generator part right but the all electric range seems to come up short. It'd be interesting to know how many additional kWh of battery they would have to add to get the range up to 100 miles. It may just be that the additional weight of battery would be just so power-sapping that it wouldn't work.
It's also surprising the engine has a cast-iron block. I would think that an all-aluminum block would be a valuable weight savings, allowing for more battery "for free".
It strikes me that the Chevy Volt is a pretty good compromise. The advantage that it has is that it can be driven as a battery only electric but has the range limits of a gasoline car. The Volt's battery is a lot smaller than the Tesla model S which reduces the battery-only range, but for a lot of short-drive use cases may be adequate.
It'd be interesting to see what it would be like if they could scale the Volt up in terms of battery capacity to push all-electric range closer to 100 miles. That kind of range makes plug-in, all-electric driving viable all for but the most extreme commuting cases. The gas engine covers those as well as long distance driving.
I don't know what fantasy land you've shaped in mom's basement, but outside a tiny fraction of the US you need a car to make a living.
I figure the best and most ecological way to do this is to make the car I have last, and one of the way to make it last is to take care of it. Road salt is highly corrosive, the sand they put down turns to dust which in turn can etch the paint. Once rust starts, you can't really stop it and then you need a new car. And salt is corrosive to more than just the finish, it's corrosive to the undercarriage and mechanical systems, too.
But I suppose you think it's more ecological to just make more cars.
It's no different than brushing your teeth or cleaning the dishes. They all get dirty again.
The point isn't to keep it clean, but to at least wash off some of the corrosive salt spray and grime so you don't strip the clearcoat and then the paint off.
My wife never washes her car (or not enough) and it looks like shit, with finish is dull and maybe even faded a little. I wash mine 2-3 times per week, usually before I come home and its maybe half a mile home. In all but the wettest, sloppy weather it makes it into the garage (and thus overnight) clean and not being exposed to corrosive, abrasive gunk. My car still holds a great shine, especially when its waxed.
You don't have to look very hard for a place that does all you can eat car washes and 3 times per week gets my cost down to less than $3 per wash, hand dried. And waxing your car is dead easy with spray wax. I'd guess carnuba might be slightly better, but it's a shit ton of work and spray wax seems to get you most of the way there.
1) Conspiracy to obstruct justice -- I don't know what the exact charge is, but let's just assume it's a Federal felony with a big fine and guaranteed jail time.
2) No-knock raid, search and seizure of your computer equipment. Oh, and it will be held as evidence and likely subject to civil forfeiture. And they'll fucking trash your house while they're at it.
3) What else do you have at home they can use to compound charges? Guns? Well, possession of a firearm while committing a felony is a felony, too. Drugs? Hey, those might have some tasty mandatory minimums.
4) That computer search we did...now, are all those girls in those photos over 18?
5) How about we just get down to brass tacks. The judge thinks you're an asshole, so we're going to throw you into a cell with some thug who will beat the shit out of you and turn you out for loose cigarettes.
Sure, you and your student law clinic counsel might even manage to get a civil suit filed, but Federal Judge is a job for life and takes an act of congress to get rid of them. Exactly 10 have been impeached since 1900. Good luck with that.
Bottom line is, Federal judges? Best not to poke the robe.
You guys obliquely or not so obliquely calling for doxing of a Federal Judge are pretty brave, I must say.
But maybe you'll find out definitively if a U.S. Marshall Service no-knock warrant results in someone like Raylan Givens showing up to execute it, or whether that's just in Harlan County.
Regardless, I'm sure whatever jail you end up in will definitely have someone who resembles Boyd Crowder.
At about the peak of analog phones, most would have a dumb message on the screen, usually the maker's name or the carrier name. You could often change this message but almost nobody did, but the displays were so primitive that informational messages usually appeared in the same place and type, like "NO SERVICE".
The fun thing to do was to change the message from "Airtouch Celluar" to "NO SERVICE" and enjoy the hilarity when people picked up their phone and wondered why it wasn't working.
Yes, most phones showed "bars" and there was no reason why someone with half a brain wouldn't sort it out in a second, but it was often funny how many DIDN'T sort it out.
At this moment of global history, can anyone take a Russian anti-trust probe seriously?
Between Putin's crony capitalism, the sheer amount of corruption in Russia and the geopolitical conflict between Russia and the West there's a whole laundry list of reasons to not believe that an anti-trust probe of Google has is honestly motivated.
Slashdot Mirror
Automation can't replace all jobs, but from what I've read there are a couple of concerns.
A lot of the jobs that seem to be most easily automatable are "good" white collar jobs that previously had required some skill. There's a lot less manufacturing left (partly due to automation, but partly due to offshoring of manufacturing), so there's a lot less fallback jobs outside of very low wage service jobs.
Even if the job loss ends up being only 20%, 20% unemployment is a big deal. It can have higher-order economic impacts on significant markets, like real estate, it can have potentially destabilizing political effects which can feed back into the economic system through bad policy,
There is also an amplification of inequality from automation, as technology allows greater amounts of capital to be controlled by fewer people, usually with a feedback loop that allows them access to superior technology, enabling advantages in capital control.
Get rid of the incentives. All they do is complicate the situation and distort the market economics.
Solar should stand or fall on its own merits. Incentives and net metering just creates a a hocus-pocus accounting situation where the people who have the panels installed don't pay the true cost of owning them, they shift it to the taxpayer in the form of tax credits and rebates and to other utility customers in the form of overpriced electricity.
I'm sure there are many who will argue that solar is a social good and should be subsidized by the government and utilities, but you can't take altruism to the bank. I'd like to know how many residential solar installs would exist if people weren't shown spreadsheets showing their solar install paid for itself with net metering and rebates. I'll bet a significant number of people wouldn't have bothered if it only meant offsetting the power they actually used during the day AND they didn't get rebates.
I actually think eliminating the net metering requirement would actually be a better incentive for power storage technologies, as the excess generation capacity would be something valuable that panel owners would want to keep. Realistically, the panels themselves aren't where we need incentives for new technologies, its the storage.
I agree with you in principal, but they don't want to just get the job done. They want to get the job done faster so they can get more jobs done overall in as little time as possible. Reducing labor costs is the name of the game.
The problem with positional tracking is it doesn't tell you why X was in some location. Because he needed to be there to do some job or because he was trying to chat up some woman?
In true Slashdot fashion, I didn't RTFA but is he suggesting:
1) Hard encryption should be illegal -- ie, you can't actually sell software that does encryption that either the NSA can't break or that doesn't provide key escrow?
2) Third party vendors (eg, Apple) can't sell devices which self-encrypt in a way that Apple doesn't have access to? Ie, if you buy an iPhone it will self-encrypt but with a key that Apple has access to?
My guess is he's aiming at the latter, he wants most products that do encryption that are sold commercially to be done in a way that preserves the ability for vendors to decrypt on demand.
I guess part of what I was commenting on is that the trend seems to be away from all the trappings of "pro" porn -- perfect bodies, fake tits, and the fairly robotic sex routine of 3-4 positions ending with a facial.
It seems to me that there is a much greater interest (or at least availability) of porn with women that don't look like porn stars (varied bodies with imperfections), sex that seems a little less artificial and more real than the traditional all-pro porn. Sure, some of it is fake amateur but many of the women seem semi-pro at best if not actual non-porn-actresses doing it for a quick buck, not as a career, which seems to add to the verisimilitude of the amateur nature of it.
And actual amateur home-made porn is often bad from a technical perspective, you wouldn't know it from online reviews and view counts. I think the fact that it is real has an appeal that traditional pro porn can't match.
Who's watching pro porn anymore?
The trend in adult content seems to be amateur, whether that means actual amateurs in purloined home-made photos and videos or "prosumer" amateurs where some money changed hands but nobody other than the male/cameraman/site owner (the same guy) is actually trying to make a living at it -- certainly the female talent doesn't seem to be a prototypical porn star.
And even when the content is for sale, the same companies selling it often have all you need to see for free on their own YouPorn channels, whether its pro all the way or the sort of semi-pro stuff.
One of my questions would be why are they even bother producing pro porn. There seems to be so many people willing to get naked and have their picture taken out there that actually paying people to do it seems to be a waste of time.
Why not both? AFAIK there is no double-jeopardy protection between civil and criminal cases.
Sure, the lawyers could get rich on a class action settlement but you never know, the class could get something useful out of this. I don't know what's involved in removing this spyware, but you could potentially argue for something like 4 hours of skilled time per system just to clean it as a rough median (maybe much less for brand new systems, maybe much more for systems that would need to be wiped, re-setup and have apps and data put back on). And that doesn't include any claims for damages resulting from the infection itself, just remediation. Even if Lenovo bargained that down to half, in theory they could be on the hook for $200 per machine.
You'd think Kremen would just have the guy kidnapped and torture the info out of him.
6 months probation for committing an armed robbery? That's nuts.
From the victim's perspective, he thought his life was in danger because it likely looked like a real gun. From the perpetrator's perspective it was a bluff, but the victim didn't know that. In most states the victim could have used deadly force to defend himself and easily gotten away with it. Even the best police department wouldn't have even blinked if an officer shot him with it. And it's not like it's impossible to seriously hurt someone with a BB gun.
Further, the perpetrator showed the willingness to use violence and the implied threat of death to accomplish a robbery. It's reasonable to assume this person is dangerous and a threat to society -- maybe next time he has a real gun, and the time after that he's willing to pull the trigger.
The fact that he stole pot doesn't matter. If this same guy had robbed your grandma's purse with a BB gun would it still seem like a 6 months of probation crime?
We buy certs for corporate resources.
Purchased certs are too expensive to buy for every possible thing you might want to encrypt without a certificate error. There's all manner of internally facing services that don't need public certificate verification and a perfectly useful method of distributing trust for those certificates.
I would grant you, though, that there should be some kind of security setting that makes adding a root CA much more difficult for non-domain members. But don't make it impossible, that could set an ugly precedent for taking away the ability to require only third party trust.
Well, western voters haven't been sufficiently motivated to get behind the kind of violence the grandparent alluded to. If a significant population center was hit by a suitcase nuke, I have complete faith that the American populace would demand nothing short of total victory. It wouldn't be labeled genocide and even white middle aged professors who said otherwise would probably be risking a lynching.
The U.S. would just apply maximal, scorched earth total warfare which would probably be on Dresden scales of brutality. We've done it before and half of it targeted white people. Add in a difference in race and how sympathetic do you think the American public will be about a bunch of Arabs getting their village burned and shot in the street? And how hard do you think it will be to find legions of Appalachian crackers willing to do it?
The good news is that you wouldn't actually have to commit active genocide. Once you've destroyed a couple of cities and their populstions and bombarded the rest you really can break their will to fight and get the population to submit. This has been demonstrated since before the Classical period. This is EXACTLY how you defeat an enemy and conquer him.
It sounds reasonable, but I don't find it compelling. One of the biggest trends anymore is the "home grown" terrorist, the one who who commits act of violence in his home country.
I'm still puzzled why so many apparently soft targets haven't been hit, at least once.
It could just be that the "threat" is greatly overstated.
From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.
I wonder why it hasn't happened already. Despite the panopticon and run of the mill police misbehavior, America still seems like a place where you can move around pretty freely without many obstacles.
Obtaining weapons isn't hard and I doubt there is a terror group out there worth their jihad who wouldn't also know how to convert a semi-automatic-only assault rifle into full auto capable fire, either via either illegal trigger group replacement or modification.
Crowd events are frequent and places like malls are often crowded, providing ample targets for assaults on civilians. Many significant industrial sites like oil refineries or power plants aren't well guarded (nuclear plants may be an exception) and even if a handful of key infrastructures like bridges and tunnels are well guarded, many aren't.
It just doesn't seem like there would be many barriers, require that much skill or planning to do what they have threatened. In terms of terror, the payoff seems immense.
So why hasn't it happened? Is the panopticon that good? Are they just burying all the stories of thwarted attempts?
I'm not asking the question whether armed civilians thwart crime generally; that's a different debate with evidence posited on both sides.
I'm wondering if the people who might plan an attack similar to the one at the Kenyan mall or the hotel in India and consider such an assault in the US take into consideration any risks associated with armed Americans, either carry permit holders or even those who carry illegally.
There's the risk of the assault being cut short or otherwise failing because the attackers themselves come under fire from armed civilians as well as the potential publicity failure of "armed citizens kill terrorists, stop attack" type headlines which would potentially demonstrate that against American citizens, terrorists are weaker than Americans.
I would suspect that such risks would be downplayed -- a terrorist event could be considered a "success" just from emptying an AK magazine into a crowd at a mall, even if the attacker(s) were killed immediately after opening fire. Plus there may be the belief that at best they would be up against unskilled persons who were outgunned (handguns versus rifles).
What's the Volt like for interior comfort? I'd guess that its better than most small cars simply because you don't have to listen to a lawnmower engine scream for mercy, but what about seats, climate controls, ride, noise, etc?
I'm pretty spoiled now, my current car is pretty much the opposite side of the automotive equation -- a Volvo S80 V8. Mileage is awful by any standard, about 18-20 for my typical driving (pure long-haul highway is about 25).
But about 2/3rds of the time my daily driving is 60 miles or more and it sure is nice to spend it in a quiet, comfortable car with good climate controls.
Obviously there will be a political response we'd kind of expect, restrictions of various sorts to limit materials, printers, exchange of designs someone owns the IP to, etc.
I'm more curious what the organic market response will be.
For items that could conceivably be 3D printed, will manufacturers sell 3D plans? Make a better product that can't be 3D printed with the same quality or materials?
The Leaf's sales numbers are probably all about price -- at $35k, it's much more in the range of the typical middle class income. I think the Tesla gets the most focus because of cool factor and also because it seems to have the fewest compromises -- long range and it's pretty big.
I think a lot of people look at it from a perspective of having it "just work" with their lifestyle. Enough range for pretty much any metro area driving and enough size that it would be comfortable.
The Volt would work for me since there's no specific range limit, although the size I find kind of limiting. I work as a consultant so I don't have a defined commute pattern, but 50 miles isn't uncommon and I'd like a vehicle that could do that on all electric which the Volt couldn't do.
IMHO, Chevy is kind of missing the boat on this. I think they get the generator part right but the all electric range seems to come up short. It'd be interesting to know how many additional kWh of battery they would have to add to get the range up to 100 miles. It may just be that the additional weight of battery would be just so power-sapping that it wouldn't work.
It's also surprising the engine has a cast-iron block. I would think that an all-aluminum block would be a valuable weight savings, allowing for more battery "for free".
It strikes me that the Chevy Volt is a pretty good compromise. The advantage that it has is that it can be driven as a battery only electric but has the range limits of a gasoline car. The Volt's battery is a lot smaller than the Tesla model S which reduces the battery-only range, but for a lot of short-drive use cases may be adequate.
It'd be interesting to see what it would be like if they could scale the Volt up in terms of battery capacity to push all-electric range closer to 100 miles. That kind of range makes plug-in, all-electric driving viable all for but the most extreme commuting cases. The gas engine covers those as well as long distance driving.
No, fuck you.
I don't know what fantasy land you've shaped in mom's basement, but outside a tiny fraction of the US you need a car to make a living.
I figure the best and most ecological way to do this is to make the car I have last, and one of the way to make it last is to take care of it. Road salt is highly corrosive, the sand they put down turns to dust which in turn can etch the paint. Once rust starts, you can't really stop it and then you need a new car. And salt is corrosive to more than just the finish, it's corrosive to the undercarriage and mechanical systems, too.
But I suppose you think it's more ecological to just make more cars.
It's no different than brushing your teeth or cleaning the dishes. They all get dirty again.
The point isn't to keep it clean, but to at least wash off some of the corrosive salt spray and grime so you don't strip the clearcoat and then the paint off.
My wife never washes her car (or not enough) and it looks like shit, with finish is dull and maybe even faded a little. I wash mine 2-3 times per week, usually before I come home and its maybe half a mile home. In all but the wettest, sloppy weather it makes it into the garage (and thus overnight) clean and not being exposed to corrosive, abrasive gunk. My car still holds a great shine, especially when its waxed.
You don't have to look very hard for a place that does all you can eat car washes and 3 times per week gets my cost down to less than $3 per wash, hand dried. And waxing your car is dead easy with spray wax. I'd guess carnuba might be slightly better, but it's a shit ton of work and spray wax seems to get you most of the way there.
Let's count the ways it could go wrong:
1) Conspiracy to obstruct justice -- I don't know what the exact charge is, but let's just assume it's a Federal felony with a big fine and guaranteed jail time.
2) No-knock raid, search and seizure of your computer equipment. Oh, and it will be held as evidence and likely subject to civil forfeiture. And they'll fucking trash your house while they're at it.
3) What else do you have at home they can use to compound charges? Guns? Well, possession of a firearm while committing a felony is a felony, too. Drugs? Hey, those might have some tasty mandatory minimums.
4) That computer search we did...now, are all those girls in those photos over 18?
5) How about we just get down to brass tacks. The judge thinks you're an asshole, so we're going to throw you into a cell with some thug who will beat the shit out of you and turn you out for loose cigarettes.
Sure, you and your student law clinic counsel might even manage to get a civil suit filed, but Federal Judge is a job for life and takes an act of congress to get rid of them. Exactly 10 have been impeached since 1900. Good luck with that.
Bottom line is, Federal judges? Best not to poke the robe.
You guys obliquely or not so obliquely calling for doxing of a Federal Judge are pretty brave, I must say.
But maybe you'll find out definitively if a U.S. Marshall Service no-knock warrant results in someone like Raylan Givens showing up to execute it, or whether that's just in Harlan County.
Regardless, I'm sure whatever jail you end up in will definitely have someone who resembles Boyd Crowder.
At about the peak of analog phones, most would have a dumb message on the screen, usually the maker's name or the carrier name. You could often change this message but almost nobody did, but the displays were so primitive that informational messages usually appeared in the same place and type, like "NO SERVICE".
The fun thing to do was to change the message from "Airtouch Celluar" to "NO SERVICE" and enjoy the hilarity when people picked up their phone and wondered why it wasn't working.
Yes, most phones showed "bars" and there was no reason why someone with half a brain wouldn't sort it out in a second, but it was often funny how many DIDN'T sort it out.
...is jab in the back with an AK-47.
At this moment of global history, can anyone take a Russian anti-trust probe seriously?
Between Putin's crony capitalism, the sheer amount of corruption in Russia and the geopolitical conflict between Russia and the West there's a whole laundry list of reasons to not believe that an anti-trust probe of Google has is honestly motivated.