Oh come on, that's FUD whether you know it or not. The sky has been falling since Henry's time, according to those who follow your line of thinking. It's been over 100 years now, and guess what: IT HASN'T HAPPENED, and it will not happen. There are more employed people in the world now than at any other time in history, and technology has been advancing by leaps and bounds this whole time. There are always jobs available for those who want to work and there always will be.
The downfall of democracy, indeed. The only issue that can't seem to be fixed is the abuse of the safety net systems in this country. That may be the downfall, but advances in technology won't.
... It is now destroying human society in pursuit of those objectives, and the humans need to put their thinking caps back on, tweek the system (as has been done numerous times in capitalism's history) and then set it loose again
Destroying? I think that is an incorrect description here. I would suggest "It is triggering an evolution in human society" as more accurate. For one, you specifically stated that "Capitalism is just a program that is running... that program is not sentient". Your "destroying" comment is anthropomorphizing capitalism, flying directly in the face of your non-sentient claim.
The point is, capitalism's rules do indeed encourage and reward increased productivity and efficiency. Many times, that means displacing humans with more productive and efficient machines. This has been happening since Henry Ford's time, in all sectors of business and labor. It's nothing new. We've adapted before, we'll adapt again. Unfortunately, current society is more amenable to being "taken care of" than the society in the past, who avoided handouts and had more pride and self-esteem than today. This is fostering the blatant abuse of our safety net systems, to the point that those who actually need it can no longer get it, and those who get it don't bother trying to leave it.
NEWS FLASH: People know how to milk the government safety net systems. AND THEY DO. AND IT'S ALLOWED, AND IN FACT, ENCOURAGED.
When I see an unemployed female, with 4 kids and another on the way, with no job but still able to drive an Escalade and purchase designer jeans and jewelry, there's obviously something wrong with the social safety net. Because, to this demographic (and there are lots and lots of these out there), the social safety net is the employer, and the job is simply having more and more kids. This kind of unchecked abuse is exactly what is destroying the programs that are supposed to help the sick, and those who have fallen on unfortunate times to bouy them until they can again support themselves.
When the program has "evolved" (or been bastardized enough by political correctness) to where a normal, healthy person can make a living sitting at home on the program having kids, rather than going out and getting a job to support themselves and their family and contribute to the workforce and the country, and that program allows the behavior, there's a problem with the program. It's no longer a safety net, it's now a drain on society and unfair to those who do indeed work and produce and support those sitting on their collective asses. And they absolutely hate it when that is pointed out.
Really? So, how fast does a person drive in GB? 60 MPH or 90 KPH? And, what is the distance between London and Manchester? 208 miles or 334 KM?
Maybe GB has replaced all the road signs, but AFAIK they haven't. And if they haven't, they have not yet converted to metric. They may use metric in many situations (as we do in the US), but they haven't fully converted like Canada did in the '70s.
Also, remember, land in the US (especially in the Midwest) is broken into 1 mile grids... Won't it be fun when we do convert, and the grid will then be a 1.6 KM grid. Or farmers, rather than farming 1000 acres, will be farming 404 hectares.
Oh, what fun that sounds like. And the cost to convert: we need to spend all that budget surplus on something, don't we?
Sometimes, it doesn't make sense to do something just because everyone else does. At least, that's the lesson my mother taught me in my youth. The lesson involved all my friends base jumping from a bridge, from what I recall...
The reason for high-tension valve springs is to return a valve to it's completely closed position in a passive return system at high RPMs, as the valve stems are not directly connected to the cam lobes (or rocker arms), but rather are simply riding against them. If an electromechanical system is used, the closing of the valve could be done in a controlled and programmed fashion, where the valve stem is physically (or magnetically) connected to the driving force of the actuator in both opening and closing directions, negating the need for a spring at all and therefore the need to overcome the spring tension.
True, but not as catastrophic as traditional cam-based interference, where there will be massively broken things, like holes in pistons and bent valve stems, because there is absolutely no yield at all in a mechanical system. You may still have some damage, but there may be a chance that the damage is minimized. And, the system could be programmed to sense a collision and go into a "safe" mode with all the affected valves put into a closed (or nearly closed) position, allowing the motor to still run with the affected cylinders taken off-line, basically a "limp" mode.
I don't know, there are some good ideas thrown in here, like the ability to adjust valve timing and duration dynamically that may yield some very good performance and efficiency boosts over traditional camshafts... Interesting concept.
Funny how you use A/C rather than a real login to throw the race card around... Just sayin'. Shows just how cowardly you truly are, and how little weight or faith anyone should put on your statements.
If you're going to support the natives (and act as if you are one), then grow a pair and put yourself out there. Make a real stand, not behind the curtain of cowardice.
I hope that we see, in our lifetime, the autonomous vehicle take over for human driving. I believe that will lower the number of roadway fatalities by a massive amount.
I could say the exact same thing about the Dems. They say they value life and therefore are anti-gun, but are all for abortion (which kills more children than guns do each year, by a HUGE margin).
They say they are for individual freedom (which is where the abortion support is), but are anti-gun (which is also a freedom).
The problem is that both parties have gotten to the point that they make no sense anymore. There is no common sense or logic, and circular reasoning like I show above is commonplace in BOTH parties.
I think people are becoming disillusioned by the two parties, and are upset that the parties are not listening to their supporters (moreso the GOP here: think Ron Paul). I think, in my lifetime, we may see a dramatic shift in the parties, with maybe a couple of "new" parties being brought into existence by the disenchanted ex-Dems and ex-GOPpers. Which will obviously require a major shift in how winners are determined in elections. There's also the problem of how much money the two parties have access to, to overwhelm and oppress any interloper who dares try to horn in on the electorate.
Both parties have some good ideas and ideals: unfortunately, they are like feuding clans: if one says something, the other is bound by some kind of illogical reason to completely and totally disagree and say the opposite. Who doesn't want to help those who can't help themselves? Who doesn't want a strong, healthy economy? Who doesn't want a strong, healthy citizenry? Who doesn't want to stop waste and corruption? These are all things that a normal, sane citizen would want to see, but the problem is that the definitions are different, depending on the party. And both definitions are so extreme that they make no sense at all.
No, CALEA is completely a different situation, and yes, as an ISP you would be required to conform to CALEA requirements as well. Safe Harbor is defined in the DMCA: http://digital-law-online.info....
ADC, Eddie Murphy, Bob Sagat, Gallagher (violence against fruits and veggies)...
I also don't like the implication that the Freedom of Speech can be infringed (including to the point of career ending) by someone's hurt feelings, sensitive ears, or other inconsequential, non-physical "harm".
I agree: words are only words. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Apparently, that little mantra went out the window when NCLB/CC entered the schoolhouse...
If you don't like the comedian, fine... don't buy a ticket. But don't try to stop others who may possibly enjoy something other than what you do, who may have other interests or tastes. Because, in their world, they are right and you are wrong. It's called the subjective point-of-view, and absolutely every person on the earth has a different one from everyone else. That's the true diversity in the homo sapiens species: not skin color, or height or weight, or citizenship.
Cars kill. We should ban all cars. Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in!
If we can't get that, then we should ban all cars with horsepower above 10, or with spoilers, or electric windows, because these enhancements make the vehicle into an assault vehicle, and no one really needs these options anyway. Also, it shouldn't hold more than 5 gallons of gas, and it should only be 80 octane gas, all other high-powered gas should only be sold to government agencies or, of course, private security firms.
The proof that the only use of cars is contained in the fact that 32,719 people were killed by cars in 2013. Look at the road rage, look at the GTA, look at the drunk drivers.
But to fit into the FCC's "Safe Harbor" category, where you, as an ISP, aren't held liable and legally responsible for the illegal content flowing through your network (think child porn and DMCA), you'll have to maintain records for each and every IP address: who is using it, when they are using it, and ensure you can send the lawyers to the exact location that was using that IP address at the date/time that they specify.
Did you consider this one legal facet of your idea (out of probably 100?) There's way, way more to being an ISP than just offering a path to the internet...
OK, so if the US gets involved late in the game, it's "your usual stunt of staying out until as much profit as possible had been made", not "attempting to defuse the situation using diplomacy via the UN".
If the US would have done something sooner, you would have been considered it a warmonger, right?
What-the-fuck-ever.
I do agree with your statement that the US meddles in lots of places that it shouldn't (the Middle East, Central America, SE Asia, etc.) And, that the US has trained peoples that have become it's enemy in the future (bin Laden, for example, and usually because of an action or inaction on the part of the US: we are not good at this type of thing). I think it's a bunch of BS saying that the US is "protecting it's interests" - not that the interests don't exist, but the US has the RIGHT to do this, unless specifically asked by the world (ie: UN). If a US corporation is in trouble in a foreign country, IMO that's just tough luck, it was a gamble that was lost. So sad, too bad. Part of the game of business. It's not a US interest at that point, unless an extrapolation is made, which does not justify it.
HOWEVER, I also believe that the US has helped many, many people in many situations (or, at least, tried to). The US stayed out of WWII until it was dragged, kicking and screaming, into it via Pearl Harbor, even after much of Europe begged the US for action and help previously. Even though it's "interests" would have been better served by entering earlier (helping it's allies when asked). There is no doubt that the US ultimately tilted the balance in the Allied's favor, and an Axis win would have been devastating to US "interests". Was that "staying out until as much profit as possible had been made"?
So, what is the proper action? Get in early and help allies, or stay out until forced? Because by your statements, there is no correct choice, and no matter what the US does, it's wrong. Go ahead, give me the "right" answer here, and let me know where you're from so that your country's actions can also be analyzed...
The other (unstated but obvious) restriction on free speech is the situation where the utterance could or will directly endanger lives. The common example used is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. This is an obvious misuse and malicious use of speech, and rightly is against the law.
I know it's obvious, and has been stated in other conversations, but thought it should be included in this conversation.
You're never going to see a situation where someone bursts into a crowded movie theater with a knife and stabs to death dozens of people
But, bombs are very effective at this... So, yeah, let's ban the guns, so that the bombing may begin.
While you're at it, let's get rid of some of those other pesky bills of rights... They just get in the way of the ability of the Government (aka Super Mommy) to protect and nurture the unwashed public. Who needs the right to object to the Gov't's benign rules and regs; who needs to be able to have a peaceful and private gathering; why would you not allow the military to use your home as a barracks? You don't have anything to hide anyway, right? So, privacy just gets in the way of the Gov't's job of ensuring people's safety. Courts know best, police are our friends and exist to protect us, and the notion of personal and state rights are just, so, old-fashioned... These are all silly, outdated ideas, and are completely out of place in today's society, so what the hell. Dump 'em all and let's get our civility on! Woo fucking hoo!
...as well as developing a complete and commercially viable system for safely electrifying your home our shop.
No, that's Nicolai Tesla. It is very well known that Edison wanted to use DC power. He was first a capitalist and second an inventor, and one of his businesses was to build neighborhood DC power plants. Tesla was the person who pushed for AC power, because AC is able to be transformed to higher voltages (and therefore lower amperages) in order to transport it over longer distances and having larger, more regional and therefore more efficient power plants rather than smaller, neighborhood power plants (and as a side effect, the ability to have redundancy built into the system: distant power plants can be used in the case of a failure of a closer plant). Edison is purported to have done some very nasty things to try to sway public opinion away from AC power, such as publicly electrocuting animals (cats, or dogs, I don't remember and am too lazy to look it up) and did his best to destroy Tesla, as he saw Tesla's ideas as a threat to his money-making opportunities, even though Tesla was in awe of Edison and originally came to America to specifically work as Edison's prodigy.
We know who's ideas eventually won out, of course...
Slashdot Mirror
Oh come on, that's FUD whether you know it or not. The sky has been falling since Henry's time, according to those who follow your line of thinking. It's been over 100 years now, and guess what: IT HASN'T HAPPENED, and it will not happen. There are more employed people in the world now than at any other time in history, and technology has been advancing by leaps and bounds this whole time. There are always jobs available for those who want to work and there always will be.
The downfall of democracy, indeed. The only issue that can't seem to be fixed is the abuse of the safety net systems in this country. That may be the downfall, but advances in technology won't.
... It is now destroying human society in pursuit of those objectives, and the humans need to put their thinking caps back on, tweek the system (as has been done numerous times in capitalism's history) and then set it loose again
Destroying? I think that is an incorrect description here. I would suggest "It is triggering an evolution in human society" as more accurate. For one, you specifically stated that "Capitalism is just a program that is running... that program is not sentient". Your "destroying" comment is anthropomorphizing capitalism, flying directly in the face of your non-sentient claim.
The point is, capitalism's rules do indeed encourage and reward increased productivity and efficiency. Many times, that means displacing humans with more productive and efficient machines. This has been happening since Henry Ford's time, in all sectors of business and labor. It's nothing new. We've adapted before, we'll adapt again. Unfortunately, current society is more amenable to being "taken care of" than the society in the past, who avoided handouts and had more pride and self-esteem than today. This is fostering the blatant abuse of our safety net systems, to the point that those who actually need it can no longer get it, and those who get it don't bother trying to leave it.
NEWS FLASH: People know how to milk the government safety net systems. AND THEY DO. AND IT'S ALLOWED, AND IN FACT, ENCOURAGED.
When I see an unemployed female, with 4 kids and another on the way, with no job but still able to drive an Escalade and purchase designer jeans and jewelry, there's obviously something wrong with the social safety net. Because, to this demographic (and there are lots and lots of these out there), the social safety net is the employer, and the job is simply having more and more kids. This kind of unchecked abuse is exactly what is destroying the programs that are supposed to help the sick, and those who have fallen on unfortunate times to bouy them until they can again support themselves.
When the program has "evolved" (or been bastardized enough by political correctness) to where a normal, healthy person can make a living sitting at home on the program having kids, rather than going out and getting a job to support themselves and their family and contribute to the workforce and the country, and that program allows the behavior, there's a problem with the program. It's no longer a safety net, it's now a drain on society and unfair to those who do indeed work and produce and support those sitting on their collective asses. And they absolutely hate it when that is pointed out.
Let the flaming begin.
{gn mode on}
AC: it's expertise. You should also learn how to use caps and avoid run-on sentences.
{gn mode off}
Really? So, how fast does a person drive in GB? 60 MPH or 90 KPH? And, what is the distance between London and Manchester? 208 miles or 334 KM?
Maybe GB has replaced all the road signs, but AFAIK they haven't. And if they haven't, they have not yet converted to metric. They may use metric in many situations (as we do in the US), but they haven't fully converted like Canada did in the '70s.
Also, remember, land in the US (especially in the Midwest) is broken into 1 mile grids... Won't it be fun when we do convert, and the grid will then be a 1.6 KM grid. Or farmers, rather than farming 1000 acres, will be farming 404 hectares.
Oh, what fun that sounds like. And the cost to convert: we need to spend all that budget surplus on something, don't we?
Sometimes, it doesn't make sense to do something just because everyone else does. At least, that's the lesson my mother taught me in my youth. The lesson involved all my friends base jumping from a bridge, from what I recall...
Well, in fact, circles do have more than one side... an inside and an outside. :)
Yeah, this one was worse... Shame on you.
The reason for high-tension valve springs is to return a valve to it's completely closed position in a passive return system at high RPMs, as the valve stems are not directly connected to the cam lobes (or rocker arms), but rather are simply riding against them. If an electromechanical system is used, the closing of the valve could be done in a controlled and programmed fashion, where the valve stem is physically (or magnetically) connected to the driving force of the actuator in both opening and closing directions, negating the need for a spring at all and therefore the need to overcome the spring tension.
True, but not as catastrophic as traditional cam-based interference, where there will be massively broken things, like holes in pistons and bent valve stems, because there is absolutely no yield at all in a mechanical system. You may still have some damage, but there may be a chance that the damage is minimized. And, the system could be programmed to sense a collision and go into a "safe" mode with all the affected valves put into a closed (or nearly closed) position, allowing the motor to still run with the affected cylinders taken off-line, basically a "limp" mode.
I don't know, there are some good ideas thrown in here, like the ability to adjust valve timing and duration dynamically that may yield some very good performance and efficiency boosts over traditional camshafts... Interesting concept.
So, who says the ship will be as small as the moon?
Funny how you use A/C rather than a real login to throw the race card around... Just sayin'. Shows just how cowardly you truly are, and how little weight or faith anyone should put on your statements.
If you're going to support the natives (and act as if you are one), then grow a pair and put yourself out there. Make a real stand, not behind the curtain of cowardice.
Well said.
I hope that we see, in our lifetime, the autonomous vehicle take over for human driving. I believe that will lower the number of roadway fatalities by a massive amount.
I could say the exact same thing about the Dems. They say they value life and therefore are anti-gun, but are all for abortion (which kills more children than guns do each year, by a HUGE margin).
They say they are for individual freedom (which is where the abortion support is), but are anti-gun (which is also a freedom).
The problem is that both parties have gotten to the point that they make no sense anymore. There is no common sense or logic, and circular reasoning like I show above is commonplace in BOTH parties.
I think people are becoming disillusioned by the two parties, and are upset that the parties are not listening to their supporters (moreso the GOP here: think Ron Paul). I think, in my lifetime, we may see a dramatic shift in the parties, with maybe a couple of "new" parties being brought into existence by the disenchanted ex-Dems and ex-GOPpers. Which will obviously require a major shift in how winners are determined in elections. There's also the problem of how much money the two parties have access to, to overwhelm and oppress any interloper who dares try to horn in on the electorate.
Both parties have some good ideas and ideals: unfortunately, they are like feuding clans: if one says something, the other is bound by some kind of illogical reason to completely and totally disagree and say the opposite. Who doesn't want to help those who can't help themselves? Who doesn't want a strong, healthy economy? Who doesn't want a strong, healthy citizenry? Who doesn't want to stop waste and corruption? These are all things that a normal, sane citizen would want to see, but the problem is that the definitions are different, depending on the party. And both definitions are so extreme that they make no sense at all.
No, CALEA is completely a different situation, and yes, as an ISP you would be required to conform to CALEA requirements as well. Safe Harbor is defined in the DMCA: http://digital-law-online.info....
ADC, Eddie Murphy, Bob Sagat, Gallagher (violence against fruits and veggies)...
I also don't like the implication that the Freedom of Speech can be infringed (including to the point of career ending) by someone's hurt feelings, sensitive ears, or other inconsequential, non-physical "harm".
I agree: words are only words. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Apparently, that little mantra went out the window when NCLB/CC entered the schoolhouse...
If you don't like the comedian, fine... don't buy a ticket. But don't try to stop others who may possibly enjoy something other than what you do, who may have other interests or tastes. Because, in their world, they are right and you are wrong. It's called the subjective point-of-view, and absolutely every person on the earth has a different one from everyone else. That's the true diversity in the homo sapiens species: not skin color, or height or weight, or citizenship.
Cars kill. We should ban all cars. Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in!
If we can't get that, then we should ban all cars with horsepower above 10, or with spoilers, or electric windows, because these enhancements make the vehicle into an assault vehicle, and no one really needs these options anyway. Also, it shouldn't hold more than 5 gallons of gas, and it should only be 80 octane gas, all other high-powered gas should only be sold to government agencies or, of course, private security firms.
The proof that the only use of cars is contained in the fact that 32,719 people were killed by cars in 2013. Look at the road rage, look at the GTA, look at the drunk drivers.
Think of the children!!!
Nice idea...
But to fit into the FCC's "Safe Harbor" category, where you, as an ISP, aren't held liable and legally responsible for the illegal content flowing through your network (think child porn and DMCA), you'll have to maintain records for each and every IP address: who is using it, when they are using it, and ensure you can send the lawyers to the exact location that was using that IP address at the date/time that they specify.
Did you consider this one legal facet of your idea (out of probably 100?) There's way, way more to being an ISP than just offering a path to the internet...
Don't feed the trolls.... Don't feed the trolls.... Gotta keep telling myself that...
Wish there was a "Like" button...
OK, so if the US gets involved late in the game, it's "your usual stunt of staying out until as much profit as possible had been made", not "attempting to defuse the situation using diplomacy via the UN".
If the US would have done something sooner, you would have been considered it a warmonger, right?
What-the-fuck-ever.
I do agree with your statement that the US meddles in lots of places that it shouldn't (the Middle East, Central America, SE Asia, etc.) And, that the US has trained peoples that have become it's enemy in the future (bin Laden, for example, and usually because of an action or inaction on the part of the US: we are not good at this type of thing). I think it's a bunch of BS saying that the US is "protecting it's interests" - not that the interests don't exist, but the US has the RIGHT to do this, unless specifically asked by the world (ie: UN). If a US corporation is in trouble in a foreign country, IMO that's just tough luck, it was a gamble that was lost. So sad, too bad. Part of the game of business. It's not a US interest at that point, unless an extrapolation is made, which does not justify it.
HOWEVER, I also believe that the US has helped many, many people in many situations (or, at least, tried to). The US stayed out of WWII until it was dragged, kicking and screaming, into it via Pearl Harbor, even after much of Europe begged the US for action and help previously. Even though it's "interests" would have been better served by entering earlier (helping it's allies when asked). There is no doubt that the US ultimately tilted the balance in the Allied's favor, and an Axis win would have been devastating to US "interests". Was that "staying out until as much profit as possible had been made"?
So, what is the proper action? Get in early and help allies, or stay out until forced? Because by your statements, there is no correct choice, and no matter what the US does, it's wrong. Go ahead, give me the "right" answer here, and let me know where you're from so that your country's actions can also be analyzed...
Well said, don't understand why you used AC...
The other (unstated but obvious) restriction on free speech is the situation where the utterance could or will directly endanger lives. The common example used is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. This is an obvious misuse and malicious use of speech, and rightly is against the law.
I know it's obvious, and has been stated in other conversations, but thought it should be included in this conversation.
But, how often do you CALL YOUR NAKED DSL??? Jesus, make sense AC.
You're never going to see a situation where someone bursts into a crowded movie theater with a knife and stabs to death dozens of people
But, bombs are very effective at this... So, yeah, let's ban the guns, so that the bombing may begin.
While you're at it, let's get rid of some of those other pesky bills of rights... They just get in the way of the ability of the Government (aka Super Mommy) to protect and nurture the unwashed public. Who needs the right to object to the Gov't's benign rules and regs; who needs to be able to have a peaceful and private gathering; why would you not allow the military to use your home as a barracks? You don't have anything to hide anyway, right? So, privacy just gets in the way of the Gov't's job of ensuring people's safety. Courts know best, police are our friends and exist to protect us, and the notion of personal and state rights are just, so, old-fashioned... These are all silly, outdated ideas, and are completely out of place in today's society, so what the hell. Dump 'em all and let's get our civility on! Woo fucking hoo!
Yep! I did! Got an extra "i" in there. Thanks mrex.
...as well as developing a complete and commercially viable system for safely electrifying your home our shop.
No, that's Nicolai Tesla. It is very well known that Edison wanted to use DC power. He was first a capitalist and second an inventor, and one of his businesses was to build neighborhood DC power plants. Tesla was the person who pushed for AC power, because AC is able to be transformed to higher voltages (and therefore lower amperages) in order to transport it over longer distances and having larger, more regional and therefore more efficient power plants rather than smaller, neighborhood power plants (and as a side effect, the ability to have redundancy built into the system: distant power plants can be used in the case of a failure of a closer plant). Edison is purported to have done some very nasty things to try to sway public opinion away from AC power, such as publicly electrocuting animals (cats, or dogs, I don't remember and am too lazy to look it up) and did his best to destroy Tesla, as he saw Tesla's ideas as a threat to his money-making opportunities, even though Tesla was in awe of Edison and originally came to America to specifically work as Edison's prodigy.
We know who's ideas eventually won out, of course...