It's less about the tool itself and more about the mentality. A lot of people hobby farm for the joy of it (see other comments on this story), and this sort of tech takes away from the enjoyment. As for subsistence farmers, they're just one more expensive toy that will eventually break, potentially leaving them with damaged crops.
Huge factory farms and people who want to have pet plants but consistently forget to care for them might benefit from such devices, but I just don't see the demand coming from people who farm solely for fun and/or food.
I used something kind of like that for about two weeks, until one day I came home to find that the mechanism had spontaneously exploded* sometime hours before, and my garden had turned into a small swamp-like biome.
Now I just mulch properly and water in the morning/evening like I used to; the mulch makes all the difference in the world.
* Caveat, the model was one of those super-cheap ones from Harbor Freight, so I should have expected catastrophic failure.
Ever wonder why, after almost a century of technological development, a lot of small time and hobby farmers still drive 1940's era tractors?
A, because they're cheap to buy and fix. B, because if it ain't broke, it don't need fixin'.
I'm sure all these fancy garden toys are quite popular with the hipster, urban-farming-because-its-hip crowd, but for actual subsistence farming? Not so much.
You want to save lives? Then use some of your vast personal fortune to research and discover a cure for cancer
Actually, he's more ambitious than that. He's invested a big chunk of his personal fortune in research that's aiming to cure death.
So... he's insane?
Why is that insanity?
Two words: Limited resources. Just look at all the problems we're having with the current human population, who fortunately die off occasionally; can you imagine how difficult it would be to divvy up the planet's finite resources if nobody ever died*?
Well, I guess I should add the caveat of "... of natural causes" to that, since I guarantee a lot of people would die of either starvation or as a result of the inevitable resource wars.
* Of course, being realistic, the "death cure" wouldn't be available to all people, only the wealthiest, most powerful... people like Larry Page. Which brings up another interesting problem - if the people running the world today are selfish assholes (and let's face facts, generally they are), do you really think it's beneficial to society overall to have those same people ruling over humanity forever?
Since when does the government have the authority to supersede the law?
Since it's occasionally necessary to break the law in order to enforce it. How would cops catch a getaway car if they themselves weren't allowed to run lights and speed?
Believe me, my posting history here has plenty of flat-out insulting posts with no sort of justification at all. The difference is, I'm a jackass to dumbasses;-)
I shall allow this. Sometimes dumbassery warrants jackassery in response.
Oh, I don't. Personally, I find it a bit flattering that someone would find little ol' me important enough to stalk.
At least, that's how I like to characterize it.
I've had someone "stalking" my comments for years now... He tried to impersonate me here on Slashdot.
lol, I had that happen too! Someone made an account as "CanHasDlY," using a lowercase L instead of a capital I. Best part: after I reported him and the admins dropped the banhammer, he went to the comments page of my personal website and left some slobbering-mad rant about how I'm an asshole.
Fortunately, I've got a pretty... diverse sense of humor, so all this sort of crap just cracks me up.
So you're going to be targetted for looking up your representative's record?
No, you're going to be targeted for looking up your representative's record regarding the NSA.
Considering today's level of technology, does this really seem all that far fetched? A program watches the data stream, cross references the list of people who complain with what those people own, their health records, employment records, ie anything that could be used against them at some point, and if the system gets a significant enough hit, out goes the request for Judge Rubberstamp to sign some FISA warrants.
Shit, other than the back end, they probably scripted most of it over a weekend.
I figured the problem was that after they murder you for standing up for yourself, the media will do everything possible to demonize you as a radical extremist, and the cycle of fascism will renew itself.
I would disagree. Having this data available to crunch the numbers would definitely benefit healthcare (in the saving lives aspect).
Oh, I'm not saying there wouldn't be benefits.
What I'm saying is, "saving lives" is likely not Larry Page's motivation here, considering what he's advocating for (opening private records), and what business he happens to be in (selling/renting access to private records).
It's like storing passwords as plaintext. It is super convenient for everyone involved as long as everyone involved is altruistic. But assuming everyone is altruistic is stupid so storing passwords in plaintext is generally regarded as stupid.
Because one is actually helpful to society, and the other one is just a way for the rich to get richer?
Saving 100,000 lives per year is not helpful to society?
Heh... my first thought on reading that was, "of course it's not! That's 100,000 more mouths to feed!"
No, the real response is, he just pulled that number out of his ass to convince you that letting his company spy on you is a good thing. "What might happen if X were Y" is unquantifiable in most cases, this being one.
So then you have to ask, "why would a guy like Larry Page make shit up in an attempt to convince me to open my health records up to his company - a company that makes it's profits off the sale (or rather, rental) of people's private information?"
To which I say, the answer is pretty damn obvious - he wants to make more money.
The cigarettes Einstein smoked were probably nothing like the cigarettes we have today.
For starters, back then there was no government mandate to include coal tar, a known carcinogen, in the product. FYI, that's what makes "fire safe" cigarettes, er, fire-safe - government mandated toxins.
So really, it's not the tobacco companies who are the merchants of death here, so much as the government, which has profited immensely from forcing tobacco companies to poison their customers, then sue those same companies for the effects of these government-required additions.
High bridges are magnets for suicidal people. Not only is death nearly guaranteed, it's nicely public and dramatic. Might even shut down a major route for a few hours. The Golden Gate Bridge has had problems with suicides ever since it was built. Authorities are finally taking some preventative measures, like adding netting so it's not quite so easy to throw yourself off. We have rails that make it difficult for cars to drive off the side, but human bodies slipped through the cracks, so to speak.
I read about that; probably a good idea, too, not because of the loss of life, but because of the loss of tax dollars wasted on shutting down roads, cleaning up corpses, et al.
If high bridges are so attractive as a means of suicide, it makes sense that a tool purposely built to kill would also be attractive.
Nope; think, if a tool was built for a purpose, but sucked at it, would you still use it? Or would you use a different tool, made for a different purpose, but more effective for the job at hand?
No, suicidal people are attracted to 'tools' that are effective at killing people without causing much pain - guns, buildings, pills, rope, et. al.
FWIW, if all the guns in the world magically disappeared tomorrow, people would still commit suicide; thus, guns are not the problem, situations that make people suicidal are. I would prefer if we stopped wasting time chasing unicorns and started focusing on the real causes.
Yea, he actually took this argument to another thread. So you can add "then he'll stalk you around Slashdot for having the audacity to contradict him" to the list of behaviors.
The article has some good advice, and what I would consider some bad advice:
"Lock your phone"
- GOOD ADVICE! A simple passcode is your first line of defense against any physical intrusion, just like the lock on your front door.
"Repeat 'I do not consent to this search'"
- GOOD ADVICE! Not only does it establish that you deny consent, it shows the cop that you know (at least some of) your rights, which will get most of them to think twice before doing anything that might violate your rights (especially if you're taping the encounter).
Don't get physical/let them do as they please, then lawyer up."
I consider that bad advice, because it discourages people from exercising their right to defend themselves against unlawful arrest, a right that has been repeatedly verified and upheld in court.
Of course, as with any exercising any right, you do so at your own peril.
Yea! And what's with all the goddamn Jews running around? Haven't we built the camps for them yet?
Sardonic smart-assery aside - dude, cops pull this shit all. The. Time.
If these were isolated incidents, ie not common practice, the SCOTUS wouldn't have been bothered to rule on the practice.
because there was a bad cop once, and since he wasn't instantly outed by co-workers, that all cops are part of his nefarious plan to subvert your rights at all junctions.
If you see me commit a crime, and you don't report it, guess what? They charge you with accessory to the crime. I don't think it's even slightly uncalled for to expect law enforcement personnel to abide by the same laws they expect us to. Much the opposite, equal treatment is in the Constitution.
Interesting... Although, I'm pretty sure it's already been said, at this point, how variations in statistical reporting methods pretty much invalidate comparisons between nations. Probably municipalities, too, if we bothered to look hard enough.
Which kind of invalidates my own point, which is fine - you actually made a concerted effort to prove your case, whereas that other guy responding to my post is just being flat out insulting, without offering any sort of empirical verification of their position. So, kudos to you for making a valid point and not being a jackass about it.
Slashdot Mirror
I could go for a modified version of Microsoft's laser-based anti-mosquito system, set up to target garden pests.
That'd keep the grackles off my blackberries...
It's less about the tool itself and more about the mentality. A lot of people hobby farm for the joy of it (see other comments on this story), and this sort of tech takes away from the enjoyment. As for subsistence farmers, they're just one more expensive toy that will eventually break, potentially leaving them with damaged crops.
Huge factory farms and people who want to have pet plants but consistently forget to care for them might benefit from such devices, but I just don't see the demand coming from people who farm solely for fun and/or food.
I've been using this wonderful device for controlling drip irrigation:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...
I used something kind of like that for about two weeks, until one day I came home to find that the mechanism had spontaneously exploded* sometime hours before, and my garden had turned into a small swamp-like biome.
Now I just mulch properly and water in the morning/evening like I used to; the mulch makes all the difference in the world.
* Caveat, the model was one of those super-cheap ones from Harbor Freight, so I should have expected catastrophic failure.
I do; my wife
Who doesn't?
Rimshot!
So:
Windows 9 is to Windows 7, what Windows 7 is to Windows XP.
Why?
Because Windows 9 is to Windows 8 what Windows 7 is to Windows Vista (which is Windows ME to Windows XP).
Head == asplode.
Ever wonder why, after almost a century of technological development, a lot of small time and hobby farmers still drive 1940's era tractors?
A, because they're cheap to buy and fix. B, because if it ain't broke, it don't need fixin'.
I'm sure all these fancy garden toys are quite popular with the hipster, urban-farming-because-its-hip crowd, but for actual subsistence farming? Not so much.
Probably knew the difference between courage and cowardice, too.
You want to save lives? Then use some of your vast personal fortune to research and discover a cure for cancer
Actually, he's more ambitious than that. He's invested a big chunk of his personal fortune in research that's aiming to cure death.
So... he's insane?
Why is that insanity?
Two words: Limited resources. Just look at all the problems we're having with the current human population, who fortunately die off occasionally; can you imagine how difficult it would be to divvy up the planet's finite resources if nobody ever died*?
Well, I guess I should add the caveat of "... of natural causes" to that, since I guarantee a lot of people would die of either starvation or as a result of the inevitable resource wars.
* Of course, being realistic, the "death cure" wouldn't be available to all people, only the wealthiest, most powerful... people like Larry Page. Which brings up another interesting problem - if the people running the world today are selfish assholes (and let's face facts, generally they are), do you really think it's beneficial to society overall to have those same people ruling over humanity forever?
Wait, what?
Since when does the government have the authority to supersede the law?
Since it's occasionally necessary to break the law in order to enforce it. How would cops catch a getaway car if they themselves weren't allowed to run lights and speed?
Believe me, my posting history here has plenty of flat-out insulting posts with no sort of justification at all. The difference is, I'm a jackass to dumbasses ;-)
I shall allow this. Sometimes dumbassery warrants jackassery in response.
Again, don't feel bad.
Oh, I don't. Personally, I find it a bit flattering that someone would find little ol' me important enough to stalk.
At least, that's how I like to characterize it.
I've had someone "stalking" my comments for years now... He tried to impersonate me here on Slashdot.
lol, I had that happen too! Someone made an account as "CanHasDlY," using a lowercase L instead of a capital I. Best part: after I reported him and the admins dropped the banhammer, he went to the comments page of my personal website and left some slobbering-mad rant about how I'm an asshole.
Fortunately, I've got a pretty... diverse sense of humor, so all this sort of crap just cracks me up.
So you're going to be targetted for looking up your representative's record?
No, you're going to be targeted for looking up your representative's record regarding the NSA.
Considering today's level of technology, does this really seem all that far fetched? A program watches the data stream, cross references the list of people who complain with what those people own, their health records, employment records, ie anything that could be used against them at some point, and if the system gets a significant enough hit, out goes the request for Judge Rubberstamp to sign some FISA warrants.
Shit, other than the back end, they probably scripted most of it over a weekend.
I figured the problem was that after they murder you for standing up for yourself, the media will do everything possible to demonize you as a radical extremist, and the cycle of fascism will renew itself.
I would disagree. Having this data available to crunch the numbers would definitely benefit healthcare (in the saving lives aspect).
Oh, I'm not saying there wouldn't be benefits.
What I'm saying is, "saving lives" is likely not Larry Page's motivation here, considering what he's advocating for (opening private records), and what business he happens to be in (selling/renting access to private records).
It's like storing passwords as plaintext. It is super convenient for everyone involved as long as everyone involved is altruistic. But assuming everyone is altruistic is stupid so storing passwords in plaintext is generally regarded as stupid.
Perfect analogy.
Because one is actually helpful to society, and the other one is just a way for the rich to get richer?
Saving 100,000 lives per year is not helpful to society?
Heh... my first thought on reading that was, "of course it's not! That's 100,000 more mouths to feed!"
No, the real response is, he just pulled that number out of his ass to convince you that letting his company spy on you is a good thing. "What might happen if X were Y" is unquantifiable in most cases, this being one.
So then you have to ask, "why would a guy like Larry Page make shit up in an attempt to convince me to open my health records up to his company - a company that makes it's profits off the sale (or rather, rental) of people's private information?"
To which I say, the answer is pretty damn obvious - he wants to make more money.
You want to save lives? Then use some of your vast personal fortune to research and discover a cure for cancer
Actually, he's more ambitious than that. He's invested a big chunk of his personal fortune in research that's aiming to cure death.
So... he's insane?
If he hires a German woman named Brucher to be his secretary, I'm gonna crap myself.
The cigarettes Einstein smoked were probably nothing like the cigarettes we have today.
For starters, back then there was no government mandate to include coal tar, a known carcinogen, in the product. FYI, that's what makes "fire safe" cigarettes, er, fire-safe - government mandated toxins.
So really, it's not the tobacco companies who are the merchants of death here, so much as the government, which has profited immensely from forcing tobacco companies to poison their customers, then sue those same companies for the effects of these government-required additions.
Always found that curious, myself.
High bridges are magnets for suicidal people. Not only is death nearly guaranteed, it's nicely public and dramatic. Might even shut down a major route for a few hours. The Golden Gate Bridge has had problems with suicides ever since it was built. Authorities are finally taking some preventative measures, like adding netting so it's not quite so easy to throw yourself off. We have rails that make it difficult for cars to drive off the side, but human bodies slipped through the cracks, so to speak.
I read about that; probably a good idea, too, not because of the loss of life, but because of the loss of tax dollars wasted on shutting down roads, cleaning up corpses, et al.
If high bridges are so attractive as a means of suicide, it makes sense that a tool purposely built to kill would also be attractive.
Nope; think, if a tool was built for a purpose, but sucked at it, would you still use it? Or would you use a different tool, made for a different purpose, but more effective for the job at hand?
No, suicidal people are attracted to 'tools' that are effective at killing people without causing much pain - guns, buildings, pills, rope, et. al.
FWIW, if all the guns in the world magically disappeared tomorrow, people would still commit suicide; thus, guns are not the problem, situations that make people suicidal are. I would prefer if we stopped wasting time chasing unicorns and started focusing on the real causes.
Yea, he actually took this argument to another thread. So you can add "then he'll stalk you around Slashdot for having the audacity to contradict him" to the list of behaviors.
The article has some good advice, and what I would consider some bad advice:
"Lock your phone"
- GOOD ADVICE! A simple passcode is your first line of defense against any physical intrusion, just like the lock on your front door.
"Repeat 'I do not consent to this search'"
- GOOD ADVICE! Not only does it establish that you deny consent, it shows the cop that you know (at least some of) your rights, which will get most of them to think twice before doing anything that might violate your rights (especially if you're taping the encounter).
Don't get physical/let them do as they please, then lawyer up."
I consider that bad advice, because it discourages people from exercising their right to defend themselves against unlawful arrest, a right that has been repeatedly verified and upheld in court.
Of course, as with any exercising any right, you do so at your own peril.
Yea! And what's with all the goddamn Jews running around? Haven't we built the camps for them yet?
Sardonic smart-assery aside - dude, cops pull this shit all. The. Time.
If these were isolated incidents, ie not common practice, the SCOTUS wouldn't have been bothered to rule on the practice.
because there was a bad cop once, and since he wasn't instantly outed by co-workers, that all cops are part of his nefarious plan to subvert your rights at all junctions.
If you see me commit a crime, and you don't report it, guess what? They charge you with accessory to the crime. I don't think it's even slightly uncalled for to expect law enforcement personnel to abide by the same laws they expect us to. Much the opposite, equal treatment is in the Constitution.
That's what the saying "freedom isn't free" really means, you know.
Interesting... Although, I'm pretty sure it's already been said, at this point, how variations in statistical reporting methods pretty much invalidate comparisons between nations. Probably municipalities, too, if we bothered to look hard enough.
Which kind of invalidates my own point, which is fine - you actually made a concerted effort to prove your case, whereas that other guy responding to my post is just being flat out insulting, without offering any sort of empirical verification of their position. So, kudos to you for making a valid point and not being a jackass about it.
Because one is actually helpful to society, and the other one is just a way for the rich to get richer?
Oh, look, it's that guy who can't handle criticism, so he feels compelled to stalk people and talk shit.
Fuck off, stalker.