The label "Made in the USA" has had it's meaning diluted over the years (at the request of manufactures like New Balance). Assembled locally from components made overseas qualifies-- and the definition of the USA includes territories like Saipan with much more lax labor laws.
The fact that it's hard to find even stuff with this dumbed-down "made in the USA" labeling says something about how much it's really worth to your average citizen.
But you know, fifty years of "the virtue of selfishness" will apparently do that to a people
No, no, my new language will lower development and maintenance costs. It's so elegant it maps naturally to human mental capabilities!
It's obvious! Why would I need to conduct experiments to prove something like this?
Mozilla can talk to me about the world's intellectual problems when they learn to spell backwards compatibility.
This is an unusually fluffy and content-free article... something about "what happened in 2018" (as though it's been some sort of pivotal year... compared to 2016?)... something about sexism encoded in an adaptive algorithm and if only we had a humanities person on staff that woulda been better, maybe...
It's the thing about the current style of Big Data trained-up AI, by the way, is that you don't actually know much about what's going on inside it...
That's pretty much what happened, though I think it's worth
taking a wider view-- the kind of city that you and I both
remember was very much a product of it's own odd circumstances--
the suburban fad and the (I think) leaded gasoline generated
craziness leading to the "white flight"-- that all opened up
cracks on the urban scenes that the oddballs you refer to could
flourish in. E.g. we had a New York city that could create punk
rock.
So now what we have is a world where the *fad* for suburbia has
peaked and is rapidly crashing, but the suburbanites are hanging
on with a white-knuckled grip and are refusing to drop the
low-density zoning regs with neighborhoods segregated by function.
Everyone suddenly wants to be in Real Cities, but it's *illegal
to build any more*. And there's no end of editorials about how
this all the fault of *San Francisco's* regulations, which is an
attitude that I continue to find baffling ("Wow, SF is really
popular. Let's fix it!"), consequently we've got all those
gimcrack towers shooting up (and sagging, and cracking) in South
Beach.
And in SF, all of this is exacerbated by the wave of venture
capital money, chasing fads of it's own...
Nah, you're missing it completely. The Chronic is owned by the Hearst Corporation (San Francisco has no real newspaper of it's own and hasn't for some time) and has never seen a big real estate deal it doesn't like. The slant of this "review" is just that everyone *loves* our new corporate overlords because Money, and all of those complaints about how you can't actually live in the city if you're not commuting to Google or a coke-addled start-up weasel are *completely* exaggerated, and I'm sure those twenty-something programmers who are complaining that all of their high salaries are just lining their landlords pockets, they just don't Get It.
They couldn't care less if you watch this "documentary".
An excellent generic remark you could post about anything you want. If I were writing bots, the first thing I would do is collect a library of remarks like this.
Because there are people signing up for road service who don't know they're also buying into a political agenda, and they should probably ask 'em before they claim they're representing them.
And like I was saying: if you just want road service and aren't interested in someone lobbying in your name, then you should look around for alternatives, they're definitely out there.
You see, I know this may be hard to grasp, but many car drivers are driving cars out of present necessity, rather than out of some sort of ideological commitment...
People "love" their cars, but hate everyone else's cars, and they "love" driving only because there's a long list of costs involved that they don't have to pay for, including threats to everyone else's safety... (they're also, by the way, grossly incompetent about doing cost accounting, underestimating the time it takes and the money they spend in nearly every single case).
Interestingly, the younger folks seem to have gotten over the "love affair with the automobile", it's only geezers like yourself who are clinging to culture wars of the past.
So, you're not one of those drivers that insists the taxpayer bankroll your "free" highways and parking? And I certainly hope you don't expect anyone else to breath your exhaust without paying them proper compensation.
By the way, ti would be really cool if we would stop getting involved in wars in countries with oil. Those have been kind of expensive.
And those guys at Exxon who suppressed evidence for global warming, I wonder if they might be guilty of a crime of some sort? Ah well, at least no one calls them "leeches".
Relying entirely on public transit is never as good as also owning a car.
Yes, it's very important to fuss with registration, make insurance payments, and live with a vehicle taking up space and outgassing pollutants even when it's not in motion.
The alternative of planning your life entirely around public transit, biking and walking has absolutely no downsides, except for increasing your expected lifespan by years.
It's a pretty well-known effect-- or at least, it's a commonly strongly suspected effect-- that safety equipment can perversely encourage accidents by providing a false sense of security and encouraging risky behavior. Clearly we need a name for this effect in order to encourage discussion of this possibility (and, of course, intimidate people who haven't learned the name yet). As far as I can tell, it hasn't been named yet, so if anyone has a good, catchy idea, the glory may be yours.
A friend of mine argues that if you want to encourage safe driving, we should replace the air bags with an iron spike pointed at the drivers chest. Of course, we're both cyclists, and there could be a bit of animosity lurking behind that idea.
The AAA lobbies for road building (as opposed to public transit, bike/pedestrian facilities, etc), claiming that it's large membership is behind them. If you don't want to support their lobbying efforts and are just looking for road service, there are other organizations out there...
Slashdot jumped the shark like 10 years ago but I still keep coming here anyway for reasons unknown
Because it actually sucks less, weirdly enough. The entire time I've been here, I've been complaining the system is too easy to game (if it doesn't happen, it's because no one bothers, not because it's hard), but the rest of the web is in even worse shape and is struggling to come up with the features a couple of shall we say non-geniuses hacked out in the late nineties.
Also of course, the virtue of being on the other side of the shark jump is no one much cares about the place, and the continuing spiral into madness takes place somewhere else -- e.g. no one at slashdot is going to tell me I can't call you an idiot, and the odds are good you're not a big enough idiot to call out the Outrage Brigade if I do.
Then there's the group I think of as "deck-stackers", people who choose nice-sounding names for categories they want to sell everyone else on (e.g. "rrole models".
How is it that people like this have any traction whatsoever? We've been arguing with this kind of crazy stupidity for decades now, and it shows no signs of abating.
This is a worse problem than all the technical issues combined-- human irrationality is this never-ending overwhelming force that shows no signs of abating and is likely to get the entire human race killed.
My experience is the anti-nuclear folks don't really understand the Lazard reports very well. You need to read the fine-print very closely just to figure out what they're saying (and by then, the internet has moved on, and they've scored an impressive looking cite without any effective blow-back).
All things are transient. If you don't plan for decommissioning, you are a failure.
Ah, but pompous posturing is a never-ending fountain///
The US does plan on decommissioning, so it must be a success.
Unlike those silly french people who reacted to the 70s energy crisis by building clean energy capacity that to this day has made their carbon footprint very low. But who cares about details like that, eh?
Seriously: dismantling a decommissioned nuclear plant and carefully moving the bits from one place to another is a ridiculous sham that everyone in the nuclear industry understands is a bit of politically motivated theater. Sane "decommissioning" is you lock the gate for 20 years and maybe fill the containment building with concrete and let it sit for 100 years, because as it happens radioactivity is transient, too...
until you can convince me that it's cheaper to run a safe nuke plant than an unsafe one I'm not sold on nuclear.
You know, I could say "until you can convince me that it's cheaper to manufacture photovoltaic cells cleanly than not--".
Protecting the environment really does cost something, there's always a conflict of interest between profit-making and rule compliance, so we need independent regulatory agencies, and then there's always a risk of regulatory capture--- fixing this is a problem in social design, and as far as I can tell none of us really have a good understanding of how to do it, we're always just winging it.
Welcome to industrial civilization. The problem doesn't go away if you aren't using nuclear power. The problem doesn't even get appreciably worse if you are using nuclear power, or else the industry's overall safety record would be poor, and it's actually really good.
One more time: the safety record is really good. Really really good. Got it? Your premises have diverged from reality. The stuff your friends keeps saying over and over is not connected to what's known by our scientists and engineers. The policy recommendations for the last IPCC report included nuclear power among the things we should be working on. And no, solar and wind do not look like they can do the job for us on it's own (Mark Z Jacobson was shot down by the NAS, you know?).
It just goes to show, 'tis an ill Republican that blows no good.
But yeah, it could be it's a bunch of nonsense that doesn't do what it says. And worst case, it cements a "Nuclear Power=Republican" equation into people's heads.
(Like, could someone mention to Jerry Brown that if you're serious about Global Warming, closing a large source of California's clean energy is not actually a good idea?)
Slashdot Mirror
The label "Made in the USA" has had it's meaning diluted over the years (at the request of manufactures like New Balance). Assembled locally from components made overseas qualifies-- and the definition of the USA includes territories like Saipan with much more lax labor laws.
The fact that it's hard to find even stuff with this dumbed-down "made in the USA" labeling says something about how much it's really worth to your average citizen.
But you know, fifty years of "the virtue of selfishness" will apparently do that to a people
No, no, my new language will lower development and maintenance costs. It's so elegant it maps naturally to human mental capabilities! It's obvious! Why would I need to conduct experiments to prove something like this?
Mozilla can talk to me about the world's intellectual problems when they learn to spell backwards compatibility.
This is an unusually fluffy and content-free article... something about "what happened in 2018" (as though it's been some sort of pivotal year... compared to 2016?)... something about sexism encoded in an adaptive algorithm and if only we had a humanities person on staff that woulda been better, maybe...
It's the thing about the current style of Big Data trained-up AI, by the way, is that you don't actually know much about what's going on inside it...
It was some sort of attempt at satire I think (I didn't bother sorting it out).
By the way, just say no to thread-jacking.
Shit on the streets beats shit on the internet, but you'll never convince a conserva-troll of that.
That's pretty much what happened, though I think it's worth taking a wider view-- the kind of city that you and I both remember was very much a product of it's own odd circumstances-- the suburban fad and the (I think) leaded gasoline generated craziness leading to the "white flight"-- that all opened up cracks on the urban scenes that the oddballs you refer to could flourish in. E.g. we had a New York city that could create punk rock.
So now what we have is a world where the *fad* for suburbia has peaked and is rapidly crashing, but the suburbanites are hanging on with a white-knuckled grip and are refusing to drop the low-density zoning regs with neighborhoods segregated by function.
Everyone suddenly wants to be in Real Cities, but it's *illegal to build any more*. And there's no end of editorials about how this all the fault of *San Francisco's* regulations, which is an attitude that I continue to find baffling ("Wow, SF is really popular. Let's fix it!"), consequently we've got all those gimcrack towers shooting up (and sagging, and cracking) in South Beach.
And in SF, all of this is exacerbated by the wave of venture capital money, chasing fads of it's own...
Nah, you're missing it completely. The Chronic is owned by the Hearst Corporation (San Francisco has no real newspaper of it's own and hasn't for some time) and has never seen a big real estate deal it doesn't like. The slant of this "review" is just that everyone *loves* our new corporate overlords because Money, and all of those complaints about how you can't actually live in the city if you're not commuting to Google or a coke-addled start-up weasel are *completely* exaggerated, and I'm sure those twenty-something programmers who are complaining that all of their high salaries are just lining their landlords pockets, they just don't Get It.
They couldn't care less if you watch this "documentary".
It came as I surprise to me. I would've figured more like 50 percent.
An excellent generic remark you could post about anything you want. If I were writing bots, the first thing I would do is collect a library of remarks like this.
You need to get a clue and either (1) move to a real place or (2) fix the place you're living, because it's broken.
This is not "hipsterism", this is just reality: the suburban dream is a bust, it was always a bad idea, and now it's a bad, unpopular idea.
Because there are people signing up for road service who don't know they're also buying into a political agenda, and they should probably ask 'em before they claim they're representing them.
And like I was saying: if you just want road service and aren't interested in someone lobbying in your name, then you should look around for alternatives, they're definitely out there.
You see, I know this may be hard to grasp, but many car drivers are driving cars out of present necessity, rather than out of some sort of ideological commitment...
People "love" their cars, but hate everyone else's cars, and they "love" driving only because there's a long list of costs involved that they don't have to pay for, including threats to everyone else's safety... (they're also, by the way, grossly incompetent about doing cost accounting, underestimating the time it takes and the money they spend in nearly every single case).
Interestingly, the younger folks seem to have gotten over the "love affair with the automobile", it's only geezers like yourself who are clinging to culture wars of the past.
So, you're not one of those drivers that insists the taxpayer bankroll your "free" highways and parking? And I certainly hope you don't expect anyone else to breath your exhaust without paying them proper compensation.
By the way, ti would be really cool if we would stop getting involved in wars in countries with oil. Those have been kind of expensive.
And those guys at Exxon who suppressed evidence for global warming, I wonder if they might be guilty of a crime of some sort? Ah well, at least no one calls them "leeches".
Yes, it's very important to fuss with registration, make insurance payments, and live with a vehicle taking up space and outgassing pollutants even when it's not in motion.
The alternative of planning your life entirely around public transit, biking and walking has absolutely no downsides, except for increasing your expected lifespan by years.
It's a pretty well-known effect-- or at least, it's a commonly strongly suspected effect-- that safety equipment can perversely encourage accidents by providing a false sense of security and encouraging risky behavior. Clearly we need a name for this effect in order to encourage discussion of this possibility (and, of course, intimidate people who haven't learned the name yet). As far as I can tell, it hasn't been named yet, so if anyone has a good, catchy idea, the glory may be yours.
A friend of mine argues that if you want to encourage safe driving, we should replace the air bags with an iron spike pointed at the drivers chest. Of course, we're both cyclists, and there could be a bit of animosity lurking behind that idea.
The AAA lobbies for road building (as opposed to public transit, bike/pedestrian facilities, etc), claiming that it's large membership is behind them. If you don't want to support their lobbying efforts and are just looking for road service, there are other organizations out there...
Because it actually sucks less, weirdly enough. The entire time I've been here, I've been complaining the system is too easy to game (if it doesn't happen, it's because no one bothers, not because it's hard), but the rest of the web is in even worse shape and is struggling to come up with the features a couple of shall we say non-geniuses hacked out in the late nineties.
Also of course, the virtue of being on the other side of the shark jump is no one much cares about the place, and the continuing spiral into madness takes place somewhere else -- e.g. no one at slashdot is going to tell me I can't call you an idiot, and the odds are good you're not a big enough idiot to call out the Outrage Brigade if I do.
Then there's the group I think of as "deck-stackers", people who choose nice-sounding names for categories they want to sell everyone else on (e.g. "rrole models".
How is it that people like this have any traction whatsoever? We've been arguing with this kind of crazy stupidity for decades now, and it shows no signs of abating.
This is a worse problem than all the technical issues combined-- human irrationality is this never-ending overwhelming force that shows no signs of abating and is likely to get the entire human race killed.
My experience is the anti-nuclear folks don't really understand the Lazard reports very well. You need to read the fine-print very closely just to figure out what they're saying (and by then, the internet has moved on, and they've scored an impressive looking cite without any effective blow-back).
No no no, it's more like "Republicans find excellent scheme to piss off liberals".
The left has been having fun attacking the stupidity of the Republican base, this is an excellent move to bring out the Stupid on the left.
Ah, but pompous posturing is a never-ending fountain///
The US does plan on decommissioning, so it must be a success. Unlike those silly french people who reacted to the 70s energy crisis by building clean energy capacity that to this day has made their carbon footprint very low. But who cares about details like that, eh?
Seriously: dismantling a decommissioned nuclear plant and carefully moving the bits from one place to another is a ridiculous sham that everyone in the nuclear industry understands is a bit of politically motivated theater. Sane "decommissioning" is you lock the gate for 20 years and maybe fill the containment building with concrete and let it sit for 100 years, because as it happens radioactivity is transient, too...
You know, I could say "until you can convince me that it's cheaper to manufacture photovoltaic cells cleanly than not--".
Protecting the environment really does cost something, there's always a conflict of interest between profit-making and rule compliance, so we need independent regulatory agencies, and then there's always a risk of regulatory capture--- fixing this is a problem in social design, and as far as I can tell none of us really have a good understanding of how to do it, we're always just winging it.
Welcome to industrial civilization. The problem doesn't go away if you aren't using nuclear power. The problem doesn't even get appreciably worse if you are using nuclear power, or else the industry's overall safety record would be poor, and it's actually really good.
One more time: the safety record is really good. Really really good. Got it? Your premises have diverged from reality. The stuff your friends keeps saying over and over is not connected to what's known by our scientists and engineers. The policy recommendations for the last IPCC report included nuclear power among the things we should be working on. And no, solar and wind do not look like they can do the job for us on it's own (Mark Z Jacobson was shot down by the NAS, you know?).
It just goes to show, 'tis an ill Republican that blows no good.
But yeah, it could be it's a bunch of nonsense that doesn't do what it says. And worst case, it cements a "Nuclear Power=Republican" equation into people's heads.
(Like, could someone mention to Jerry Brown that if you're serious about Global Warming, closing a large source of California's clean energy is not actually a good idea?)
I call "reducto ad white house". You lose.