Sure, but I'm not sure that matters. Given my experiences with windows 10 forced updates and MS's history of making astonishingly poor decisions, I'm taking it as granted that those costs will not be optional now. Windows will upgrade even if your factory machines won't run on the new software.
I guess everyone hoped he was lying about "repeal everything" and would just stick to silly red meat issues his voters thought were evil. Like "common core" which inexplicably got labeled as satanic brainwashing rather than an easier way to learn addition. Not, you know, actually going after everything Obama did. The vast majority of what any government does is pretty mundane and non-controversial. How many voters in red states were rooting for keeping foreign entrepreneurs out? I'm sure if you told them it was a rule Obama put into place they'd voice an opposition to it, but no one was that I can tell. Why get rid of it? This is seeming more like religious opposition to the majority of Americans who happen to be not far-right.
Considering all the other things he's lied about, and considering how few people support him, I don't think it's at all a given he was going to waste time and the country's money on repealing all the minutia that Obama did.
Sounds like no one is suggesting you do that. I'm assuming you're not a large, medium, or small business. The summary and the very slightly longer article make it sound like this isn't for single, personal users.
Which actually sounds like it could be a good thing. The wannacry malware was almost all windows 7. How many of those machines do you think were run by companies who didn't want to spend any money upgrading and instead cut the IT department? Such penny wise and pound foolish companies might be enticed to subscribe instead because cheaper at the moment, then have to upgrade as soon as the next version is offered.
Herd immunity is good, but often times the herd is too stupid to actively choose to immunize themselves, they have to be forced.
"...revoke a necessary freedom for it's citizens..."
This statement reveals a deep misunderstanding of the writer, and his countrymen, who no doubt is a US citizen....Cause its in the constitution that everyone has the inalienable right to happiness..., which in the US means to buy and drive however, and whatever, without any meaningful schooling and training.
I'm aware that Japanese drivers licenses are much harder to get than US licenses. I'd suggest though it's because they have much better public transit, not... some absurd interpretation of the constitution.
By "necessary freedom" I wasn't speaking as a constitutional scholar or a legal definition of "freedom." I meant someone who drives in Japan likely doesn't live in a major metropolitan area with convenient public transit, so they need a car in order to move around. I'm aware that's not a legally enshrined "freedom" in the US and probably isn't in Japan. Everyone around here is always "I am not a lawyer" why the does everyone assume everyone is using definitions of words they're going to write into a legal brief. If you have a car and a drivers license and the government tells you you can't drive anymore, they're limiting your freedom in reality. Your "legal freedoms" have not been abridged, sure, but they've told you you can't do something you've been doing before and that's restricting your freedom. Do I need to clarify any further?
Put that in a pipe and fucking smoke it.
I feel like you should put something in a pipe and smoke it yourself.
Could be that the government doesn't want to simply revoke a necessary freedom for it's citizens even if it means increased safety and decreased deaths. You know, sort of like how we over here say "No, why would we limit gun sales?"
Could also be that it's not really an issue given the lack of statistics on increasing deaths. Japanese politicians are likely just as susceptible as american ones at fearmongering and then coming up with fake solutions to the fake problems they were elected on.
Finally the last line of the article is
The number of people aged 75 or older who are licensed to drive stood at about 5.13 million at end of 2016, compared with 2.58 million in late 2006.
The greying of japanese society is a looming issue. Making the increasing number of elderly immobile is going to put more strain on the country as a whole.
ISPs further conglomerating so that they control all our internet access inherently is news for nerds. The fact that the president is so bad that every news story has him as a subject including this one doesn't change that.
I suspect you're actually asking to be able to ignore national politics again. That's part of what got us into this issue in the first place. You'll have a chance in 2018 to reduce the number of hair-raising news stories about politics with your vote, and in 2020 you'll have a chance to elect someone who is not going to require more attention than an infant.
Probably depends on a bunch of variables. Like how much value a diploma actually adds over a dropout for one. I'm revealing my privilege, but I have no idea whether these days graduating high school actually gets you any better job than not having one does.
If out of a hundred students, ten more students drop out with this rule, but ten more have a next step lined up, that depends on the value of a diploma. If it's "nothing" then that's a great trade. If dropout is absolutely unemployable forever while a diploma is middle class, then that's an awful trade. Probably somewhere between.
Indeed. Knee-jerk cynicism about the future on a website billing itself as news for nerds has always struck me as ridiculous.
But what do I know? I'm just distracting my dumb brain with sex and drugs in this brave new world and the rest of my energy is spent trying to scrounge up some soylent green.
I dunno what the economy of the future will look like, at all, but two possible answers to your question come to mind.
One: if it's still a consumption based economy, they'll need consumers. Either they'll start paying the robots who will then be programmed to buy the stuff the robots are making, or they'll need to be sure people are able to consumer their stuff.
Two: short of hopping the rock and doing an elysium thing or colonizing mars, the elites won't be shielded from us. They'll either need to keep us pacified or at least give us the illusion that we can one day join their ranks through non-violent means, or else we'll rebel.
Given how useful honeybees are to agriculture, there could be significant lobbying efforts to get rid of it. I'd expect California to ban them given their willingness to regulate responsibly, and the facts that almost all the almonds of the world are grown there and bees are required for it. Maryland has already banned them evidently.
Persistence in soils, waterways, and nontarget plants is variable but can be prolonged; for example, the half-lives of neonicotinoids in soils can exceed 1,000 days, so they can accumulate when used repeatedly. Similarly, they can persist in woody plants for periods exceeding 1 year. Breakdown results in toxic metabolites, though concentrations of these in the environment are rarely measured.
Consider the american right wing is believing easily disproven outright lies at this point. It is annoying when they say "Evolution is JUST A THEORY" or "Blah blah blah, climate change is bad just like eggs and coffee were bad before they were good, amirite?" But they also believe violent crime is going up so we need to spend more on police and get tough on crime when in fact no, just no.
That has nothing to do with scientists being careful about their words, it's a stone cold fact that crime is at a historic low. No amount of forceful language on climate change is going to cause changes.
(And for the precious republican snowflakes upset because I'm picking on the right wing voting to waste my tax dollars on pointless law enforcement measures, yes sure fine liberals do it to. There are liberals who believe vaccines cause autism despite forceful language saying no they don't. There are conservatives who do to, and antivaxers aren't as damaging as tough on crime or climate change deniers, but we'll pretend for the moment it's a totally equal bipartisan thing.)
No, that was an AC troll making a straw man argument to mock social justice warriors, the terrorists of the internet. Like real terrorists, there are really extremely few of them and aside from some conservatives who are obsessed with being outraged at them, they're completely inconsequential.
I don't underestimate how much change 7 billion people CAN create, I just am being realistic about how much change they WILL create voluntarily. You overestimate human nature if you think assholes are going to stop using plastic bottles simply because it will affect someone else.
As always, when a conservative criticizes someone, he ends up describing himself perfectly. You at least described Trump there.
When the DNC chair has to resign because of leaked emails, there is no reason to have any confidence in their official tallies.
Aside from zero evidence to suggest they tampered with the vote across the nation. There wasn't anything at all suggesting it in those leaked e-mails you mentioned.
Jailbreaking the iphone back in the day, like my 3GS, it made sense.
Why the heck did Apple decide you could only have a black background anyway? And only three text tones? No hiding iconseither. It wasn't like they sold background apps or SMS tones for a fee, they just said "no, not your phone."
It's obsolete now because... you can just get an android. And apple decided to give users some control over things like the background.
Meh. Don't feel bad. Consumers trying to be green is basically only good for two things. One: selling more expensive crap to them and two: patting yourself on the back.
Actual solutions to any environmental problem don't rely on leaving it up to individuals to make the right choice. There's a reason our military, infrastructure, law enforcement, and public welfare programs aren't funded exclusively through donations.
If you really care, vote to eliminate plastic bottles from sale in your town or something.
If you just want to feel good about yourself, post the article above to facebook or something.
2. You're obviously not talking "better" as in qualifications, you're talking about someone who gave voters the warm fuzzy feelings. Sure, Hillary did not. Speaking as a democrat who voted for Hillary in the primary, I'm very sorry I overestimated the average voter. No sarcasm, I can't fathom what I was thinking at the time. I guess I thought if the country willingly voted for a black dude twice they'd be capable of voting for a competent woman instead of a reality TV show host who has declared bankruptcy many times? My kids and I are going to be paying the price for that blunder. Next time I'll be sure to vote in the primary for whatever white dude I think will be the least offensive to the hick states and hope he picks competent people to actually do shit.
That's quite a false dichotomy. Either the kids are saying "My parents have under the poverty line therefore I think I will join a gang" or money has nothing to do with neighborhood or parenting skills whatsoever.
Poor people can't afford to live in lower crime areas or spend as much time with their kids.
Sure, just as long as you realize that according to data, common sense, and not caring if we offend them, we should be banning white men from getting guns.
No one said food. Childhood poverty, education performance, and crime later on in life are a whole mess that is not my field, but it does seem plausible that if you let one in five kids grow up poor, as we appear to be doing now, you might get a lot more criminals later on. You're going to be paying for their food, sure, but that's among the least of the costs of law enforcement and prisons that you as a taxpayer will be paying for.
We don't let poor, old, and/or sick people die in the street. They won't have preventative care or retirement, but they'll get emergency treatment for their medical emergencies. If they skip out on the bill or go bankrupt, the hospital pays it, passes it onto insurance companies who pass it onto you.
Or you could potentially pay more now in terms of welfare and maybe higher minimum wages, both of which have potential other benefits, like more people with money = healthier economy for everyone else since they can buy stuff.
I dunno, but I do know "MONEY MINE! NO TAXES!" is not a very sound economic theory.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but I'm not sure that matters. Given my experiences with windows 10 forced updates and MS's history of making astonishingly poor decisions, I'm taking it as granted that those costs will not be optional now. Windows will upgrade even if your factory machines won't run on the new software.
I guess everyone hoped he was lying about "repeal everything" and would just stick to silly red meat issues his voters thought were evil. Like "common core" which inexplicably got labeled as satanic brainwashing rather than an easier way to learn addition. Not, you know, actually going after everything Obama did. The vast majority of what any government does is pretty mundane and non-controversial. How many voters in red states were rooting for keeping foreign entrepreneurs out? I'm sure if you told them it was a rule Obama put into place they'd voice an opposition to it, but no one was that I can tell. Why get rid of it? This is seeming more like religious opposition to the majority of Americans who happen to be not far-right.
Considering all the other things he's lied about, and considering how few people support him, I don't think it's at all a given he was going to waste time and the country's money on repealing all the minutia that Obama did.
Sounds like no one is suggesting you do that. I'm assuming you're not a large, medium, or small business. The summary and the very slightly longer article make it sound like this isn't for single, personal users.
Which actually sounds like it could be a good thing. The wannacry malware was almost all windows 7. How many of those machines do you think were run by companies who didn't want to spend any money upgrading and instead cut the IT department? Such penny wise and pound foolish companies might be enticed to subscribe instead because cheaper at the moment, then have to upgrade as soon as the next version is offered.
Herd immunity is good, but often times the herd is too stupid to actively choose to immunize themselves, they have to be forced.
"...revoke a necessary freedom for it's citizens..."
This statement reveals a deep misunderstanding of the writer, and his countrymen, who no doubt is a US citizen. ...Cause its in the constitution that everyone has the inalienable right to happiness..., which in the US means to buy and drive however, and whatever, without any meaningful schooling and training.
I'm aware that Japanese drivers licenses are much harder to get than US licenses. I'd suggest though it's because they have much better public transit, not... some absurd interpretation of the constitution.
By "necessary freedom" I wasn't speaking as a constitutional scholar or a legal definition of "freedom." I meant someone who drives in Japan likely doesn't live in a major metropolitan area with convenient public transit, so they need a car in order to move around. I'm aware that's not a legally enshrined "freedom" in the US and probably isn't in Japan. Everyone around here is always "I am not a lawyer" why the does everyone assume everyone is using definitions of words they're going to write into a legal brief. If you have a car and a drivers license and the government tells you you can't drive anymore, they're limiting your freedom in reality. Your "legal freedoms" have not been abridged, sure, but they've told you you can't do something you've been doing before and that's restricting your freedom. Do I need to clarify any further?
Put that in a pipe and fucking smoke it.
I feel like you should put something in a pipe and smoke it yourself.
Could also be that it's not really an issue given the lack of statistics on increasing deaths. Japanese politicians are likely just as susceptible as american ones at fearmongering and then coming up with fake solutions to the fake problems they were elected on.
Finally the last line of the article is
The number of people aged 75 or older who are licensed to drive stood at about 5.13 million at end of 2016, compared with 2.58 million in late 2006.
The greying of japanese society is a looming issue. Making the increasing number of elderly immobile is going to put more strain on the country as a whole.
ISPs further conglomerating so that they control all our internet access inherently is news for nerds. The fact that the president is so bad that every news story has him as a subject including this one doesn't change that.
I suspect you're actually asking to be able to ignore national politics again. That's part of what got us into this issue in the first place. You'll have a chance in 2018 to reduce the number of hair-raising news stories about politics with your vote, and in 2020 you'll have a chance to elect someone who is not going to require more attention than an infant.
There's too much difference in context there. More interesting would be to change Trump's party and imagine what the response would be.
Probably depends on a bunch of variables. Like how much value a diploma actually adds over a dropout for one. I'm revealing my privilege, but I have no idea whether these days graduating high school actually gets you any better job than not having one does.
If out of a hundred students, ten more students drop out with this rule, but ten more have a next step lined up, that depends on the value of a diploma. If it's "nothing" then that's a great trade. If dropout is absolutely unemployable forever while a diploma is middle class, then that's an awful trade. Probably somewhere between.
Indeed. Knee-jerk cynicism about the future on a website billing itself as news for nerds has always struck me as ridiculous.
But what do I know? I'm just distracting my dumb brain with sex and drugs in this brave new world and the rest of my energy is spent trying to scrounge up some soylent green.
The future is always bleak. I guess no one wants to risk being accused of being naive when they suggest the future might be better instead of worse. Diseases have fallen to unthinkable levels, worldwide poverty is steadily going down, the population is showing signs of coming to a manageable steady state, people are living longer as a result of easier lives, violent crime is dropping, democracy is increasing... but no, it's all going to hell in a handbasket because robots gonna take all out jerbs!
I dunno what the economy of the future will look like, at all, but two possible answers to your question come to mind.
One: if it's still a consumption based economy, they'll need consumers. Either they'll start paying the robots who will then be programmed to buy the stuff the robots are making, or they'll need to be sure people are able to consumer their stuff.
Two: short of hopping the rock and doing an elysium thing or colonizing mars, the elites won't be shielded from us. They'll either need to keep us pacified or at least give us the illusion that we can one day join their ranks through non-violent means, or else we'll rebel.
Given how useful honeybees are to agriculture, there could be significant lobbying efforts to get rid of it. I'd expect California to ban them given their willingness to regulate responsibly, and the facts that almost all the almonds of the world are grown there and bees are required for it. Maryland has already banned them evidently.
More specific counterpoint:
Persistence in soils, waterways, and nontarget plants is variable but can be prolonged; for example, the half-lives of neonicotinoids in soils can exceed 1,000 days, so they can accumulate when used repeatedly. Similarly, they can persist in woody plants for periods exceeding 1 year. Breakdown results in toxic metabolites, though concentrations of these in the environment are rarely measured.
Source
Consider the american right wing is believing easily disproven outright lies at this point. It is annoying when they say "Evolution is JUST A THEORY" or "Blah blah blah, climate change is bad just like eggs and coffee were bad before they were good, amirite?" But they also believe violent crime is going up so we need to spend more on police and get tough on crime when in fact no, just no.
That has nothing to do with scientists being careful about their words, it's a stone cold fact that crime is at a historic low. No amount of forceful language on climate change is going to cause changes.
(And for the precious republican snowflakes upset because I'm picking on the right wing voting to waste my tax dollars on pointless law enforcement measures, yes sure fine liberals do it to. There are liberals who believe vaccines cause autism despite forceful language saying no they don't. There are conservatives who do to, and antivaxers aren't as damaging as tough on crime or climate change deniers, but we'll pretend for the moment it's a totally equal bipartisan thing.)
No, that was an AC troll making a straw man argument to mock social justice warriors, the terrorists of the internet. Like real terrorists, there are really extremely few of them and aside from some conservatives who are obsessed with being outraged at them, they're completely inconsequential.
I don't underestimate how much change 7 billion people CAN create, I just am being realistic about how much change they WILL create voluntarily. You overestimate human nature if you think assholes are going to stop using plastic bottles simply because it will affect someone else.
When the DNC chair has to resign because of leaked emails, there is no reason to have any confidence in their official tallies.
Aside from zero evidence to suggest they tampered with the vote across the nation. There wasn't anything at all suggesting it in those leaked e-mails you mentioned.
Jailbreaking the iphone back in the day, like my 3GS, it made sense.
Why the heck did Apple decide you could only have a black background anyway? And only three text tones? No hiding iconseither. It wasn't like they sold background apps or SMS tones for a fee, they just said "no, not your phone."
It's obsolete now because... you can just get an android. And apple decided to give users some control over things like the background.
Meh. Don't feel bad. Consumers trying to be green is basically only good for two things. One: selling more expensive crap to them and two: patting yourself on the back.
Actual solutions to any environmental problem don't rely on leaving it up to individuals to make the right choice. There's a reason our military, infrastructure, law enforcement, and public welfare programs aren't funded exclusively through donations.
If you really care, vote to eliminate plastic bottles from sale in your town or something.
If you just want to feel good about yourself, post the article above to facebook or something.
"This article full of evidence is wrong! My assertion that Bernie would have won had they debated more than six times needs no evidence!"
The DNC should have fielded a better candidate.
1. The "DNC" chose their candidate about as much as Russia chose our president. Democratic voters "fielded" their candidate. By a big majority.
2. You're obviously not talking "better" as in qualifications, you're talking about someone who gave voters the warm fuzzy feelings. Sure, Hillary did not. Speaking as a democrat who voted for Hillary in the primary, I'm very sorry I overestimated the average voter. No sarcasm, I can't fathom what I was thinking at the time. I guess I thought if the country willingly voted for a black dude twice they'd be capable of voting for a competent woman instead of a reality TV show host who has declared bankruptcy many times? My kids and I are going to be paying the price for that blunder. Next time I'll be sure to vote in the primary for whatever white dude I think will be the least offensive to the hick states and hope he picks competent people to actually do shit.
I'm awful sorry I hurt your republican feelings there, snowflake.
That's quite a false dichotomy. Either the kids are saying "My parents have under the poverty line therefore I think I will join a gang" or money has nothing to do with neighborhood or parenting skills whatsoever.
Poor people can't afford to live in lower crime areas or spend as much time with their kids.
Sure, just as long as you realize that according to data, common sense, and not caring if we offend them, we should be banning white men from getting guns.
In the past ten years, there has been one successful plane bombing. When the fuck are voters going to grow up and realize it's not something anyone should worry about?
Something like 10,000 people are murdered with guns every year in the US, yet we hear NOTHING about banning laptops on guns!
No one said food. Childhood poverty, education performance, and crime later on in life are a whole mess that is not my field, but it does seem plausible that if you let one in five kids grow up poor, as we appear to be doing now, you might get a lot more criminals later on. You're going to be paying for their food, sure, but that's among the least of the costs of law enforcement and prisons that you as a taxpayer will be paying for.
We don't let poor, old, and/or sick people die in the street. They won't have preventative care or retirement, but they'll get emergency treatment for their medical emergencies. If they skip out on the bill or go bankrupt, the hospital pays it, passes it onto insurance companies who pass it onto you.
Or you could potentially pay more now in terms of welfare and maybe higher minimum wages, both of which have potential other benefits, like more people with money = healthier economy for everyone else since they can buy stuff.
I dunno, but I do know "MONEY MINE! NO TAXES!" is not a very sound economic theory.