Absent people who took no or a single econ class, why would anyone assume there is a relationship between cost to produce something and the cost we have to pay?
I guess they're under the bizarre illusion that we have a free market. Can't think why they would believe that though. It's such a transparent lie, but I guess a powerful one.
The problem is a free market is at odds with capitalism. The capitalist maximizes profits by getting rid of the free market, for example getting into a monopoly position which seems to have happened here.
But you won't get a free market if the state runs it, you'll just get more vertical integration with even less ability to opt-out. The role of the state is to ensure that there is a free market--not, as has been often the case, to ensure that the costs of entry are too high for people to get in. That's a very effective way to prevent market disruption.
Yep. They don't even necessarily complain--my old eye doctor didn't want to give over office space for a full selection. There were some there, for people who couldn't or wouldn't get their glasses if they couldn't get them there, but otherwise? You got your prescription and were encouraged to go elsewhere.
The rate of complications for Lasik is extremely low, like less than 1% if you are using a "surgeon" with more than 15K procedures under their belt. But when the complications do happen they are often quite severe, up to and including blindness.
1% is an unusually high risk to be tolerated for an entirely elective surgery, especially when the complications tend to be severe. You don't really see a surgery getting considered safe until the rate is much lower and the rate of severe complications even lower still, when it's elective and optional. (It might help a bit if you avoid the "surgeon" and go for an actual surgeon, but I'd think that would be a given that you'd make sure your surgeon actually has the proper qualifications and hasn't lost them if you're taking the time to shop around.)
The task in question is a word-linking game with apparently only one solution accepted as correct, according to the linked article at New Atlas.
Brief concentration/focus is not creativity, and I don't even know how you could accidentally confuse the two unless you'd never been creative in your entire life and had studiously avoided all research on creativity...of which there's quite a bit.
Consistent background noise is not a good choice here--background noise is not consistent, which is a major reason why people will use music which is, mostly, but that's getting into music theory and the technical aspects of what makes the difference between 'random noise' and 'music.' (In fact, a consistent library ambient noise segment could easily be counted as an very avant guard musical composition, especially since you would have to deliberately build it in order for it to be consistent.)
By using non-naturalistic 'library ambient sound' they effectively turned the last into 'Native lyric music, ambient sounds-based music.'
Lyric intelligibility may actually be the worst dimension to pick here--especially since they seem to have either varied what languages the foreign lyric music was in or not bothered to ensure that the test subjects did not speak any of that language. (A better choice might have been to choose pieces where the lyrics are not in any language, they just sound like they're in some unknown language.) The style of music might have very much been a better thing to have vary, if you were going to have the music vary.
I'd actually say it's not 'almost like' but 'probably is, really.
Are these "coded sexual comments" somehow secretly raping the servers or what? If they are coded you would expect that nobody outside of the know actually notices or cares. This seems to be a panic-reaction at best. Talk about throwing out the [censored] with the bathwater.
At least some people are of the opinion that the guy who set the ball rolling made most of this up, and basically this is mostly a panic in the grand tradition of such things as the Satanic Child Abuse Panic of a few decades ago...which people are still sorting out the legal fallout of, despite how debunked it is.
I'd honestly start pushing for YT to start at least considering demonetizing videos that get too heavy into whipping up histerias for views--possibly also disabling the view counts from displaying & the video from being able to use its view metrics to go viral, to discourage the people whose motive isn't ad view money but stroking their ego with view counts. Money and/or attention covers two out of three of what seem to be the major motives for setting off these kinds of dumpster fires. (The third is basically major mental health problems of the kind that tends to include paranoid delusions, and you can't ethically force them to take their meds but cutting off publicity will discourage some of them and certainly help keep down the harm.)
When there's a hull breach, the loss of capacitors is probably the least of their worries.
During a hull breach, yes, assuming the loss of capacitors isn't happening in a form that's adding to the ongoing disaster. After a hull breach has been dealt with, I think any survivors will be quite interested in having all systems critical to survival working...
"The closest to a real life test of the sort you're talking about was communal farms where everybody got an equal share of the harvest--regardless of how much effort they put in."
That's make sense on a society where labour makes a difference, but we are heading to a society were labour means shit and what really meets ends is ownership of increasingly labour-less means of production. A totally different scenario.
Key phrase here is "heading towards." Until we have a 100% post-scarcity system that can maintain itself indefinitely without a human twitching a finger, labor does not mean shit and the last thing anybody who does not expect to be part of the ruling class should want is to have the state have control of the means of production and the distribution of goods. You want this to end well? Every bit of the system needs to be not scarce--including the means of production and everything one might need to run it forever--so as to ensure no group could get a monopoly, and the state itself needs to have slightly less power than a dead cockroach.
There isn't enough info, and I doubt a 2k test run will yield statistically detectable changes in crime and traffic rate.
(Aside: what if crime rates actually went up due to UBI?)
The biggest problem with 2k doing the test is; that's not enough people to tank the economy if this turns out to be economically important.
That said, I would say that happiness in life is ultimately the most important thing. Happiness is what makes life worth living; but if the economy collapsed because of UBI, I don't think people would be happy for long.
You can't experiment with UBI on 2000 people- you need to do it with a whole region, or country... I wouldn't want to be living in one of the first test places though in case it went wrong.
The closest to a real life test of the sort you're talking about was communal farms where everybody got an equal share of the harvest--regardless of how much effort they put in.
Turns out that many people are very lazy and will put in as little work as they believe they can get away with...which meant the harvest was bad, and a small group of people did the bulk of the work for functionally nothing, because they got as much as the person who didn't as much as twitch a finger to help. Which meant they stopped contributing labor--since they got the same as somebody who contributed nothing, they had no incentive to not match the minimum contribution--which meant that the fields just simply went unworked and the only people who ate were those who thought to raise food for themselves.
Oh, and we got ideas like those who won't work, won't eat. (Those who can't work generally would get charity--even if it was in the form of the community finding some kind of work they could do, especially when it was seen as demeaning to not be given some job, no matter how symbolic it was.)
This also is pretty common in cultures which aren't that far away in time from having been running on subsistence--somebody who doesn't contribute and isn't basically an investment is a parasite on their community, if they don't have that many basic resources to spare.
Actually, it's typically not an 'overwhelmed your immune system' issue usually as much as 'the vaccine did not take,' or possibly 'guess what was among the germ definitions your immune system has decided to clean out!'
I'm not going to claim I'm any sort of a vaccine expert, but that seems to conflict with some of the literature I've read. It's certainly not applicable to every disease, but I do recall reading more than one paper which indicated that, even with vaccination, if one receives a viral load that is sufficiently large, it is possible to still get the disease.. One's immune system is simply overwhelmed.
I was reading through lit from the CDC and medical journals, and been reading relatively recent work as well because while immunology isn't my field, it's close enough to some of what I am interested in that I do keep vaguely up with it. The immune system's also one of the few places where you've got a reasonable chance of making new discoveries of interest to people outside of your tiny niche--which includes the minor fact that its memory cells aren't immortal and all of them will clear out given a sufficiently long period of time (and disuse) & this seems to actually be a no-exceptions thing.
I didn't run across much talk of sufficient viral load overwhelming--but that given how much that takes, I would expect it unlikely to happen at exposure unless somebody's immune system is has been compromised...or they're doing something incredibly stupid like using a broth culture of the virus as a nasal wash. Or the immunity to the virus in question has already started fading, which is precisely what happens when the immune system is 'forgetting' a pathogen. It's not an all-at-once thing, like deleting a file from a computer, but caused by the memory cells that carry the data dying off...which they all do, if you live long enough. But good news, it'll work as a reminder and you can expect a faster recovery than if you weren't ever vaccinated.
Anyway. You do not need everybody immune to attain herd immunity...but you pretty much need pretty much all of the population who can be vaccinated to be vaccinated if you want to achieve it, because once you're through the percentage of people who cannot be vaccinated and those in whom the vaccination failed to take...there's very little space for antivaxxers and their woo. I do suspect, though, that morons' poor understanding of the reality of how this all works is a major reason for so little public discussion on duration of immunity and vaccine failures--I know that poor understanding has outright killed several HIV vaccines that had reached the point where they could have gone into human testing. (None of the candidates would have covered all strains, and it was pretty certain that you could expect somebody would manage to catch HIV via risky sex practices conducted under the belief they were majykally protected by the vaccine-talisman and successfully sue you for their own stupidity. I have not seen any good explanations for why, perhaps, we might want to ensure people have a realistic understanding of what vaccines are and aren't instead of ignoring and even occasionally encouraging them being confused with talismans against disease.)
The problem with your theory is that you can get a disease, that you have been vaccinated for, if you're hit with a huge amount of the infectious agent. i.e. If you sit down next to someone who's leaking measles all over the place (coughing, sneezing, etc) it may overwhelm your immune system and you could get get sick.
Vaccines work best when everyone gets them.
Actually, it's typically not an 'overwhelmed your immune system' issue usually as much as 'the vaccine did not take,' or possibly 'guess what was among the germ definitions your immune system has decided to clean out!'
The only useful thing I know of that we have learned from the antivaxxer movement is that some vaccines we thought provided lifelong protection such as the measles vaccine don't actually do that: they actually provide what, if herd immunity is achieved, is effectively lifelong protection because the immune system 'remembers' long enough to get you through the period where you're most likely to get it. We might not have necessarily needed them to learn this, though, so the only thing they did is make it easier to identify the problem by sacrificing their children's futures.
However, none of this makes it okay because the morbidity and mortality isn't limited to the antivaxxers themselves, because the odds are low that any of them are personally unvaccinated--I doubt that their kids consented to be victims of a very risky experiment that almost certainly would have never made it past an ethics review anyway.
Current PCs come with more ram and processing power than you need, unless you're running server daemons (in which case I question the use of a browser at the same time) or games (in which case I don't only question your use of a browser at the same time but you probably already handed your privacy to Origin or Steam anyway).
Add Firefox to that list. I've had a current PC outfitted with enough RAM to make many gaming PCs look whimpy get bogged down by Firefox's memory leaks. Interestingly, while Chrome has its own memory hog issues, Pale Moon runs just fine. This actually is pretty much why I'm willing to believe the claims that Firefox really did manage to patch the (original) memory leak--that, and Firefox did briefly seem to stop leaking memory for a bit just before they decided they really needed to look like Chrome. Which does suggest a bit on where to start looking for where the new leak is coming from...
The story is nonsense adblocker plus you right click the mouse button and select block ad on any website that it does not recognise the ad. Adblocker plus is ad blocking customisable
Yeah, you can tell it if you want it to allow acceptable ads through or nah, as well as add custom filters and subscribe to custom lists.
I don't really have any opinion on ads--my problem is pretty much entirely because I noticed that a lot of them were being used to inject malware onto sites, and the easiest way to fix that problem on the end user side? Ad blockers. (The adservs could probably do an even better job, if they were willing to actually vet the ads, but they're not. Maybe if they were put in a position where running bad ads will cost them a sufficiently large sum of money, they'd start caring.)
Nanny state overstepping its authority. Claiming it is the sole decider of all things legal and illegal. If an action does not aggress against another, than it is legal.
There's the key. Improperly disposing of bodies IS currently illegal- thus the need to pass a law to make this legal (or rather, be another defined proper way to dispose of a body).
Let's step it back a little more to cover why improperly disposing of bodies is illegal: Corpses are biohazards, especially once they've started leaking. Proper disposal of a corpse involves both make sure the corpse won't be accidentally mistaken for a murder victim and wasting resource/needlessly increasing stress levels that way, and making sure that it won't be spreading disease. How effective that is can vary, and bad burial practices have significant death tolls.
However, nothing says that you can't write the law so that any methods which meet those two needs are allowed, and that might be both more transparent and more efficient. If nothing else, you'd know some rather important things if a new method's proponents are pushing for the law to be changed so their spiffy new method will be legal.
We don't use human feces as fertilizer for much the same reasons
No the reason we don't use human feces as fertilizer is something quite different. Compost is quite safe to use and carries no meaningful risk of transmission of harmful pathogens. It's a completely different process with completely different risk profiles.
Except this is in part because of practicing good judgement when choosing what to compost, and meat is not typically considered safe to compost while feces (even human feces) can be composted safely. Some things you're best off burning and composting the ashes--either because that renders them safe to compost, or just makes the whole process more friendly. (Have you ever been downwind of a composting toilet on a hot, wet summer day?)
They're not excluding people because of heavy metal content in their bodies (so hello pollutants), and you need to space most of the tree species you're talking about a bit farther apart than you do graves in a graveyard if you want to make sure there's space for when (and it's so definitely a 'when') you need to go in and care for the trees. Though the second may not be a problem...because you may not be able to properly care for the trees because it causes people to go and protest for woo reasons. Your normal cemetery trees do get tended to because while people may have superstitions about these trees, nobody wants it falling over. That's especially true once the tree is old enough that it's really quite likely that it'll drag up skeletons, from before caskets were functionally time capsules for corpses.
Also, we already have had problems with good forestry practices from people practicing various flavors of Green woo, including pseudoscientific flavors of it. It'll be even more of a problem if the forest doubles as their graveyard, especially if they're planting trees that close together. It's going to be a burning dumpster full of tires.
It doesn't help that they're almost certainly not going to be functional parks and rec sites any more than modern cemeteries and quite a few people already find forests creepy anyway. I've seen quite a few people visiting old cemeteries--even one or two which are still accepting new burials--but the new ones are often pretty cold places that tend to be full of utter strangers, and a lot of the local ones you have to get somebody to let you into the graveyard in the first place and good luck there. (Seriously, it's a locked gate you need somebody on-site to unlock for you, and most of the time the only somebodies there are the dead...)
if costly benefits like healthcare and retirement savings are foisted onto employers, then having fewer employees that do the work of two or three is a savings. And hard working employees are simple to replace because "right to work" laws means no notice, no severance, and no reasons need to be given for termination.
We operate a highly efficient serfdom, and it boggles my American brain that Europeans aren't doing the same.
Right to work laws mean that the unions can't insist on membership or a cut of worker's pay--if the union wants members and their money, they must actually provide benefits to the workers they claim to represent and convince them to join of their own free will.
No notice firings and no reasons for termination is entirely disconnected to right to work (the latter even is legal in all but one state), and severance is legally required in some form regardless of it's a right to work state unless you were fired with cause or quit. (Last I checked, constructive dismissal, where your employer makes your life miserable in hopes you'll quit so they don't have to pay out severance, varies by state, and usually is an issue of case law instead of statutory law. If you need to know more, consult a good local lawyer who specializes in labor law.)
One really good way to ensure labor's rights are weak is to spread lies and disinformation, especially when not knowing your rights accurately will make it easier to use you--and not just by the employers.
Starts with the question why they pose for those tapes in the first place.
But you might know that there are laws against this and it's fairly easy to get them enforced, so what exactly seems to be the problem?
The problem is mostly that once it's on the internet, it's forever on the internet--and some of the really nasty cases, the answer to why they posed for those tapes in the first place basically comes down to "they didn't (willingly) pose." There's laws against this, too, but regardless of the ease of getting them enforced, the laws don't really do well at getting the material off the internet.
I suspect it could be helped by setting it up so your protection against users posting these images does in fact require you do your own due diligence--with the gold standard being something along the lines of you requiring copies of the legal releases...which are standard to have for any work made for commercial release, because they protect your rear end against a lot of things. These things are boilerplate forms, too, so even a site specializing in amateur work should not have trouble--just provide users with the form. (It also is a good sign of how legit any modeling or acting job is--if they don't want a release, or they won't let you have a copy of it, run.)
If it needs a person behind the wheel its glorified cruise control.
At the very least, you definitely shouldn't call it self-driving until there are absolutely no safety concerns at all about the vehicle being out on the public roads, heading to its destination, with no person anywhere in or on it, not even in the trunk.
Otherwise, you'll have idiots who will think that this means they don't actually have to be paying attention (or at least something vaguely resembling sober) because their magic car will safely (and magically) take them to where they need to be. And we won't have people magically thinking that the wrecks resulting from this stupidity either will magically not happen, or have no damage to people because the car will magically turn itself into unicorn farts and pixie dust before impact can happen.
If enough damage is caused by idiots expecting their car to do more than it's actually capable of, the tech itself might end up not being road-legal--which could also make the tech no longer worth the resources to develop it, ensuring it'll never happen.
Designing phones that are thin and waterproof is difficult and expensive when you have ports to the outside.
The headphone jack is a prime candidate to cut. Not that I approve of the measure.
I'd argue that the 'thin' part is the real place to object--the goal should be to have it the right size and thickness to be easily and securely held. (If the expectation is that it'll be in a case, keep the case in mind...and possibly even design it so some of the ports could be contained within an inexpensive case that can be sacrificed to protect the phone.)
According to TMZ, it was his girlfriend who called in the wellness check.
That said, the incel community tends to have a bit of a crab bucket mentality--wait, no, that's insulting to crabs. It's not a Good Idea to let them know you're leaving because you realized growing the fuck up (or even just basic self-care) was a good idea and hey, awesome, you're able to get a girlfriend! While it is going to be less entertaining to us incel watchers, going ghost for your exit's probably safest.
Though ODing fatally with the cops refusing to even confirm that yes it was your girlfriend you called it in isn't a bad alternate either. Might not keep your grave from being vandalized, but...you're dead, odds are you won't care. And hopefully nobody'll dox your girlfriend which will keep foamy-mouthed incels from bothering her...but you're dead, odds are you won't care about that.
I think that's rather the point of this article. However, some of this is just plain stupid--critical systems should be kept pretty strictly locked down, very possibly with either no ability to communicate or only able to receive messages for the humans aboard to access. (If you want to be really paranoid, lock that down to plaintext only.)
And, y'know, never ever ever be so moronic as to not have non-computer backups. Especially for your navigation. Maybe they were sailing under flags chosen in part because the country in question is really laid-back about maritime safety? Flags of convenience are unfortunately often chosen because it's cheaper to comply with the regulations, and probably also because the country doesn't particularly enforce it--it's roughly equivalent to if you could have your car registered anywhere in the world and it has to be accepted as street-legal where you are...even if the place you've registered it pretty much doesn't care about anything (including if what you are registering is, in point of fact, a functioning car) as long as your payment clears.
The word you want is 'penalty,' not tax, and those should have been baked into the language of those commitments if they are actually commitments and not just your standard marketing hot air.
The ideal method of enforcing NN in America is for the government to own the network, and to have laws passed by Congress to define how they must run it. If a private company owns the network then the police/NSA/FBI/CIA will pay them to spy on you, just like they do now.
No, that won't actually work. Either you can trust the government or you cannot. If we could trust the government to own the network, then that bowl of tinfoil hat alphabet soup would not be paying private companies to spy on you. If they are/would be doing that? Then all the government owning the network can do is make it cheaper for the police/NSA/FBI/CIA to spy on you, because they'll own the network...and they can probably make it vastly easier for them to do so and harder to catch them at it because they own the network.
Personally, I think it's more likely that private companies do not care in the least who they sell the data to as long as they make a profit as, it should be noted, the courts have required they do--ban packet sniffers, even by simply having them a huge gaping liability for the ISP, and a lot of the problem should go away and the enforcement issue is made vastly easier because it's easier to show they have awareness of what's going through their tubes than that they know & are knowingly and deliberately manipulating it in illegal manners. (I favor the 'make huge liability' option mostly because it means that we might never need to spend a single taxpayer cent on enforcement that way. We can just kick back, munch popcorn, and watch the MAFIAA to do it for us...which might even keep down on the harm they do, too. If you really want, set it up so ISPs can get hit coming and going with liability, by having their customers also able to sue them with the invasion of privacy being treated as in and of itself harmful.)
Slashdot Mirror
Absent people who took no or a single econ class, why would anyone assume there is a relationship between cost to produce something and the cost we have to pay?
I guess they're under the bizarre illusion that we have a free market. Can't think why they would believe that though. It's such a transparent lie, but I guess a powerful one.
The problem is a free market is at odds with capitalism. The capitalist maximizes profits by getting rid of the free market, for example getting into a monopoly position which seems to have happened here.
But you won't get a free market if the state runs it, you'll just get more vertical integration with even less ability to opt-out. The role of the state is to ensure that there is a free market--not, as has been often the case, to ensure that the costs of entry are too high for people to get in. That's a very effective way to prevent market disruption.
Yep. They don't even necessarily complain--my old eye doctor didn't want to give over office space for a full selection. There were some there, for people who couldn't or wouldn't get their glasses if they couldn't get them there, but otherwise? You got your prescription and were encouraged to go elsewhere.
The rate of complications for Lasik is extremely low, like less than 1% if you are using a "surgeon" with more than 15K procedures under their belt. But when the complications do happen they are often quite severe, up to and including blindness.
1% is an unusually high risk to be tolerated for an entirely elective surgery, especially when the complications tend to be severe. You don't really see a surgery getting considered safe until the rate is much lower and the rate of severe complications even lower still, when it's elective and optional. (It might help a bit if you avoid the "surgeon" and go for an actual surgeon, but I'd think that would be a given that you'd make sure your surgeon actually has the proper qualifications and hasn't lost them if you're taking the time to shop around.)
They could be committing commercial suicide, like Photobucket did. Or is still doing. Is Photobucket still a thing at all?
Mystifyingly, yes, it is.
Other problems here!
I'd actually say it's not 'almost like' but 'probably is, really.
Are these "coded sexual comments" somehow secretly raping the servers or what? If they are coded you would expect that nobody outside of the know actually notices or cares. This seems to be a panic-reaction at best. Talk about throwing out the [censored] with the bathwater.
At least some people are of the opinion that the guy who set the ball rolling made most of this up, and basically this is mostly a panic in the grand tradition of such things as the Satanic Child Abuse Panic of a few decades ago...which people are still sorting out the legal fallout of, despite how debunked it is.
I'd honestly start pushing for YT to start at least considering demonetizing videos that get too heavy into whipping up histerias for views--possibly also disabling the view counts from displaying & the video from being able to use its view metrics to go viral, to discourage the people whose motive isn't ad view money but stroking their ego with view counts. Money and/or attention covers two out of three of what seem to be the major motives for setting off these kinds of dumpster fires. (The third is basically major mental health problems of the kind that tends to include paranoid delusions, and you can't ethically force them to take their meds but cutting off publicity will discourage some of them and certainly help keep down the harm.)
When there's a hull breach, the loss of capacitors is probably the least of their worries.
During a hull breach, yes, assuming the loss of capacitors isn't happening in a form that's adding to the ongoing disaster. After a hull breach has been dealt with, I think any survivors will be quite interested in having all systems critical to survival working...
"The closest to a real life test of the sort you're talking about was communal farms where everybody got an equal share of the harvest--regardless of how much effort they put in."
That's make sense on a society where labour makes a difference, but we are heading to a society were labour means shit and what really meets ends is ownership of increasingly labour-less means of production. A totally different scenario.
Key phrase here is "heading towards." Until we have a 100% post-scarcity system that can maintain itself indefinitely without a human twitching a finger, labor does not mean shit and the last thing anybody who does not expect to be part of the ruling class should want is to have the state have control of the means of production and the distribution of goods. You want this to end well? Every bit of the system needs to be not scarce--including the means of production and everything one might need to run it forever--so as to ensure no group could get a monopoly, and the state itself needs to have slightly less power than a dead cockroach.
There isn't enough info, and I doubt a 2k test run will yield statistically detectable changes in crime and traffic rate. (Aside: what if crime rates actually went up due to UBI?)
The biggest problem with 2k doing the test is; that's not enough people to tank the economy if this turns out to be economically important.
That said, I would say that happiness in life is ultimately the most important thing. Happiness is what makes life worth living; but if the economy collapsed because of UBI, I don't think people would be happy for long.
You can't experiment with UBI on 2000 people- you need to do it with a whole region, or country... I wouldn't want to be living in one of the first test places though in case it went wrong.
The closest to a real life test of the sort you're talking about was communal farms where everybody got an equal share of the harvest--regardless of how much effort they put in.
Turns out that many people are very lazy and will put in as little work as they believe they can get away with...which meant the harvest was bad, and a small group of people did the bulk of the work for functionally nothing, because they got as much as the person who didn't as much as twitch a finger to help. Which meant they stopped contributing labor--since they got the same as somebody who contributed nothing, they had no incentive to not match the minimum contribution--which meant that the fields just simply went unworked and the only people who ate were those who thought to raise food for themselves.
Oh, and we got ideas like those who won't work, won't eat. (Those who can't work generally would get charity--even if it was in the form of the community finding some kind of work they could do, especially when it was seen as demeaning to not be given some job, no matter how symbolic it was.)
This also is pretty common in cultures which aren't that far away in time from having been running on subsistence--somebody who doesn't contribute and isn't basically an investment is a parasite on their community, if they don't have that many basic resources to spare.
Actually, it's typically not an 'overwhelmed your immune system' issue usually as much as 'the vaccine did not take,' or possibly 'guess what was among the germ definitions your immune system has decided to clean out!'
I'm not going to claim I'm any sort of a vaccine expert, but that seems to conflict with some of the literature I've read. It's certainly not applicable to every disease, but I do recall reading more than one paper which indicated that, even with vaccination, if one receives a viral load that is sufficiently large, it is possible to still get the disease.. One's immune system is simply overwhelmed.
I was reading through lit from the CDC and medical journals, and been reading relatively recent work as well because while immunology isn't my field, it's close enough to some of what I am interested in that I do keep vaguely up with it. The immune system's also one of the few places where you've got a reasonable chance of making new discoveries of interest to people outside of your tiny niche--which includes the minor fact that its memory cells aren't immortal and all of them will clear out given a sufficiently long period of time (and disuse) & this seems to actually be a no-exceptions thing.
I didn't run across much talk of sufficient viral load overwhelming--but that given how much that takes, I would expect it unlikely to happen at exposure unless somebody's immune system is has been compromised...or they're doing something incredibly stupid like using a broth culture of the virus as a nasal wash. Or the immunity to the virus in question has already started fading, which is precisely what happens when the immune system is 'forgetting' a pathogen. It's not an all-at-once thing, like deleting a file from a computer, but caused by the memory cells that carry the data dying off...which they all do, if you live long enough. But good news, it'll work as a reminder and you can expect a faster recovery than if you weren't ever vaccinated.
Anyway. You do not need everybody immune to attain herd immunity...but you pretty much need pretty much all of the population who can be vaccinated to be vaccinated if you want to achieve it, because once you're through the percentage of people who cannot be vaccinated and those in whom the vaccination failed to take...there's very little space for antivaxxers and their woo. I do suspect, though, that morons' poor understanding of the reality of how this all works is a major reason for so little public discussion on duration of immunity and vaccine failures--I know that poor understanding has outright killed several HIV vaccines that had reached the point where they could have gone into human testing. (None of the candidates would have covered all strains, and it was pretty certain that you could expect somebody would manage to catch HIV via risky sex practices conducted under the belief they were majykally protected by the vaccine-talisman and successfully sue you for their own stupidity. I have not seen any good explanations for why, perhaps, we might want to ensure people have a realistic understanding of what vaccines are and aren't instead of ignoring and even occasionally encouraging them being confused with talismans against disease.)
The problem with your theory is that you can get a disease, that you have been vaccinated for, if you're hit with a huge amount of the infectious agent. i.e. If you sit down next to someone who's leaking measles all over the place (coughing, sneezing, etc) it may overwhelm your immune system and you could get get sick.
Vaccines work best when everyone gets them.
Actually, it's typically not an 'overwhelmed your immune system' issue usually as much as 'the vaccine did not take,' or possibly 'guess what was among the germ definitions your immune system has decided to clean out!'
The only useful thing I know of that we have learned from the antivaxxer movement is that some vaccines we thought provided lifelong protection such as the measles vaccine don't actually do that: they actually provide what, if herd immunity is achieved, is effectively lifelong protection because the immune system 'remembers' long enough to get you through the period where you're most likely to get it. We might not have necessarily needed them to learn this, though, so the only thing they did is make it easier to identify the problem by sacrificing their children's futures.
However, none of this makes it okay because the morbidity and mortality isn't limited to the antivaxxers themselves, because the odds are low that any of them are personally unvaccinated--I doubt that their kids consented to be victims of a very risky experiment that almost certainly would have never made it past an ethics review anyway.
So?
I'm asking in all seriousness: SO?
Current PCs come with more ram and processing power than you need, unless you're running server daemons (in which case I question the use of a browser at the same time) or games (in which case I don't only question your use of a browser at the same time but you probably already handed your privacy to Origin or Steam anyway).
Add Firefox to that list. I've had a current PC outfitted with enough RAM to make many gaming PCs look whimpy get bogged down by Firefox's memory leaks. Interestingly, while Chrome has its own memory hog issues, Pale Moon runs just fine. This actually is pretty much why I'm willing to believe the claims that Firefox really did manage to patch the (original) memory leak--that, and Firefox did briefly seem to stop leaking memory for a bit just before they decided they really needed to look like Chrome. Which does suggest a bit on where to start looking for where the new leak is coming from...
The story is nonsense adblocker plus you right click the mouse button and select block ad on any website that it does not recognise the ad. Adblocker plus is ad blocking customisable
Yeah, you can tell it if you want it to allow acceptable ads through or nah, as well as add custom filters and subscribe to custom lists.
I don't really have any opinion on ads--my problem is pretty much entirely because I noticed that a lot of them were being used to inject malware onto sites, and the easiest way to fix that problem on the end user side? Ad blockers. (The adservs could probably do an even better job, if they were willing to actually vet the ads, but they're not. Maybe if they were put in a position where running bad ads will cost them a sufficiently large sum of money, they'd start caring.)
Nanny state overstepping its authority. Claiming it is the sole decider of all things legal and illegal. If an action does not aggress against another, than it is legal.
There's the key. Improperly disposing of bodies IS currently illegal- thus the need to pass a law to make this legal (or rather, be another defined proper way to dispose of a body).
Let's step it back a little more to cover why improperly disposing of bodies is illegal: Corpses are biohazards, especially once they've started leaking. Proper disposal of a corpse involves both make sure the corpse won't be accidentally mistaken for a murder victim and wasting resource/needlessly increasing stress levels that way, and making sure that it won't be spreading disease. How effective that is can vary, and bad burial practices have significant death tolls.
However, nothing says that you can't write the law so that any methods which meet those two needs are allowed, and that might be both more transparent and more efficient. If nothing else, you'd know some rather important things if a new method's proponents are pushing for the law to be changed so their spiffy new method will be legal.
We don't use human feces as fertilizer for much the same reasons
No the reason we don't use human feces as fertilizer is something quite different. Compost is quite safe to use and carries no meaningful risk of transmission of harmful pathogens. It's a completely different process with completely different risk profiles.
Except this is in part because of practicing good judgement when choosing what to compost, and meat is not typically considered safe to compost while feces (even human feces) can be composted safely. Some things you're best off burning and composting the ashes--either because that renders them safe to compost, or just makes the whole process more friendly. (Have you ever been downwind of a composting toilet on a hot, wet summer day?)
They're not excluding people because of heavy metal content in their bodies (so hello pollutants), and you need to space most of the tree species you're talking about a bit farther apart than you do graves in a graveyard if you want to make sure there's space for when (and it's so definitely a 'when') you need to go in and care for the trees. Though the second may not be a problem...because you may not be able to properly care for the trees because it causes people to go and protest for woo reasons. Your normal cemetery trees do get tended to because while people may have superstitions about these trees, nobody wants it falling over. That's especially true once the tree is old enough that it's really quite likely that it'll drag up skeletons, from before caskets were functionally time capsules for corpses.
Also, we already have had problems with good forestry practices from people practicing various flavors of Green woo, including pseudoscientific flavors of it. It'll be even more of a problem if the forest doubles as their graveyard, especially if they're planting trees that close together. It's going to be a burning dumpster full of tires.
It doesn't help that they're almost certainly not going to be functional parks and rec sites any more than modern cemeteries and quite a few people already find forests creepy anyway. I've seen quite a few people visiting old cemeteries--even one or two which are still accepting new burials--but the new ones are often pretty cold places that tend to be full of utter strangers, and a lot of the local ones you have to get somebody to let you into the graveyard in the first place and good luck there. (Seriously, it's a locked gate you need somebody on-site to unlock for you, and most of the time the only somebodies there are the dead...)
if costly benefits like healthcare and retirement savings are foisted onto employers, then having fewer employees that do the work of two or three is a savings. And hard working employees are simple to replace because "right to work" laws means no notice, no severance, and no reasons need to be given for termination.
We operate a highly efficient serfdom, and it boggles my American brain that Europeans aren't doing the same.
Right to work laws mean that the unions can't insist on membership or a cut of worker's pay--if the union wants members and their money, they must actually provide benefits to the workers they claim to represent and convince them to join of their own free will.
No notice firings and no reasons for termination is entirely disconnected to right to work (the latter even is legal in all but one state), and severance is legally required in some form regardless of it's a right to work state unless you were fired with cause or quit. (Last I checked, constructive dismissal, where your employer makes your life miserable in hopes you'll quit so they don't have to pay out severance, varies by state, and usually is an issue of case law instead of statutory law. If you need to know more, consult a good local lawyer who specializes in labor law.)
One really good way to ensure labor's rights are weak is to spread lies and disinformation, especially when not knowing your rights accurately will make it easier to use you--and not just by the employers.
Starts with the question why they pose for those tapes in the first place.
But you might know that there are laws against this and it's fairly easy to get them enforced, so what exactly seems to be the problem?
The problem is mostly that once it's on the internet, it's forever on the internet--and some of the really nasty cases, the answer to why they posed for those tapes in the first place basically comes down to "they didn't (willingly) pose." There's laws against this, too, but regardless of the ease of getting them enforced, the laws don't really do well at getting the material off the internet.
I suspect it could be helped by setting it up so your protection against users posting these images does in fact require you do your own due diligence--with the gold standard being something along the lines of you requiring copies of the legal releases...which are standard to have for any work made for commercial release, because they protect your rear end against a lot of things. These things are boilerplate forms, too, so even a site specializing in amateur work should not have trouble--just provide users with the form. (It also is a good sign of how legit any modeling or acting job is--if they don't want a release, or they won't let you have a copy of it, run.)
If it needs a person behind the wheel its glorified cruise control.
At the very least, you definitely shouldn't call it self-driving until there are absolutely no safety concerns at all about the vehicle being out on the public roads, heading to its destination, with no person anywhere in or on it, not even in the trunk.
Otherwise, you'll have idiots who will think that this means they don't actually have to be paying attention (or at least something vaguely resembling sober) because their magic car will safely (and magically) take them to where they need to be. And we won't have people magically thinking that the wrecks resulting from this stupidity either will magically not happen, or have no damage to people because the car will magically turn itself into unicorn farts and pixie dust before impact can happen.
If enough damage is caused by idiots expecting their car to do more than it's actually capable of, the tech itself might end up not being road-legal--which could also make the tech no longer worth the resources to develop it, ensuring it'll never happen.
It's also really nice if you want to hijack somebody's stereo or headphones. It doesn't take that much skill to hijack Bluetooth stuff...
Designing phones that are thin and waterproof is difficult and expensive when you have ports to the outside.
The headphone jack is a prime candidate to cut. Not that I approve of the measure.
I'd argue that the 'thin' part is the real place to object--the goal should be to have it the right size and thickness to be easily and securely held. (If the expectation is that it'll be in a case, keep the case in mind...and possibly even design it so some of the ports could be contained within an inexpensive case that can be sacrificed to protect the phone.)
According to TMZ, it was his girlfriend who called in the wellness check.
That said, the incel community tends to have a bit of a crab bucket mentality--wait, no, that's insulting to crabs. It's not a Good Idea to let them know you're leaving because you realized growing the fuck up (or even just basic self-care) was a good idea and hey, awesome, you're able to get a girlfriend! While it is going to be less entertaining to us incel watchers, going ghost for your exit's probably safest.
Though ODing fatally with the cops refusing to even confirm that yes it was your girlfriend you called it in isn't a bad alternate either. Might not keep your grave from being vandalized, but...you're dead, odds are you won't care. And hopefully nobody'll dox your girlfriend which will keep foamy-mouthed incels from bothering her...but you're dead, odds are you won't care about that.
I think that's rather the point of this article. However, some of this is just plain stupid--critical systems should be kept pretty strictly locked down, very possibly with either no ability to communicate or only able to receive messages for the humans aboard to access. (If you want to be really paranoid, lock that down to plaintext only.)
And, y'know, never ever ever be so moronic as to not have non-computer backups. Especially for your navigation. Maybe they were sailing under flags chosen in part because the country in question is really laid-back about maritime safety? Flags of convenience are unfortunately often chosen because it's cheaper to comply with the regulations, and probably also because the country doesn't particularly enforce it--it's roughly equivalent to if you could have your car registered anywhere in the world and it has to be accepted as street-legal where you are...even if the place you've registered it pretty much doesn't care about anything (including if what you are registering is, in point of fact, a functioning car) as long as your payment clears.
The word you want is 'penalty,' not tax, and those should have been baked into the language of those commitments if they are actually commitments and not just your standard marketing hot air.
The ideal method of enforcing NN in America is for the government to own the network, and to have laws passed by Congress to define how they must run it. If a private company owns the network then the police/NSA/FBI/CIA will pay them to spy on you, just like they do now.
No, that won't actually work. Either you can trust the government or you cannot. If we could trust the government to own the network, then that bowl of tinfoil hat alphabet soup would not be paying private companies to spy on you. If they are/would be doing that? Then all the government owning the network can do is make it cheaper for the police/NSA/FBI/CIA to spy on you, because they'll own the network...and they can probably make it vastly easier for them to do so and harder to catch them at it because they own the network.
Personally, I think it's more likely that private companies do not care in the least who they sell the data to as long as they make a profit as, it should be noted, the courts have required they do--ban packet sniffers, even by simply having them a huge gaping liability for the ISP, and a lot of the problem should go away and the enforcement issue is made vastly easier because it's easier to show they have awareness of what's going through their tubes than that they know & are knowingly and deliberately manipulating it in illegal manners. (I favor the 'make huge liability' option mostly because it means that we might never need to spend a single taxpayer cent on enforcement that way. We can just kick back, munch popcorn, and watch the MAFIAA to do it for us...which might even keep down on the harm they do, too. If you really want, set it up so ISPs can get hit coming and going with liability, by having their customers also able to sue them with the invasion of privacy being treated as in and of itself harmful.)