Charge Wal-Mart with fraud for selling falsely-labeled products. One count per bottle on the shelves.
That's a big fine, yes? Well, Wal-Mart, if it didn't know about the fraud (and I expect they didn't actually) should be able to go after the producer for the fines they had to pay on their behalf.
Oh, I'm sorry: their producer is some untraceable company in some faraway land (because they were the cheapest, natch) that doesn't feel like it needs to behave according to laws and skips out on paying Wal-Mart back?
Huh. Almost like that's a reason one would want to buy from - I dunno - a DOMESTIC company where one has at least reasonable surety they they're going to behave within the law (or face consequences of same if they don't)?
Let me be clear: I'm a staunch Republican and free marketeer. But I recognize that the government DOES have a role in consumer protection and labeling, and needs to act aggressively to ensure that consumers in a capitalist marketplace can make free choices based on reliable information.
One might also notice that this exposure alone would either incentivize the spread of the rule of law, or bringing back more industry to the US. All without a new government agency, new powers, or a bevy of new laws - but instead government just DOING WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING in the first place.
"He doesn't know how to fix Obamacare but he'll "do something", lol."
You apparently missed that he's already mentioned several times that there are a number of elements of Obamacare that he wants to keep, and Ryan's replacement draft is already pretty obviously about half-accepting of a number of core precepts of Obamacare.
So it really doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
I know the point here isn't to state facts, it's just to bash Trump, but yeah: sometimes facts anyway....
I'm not really disputing your well-put points. Of course there are things you can do to future-resist (I'm not going to say -proof) your electronic documents. This will certainly improve your chances of reading them.
And age-durability is NOT the only valuable factor in document handling (obviously), but it's kind of the point I'm focusing on.
Nevertheless, there are casually-hand-written notes that are >500 years old that are still perfectly readable, not having any particular preservation measures applied. I rather doubt that will be true for e-docs.
So he's comparing them in cost/installation to ceramic and roof tiles, but (I've seen in other articles) comparing them in durability to 3-tab shingles. (That's why I assumed we were still talking about that.)
"The only reason that you can't open 25 year old documents is because you saved them in a proprietary format." When I wrote that, I knew someone would try to dispute that. Sure, *.txt, woo.
Documents are about more than just text. I can't think of a common documentary format from 30 years ago that will support: - embedded graphics - tables - complicated formatting - footnotes, etc....and still be commonly readable today.
...just educate our citizenry better so they're not so entirely fucking GULLIBLE?
And perhaps be a little more skeptical of news generally? I don't care WHAT source, it all comes from a place of bias, and should be read in that context.
No, not all bias is identical; the slavering bias of MSNBC or the worst Fox programs is NOT the same as the subtle pervasive bias of the NYT. But they all have it, it's endemic to being human.
Current asphalt shingles are an extraordinarily-optimized product for EVERY step of their life, including: - manufacture - transport (bulk) - transport (to the site, and up to the difficult places where they'll be applied) - application (so they perform their function properly) - application (so they are SUPER easy to install) - functional life in terms of damage from UV, kinetic, and thermal (plus AND minus) sources.
At the simplest level, no, there's not really a conceivable way that putting a WIRED anything on a rooftop is easier than slapping down 3 tab shingles and tock-tock-tock'ing with a nailgun, (That's not going to involve substantial cost/complexity ELSEWHERE, like prefabbing the entire roof to a single piece.)
Elon's a smart guy, and I get that "some paradigms need to be broken" but I tend to be suspicious whenever someone with basically no history in an industry shows up and says "You are all doing it wrong, I have all the answers!"...usually it means they don't REALLY comprehensively understand all the questions.
Since I need to add more to satisfy the/. posting god, my point is that 1) paper is portable and readable in all circumstances. I don't need to fire up a reader, connect to wifi, turn on laptop, whatever: here's your piece of paper, read it. 2) paper is durable and fixed-format: if I put a paper in a file and come back 10 or even 100 years later, barring catastrophe, it'll still be there. The vagaries of non-cloud storage, and (for the cloud) the evolution of estorage and edoc formats means that even if I HAVE the file, i might not be able to read/open it. Shit, I have enough trouble opening now 25 year old docs from my college days plunking on a MacSE. 3) it's harder to edit paper: simply put, edocs are easier to fake, generally.
There are a host of things that paper isn't: searchable, stored effortlessly taking no space, easily (instantly) sent to someone else not present, backed up in case of loss, there are probably a ton of others. But the fact is that for what paper does, and what's important in a business/legal context, it's pretty irreplaceable.
I wouldn't say he IS one, he merely acts as if he wishes he were one. Which is the point that I think people are making that use that language.
Keeping in mind the commentary here (http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/number-of-executive-orders-per-president/) that a simple count of exec orders is nearly meaningless, I think one could have a reasonable case that Mr Obama has issued more substantive exec orders in lieu of legislation than previous presidents.
Some might assert "he had to, the GOP refused to work with him at all" - which is simply bullshit. A president faced with an oppositional congress HAS TO COMPROMISE HEAVILY to advance his agenda. Full stop. That is how it is SUPPOSED to work. Mr Obama rarely was willing to compromise in any balanced way.
Regardless, I think it's pretty clear that Mr Obama did a fair amount of legislation-by-exec-order, which will be why his legacy will be so easily dismantled by whomever feels like it, whether or not they have a cooperative congress...it just takes the stroke of a pen, just like it did to initiate it.
Missiles are INTEGRAL to modern naval combat. They're important to the point that increasing your risk from handling and storage from 0.01% to 0.1% is absolutely worth it.
Seriously, going to an "all guns" navy, you might as well arm your sailors with cutlasses and boarding pikes.
I'd guess if you asked most naval officers, it's far better to still have somewhat-effective combat units with a slight rise in danger, than utterly defenseless naval units guaranteed to die to any enemy action.
"The Navyâ(TM)s Harpoon missiles will retire from the fleetâ(TM)s frigates and destroyers in 2018 without a replacement,"
So don't retire them?
Better to have a couple-year obsolete missiles (assuming they ARE obsolete, defense industry techs are pretty aggressive about selling upgrades) than NONE.
This is like local governments that, when told their state funds are being cut, START by laying off cops and firemen - it's a sham to make *any* budget cut seem agonizingly painful.
The FCC is part of the executive branch and last time I checked, Mr Obama is still very much president. Essentially, they just quit working because "some guys over there" said they should.
I admit, I'd pay extra for devices I KNEW had been tested; the problem is what is a "successful test"? I mean, obviously the mfg are going to game around it. Besides that, what about devices that legitimately need to phone home? For example that stupid IoT thermostat that was connected to some Google server. Stupid design, yes. "Failure" (assuming it's not sending personal data) ?
Clippy: "Oh, I see you're on a test bench with no internet access, then don't phone home for 37 days"
You'd have been one of those people who would have been perfectly cool with Bill Clinton's "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is", wouldn't you?
You don't REdedicate yourself to something you're already performing perfectly, nor do publishers write such a letter to say, as you interpret, "everything is perfectly fine, we're not going to change a thing, and keep doing precisely what we're doing without change". That would be, frankly, silly. Why write the letter?
It's almost funny that liberals are so deeply committed to denying media bias ("they agree with me, and I know I'm centrist, ergo, they CAN'T be biased!) that *even when the source admits bias and promises to change* they continue to rationalize it away.
Which itself seems like WPs desperate attempt to/spin/ what was simply a letter from the NYT. Who gives a shit what Trump said or tweeted about it, when you can RTFL yourself?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11... "...we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you...."
Notice the words "REdedicate" and "honestly"?
That's pretty fecking clearly an apologia, recognizing that any pretense of objectivity was abandoned in this season.
They were afraid of a conservative backlash...BECAUSE THEY'D ALREADY BEEN MANIPULATING THE NEWS.
Jesus wept, people. How far down the rabbit hole of post-facto rationalization do you need to go? Even the NYT has admitted that they'd abandoned any pretense of objectivity in their coverage, to the point that LIBERALS were getting sick of it.
Not to mention: how about those (hundreds of?) millions of Chinese aspiring to a middle class life who suddenly don't have factories to work in because CHINA (ironically) is blocking sales to the US?
No, I think China isn't stupid. They know that this is an empty threat.
The US and China are linked like a heroin addict and dealer. Sure, if the heroin addict goes off, it will be brutally unpleasant and traumatic. But if the addict stops buying for whatever reason, the dealer's "suppliers" are going to make his life supremely unpleasant, up to and including murdering him.
....too bad TPP had very little to do substantially with free trade, and everything to do with IP and expanding the US's rather ridiculous copyright bullshit to Asia.
Slashdot Mirror
....let there be ACTUAL consequences, maybe?
Charge Wal-Mart with fraud for selling falsely-labeled products. One count per bottle on the shelves.
That's a big fine, yes? Well, Wal-Mart, if it didn't know about the fraud (and I expect they didn't actually) should be able to go after the producer for the fines they had to pay on their behalf.
Oh, I'm sorry: their producer is some untraceable company in some faraway land (because they were the cheapest, natch) that doesn't feel like it needs to behave according to laws and skips out on paying Wal-Mart back?
Huh. Almost like that's a reason one would want to buy from - I dunno - a DOMESTIC company where one has at least reasonable surety they they're going to behave within the law (or face consequences of same if they don't)?
Let me be clear: I'm a staunch Republican and free marketeer. But I recognize that the government DOES have a role in consumer protection and labeling, and needs to act aggressively to ensure that consumers in a capitalist marketplace can make free choices based on reliable information.
One might also notice that this exposure alone would either incentivize the spread of the rule of law, or bringing back more industry to the US. All without a new government agency, new powers, or a bevy of new laws - but instead government just DOING WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING in the first place.
"He doesn't know how to fix Obamacare but he'll "do something", lol."
You apparently missed that he's already mentioned several times that there are a number of elements of Obamacare that he wants to keep, and Ryan's replacement draft is already pretty obviously about half-accepting of a number of core precepts of Obamacare.
So it really doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
I know the point here isn't to state facts, it's just to bash Trump, but yeah: sometimes facts anyway....
I'm not really disputing your well-put points.
Of course there are things you can do to future-resist (I'm not going to say -proof) your electronic documents. This will certainly improve your chances of reading them.
And age-durability is NOT the only valuable factor in document handling (obviously), but it's kind of the point I'm focusing on.
Nevertheless, there are casually-hand-written notes that are >500 years old that are still perfectly readable, not having any particular preservation measures applied. I rather doubt that will be true for e-docs.
So he's comparing them in cost/installation to ceramic and roof tiles, but (I've seen in other articles) comparing them in durability to 3-tab shingles. (That's why I assumed we were still talking about that.)
How...convenient.
"The only reason that you can't open 25 year old documents is because you saved them in a proprietary format."
When I wrote that, I knew someone would try to dispute that. Sure, *.txt, woo.
Documents are about more than just text. I can't think of a common documentary format from 30 years ago that will support: ...and still be commonly readable today.
- embedded graphics
- tables
- complicated formatting - footnotes, etc.
For a piece of paper, it's not even a question.
...just educate our citizenry better so they're not so entirely fucking GULLIBLE?
And perhaps be a little more skeptical of news generally? I don't care WHAT source, it all comes from a place of bias, and should be read in that context.
No, not all bias is identical; the slavering bias of MSNBC or the worst Fox programs is NOT the same as the subtle pervasive bias of the NYT. But they all have it, it's endemic to being human.
I find that astonishingly hard to believe.
Current asphalt shingles are an extraordinarily-optimized product for EVERY step of their life, including:
- manufacture
- transport (bulk)
- transport (to the site, and up to the difficult places where they'll be applied)
- application (so they perform their function properly)
- application (so they are SUPER easy to install)
- functional life in terms of damage from UV, kinetic, and thermal (plus AND minus) sources.
At the simplest level, no, there's not really a conceivable way that putting a WIRED anything on a rooftop is easier than slapping down 3 tab shingles and tock-tock-tock'ing with a nailgun, (That's not going to involve substantial cost/complexity ELSEWHERE, like prefabbing the entire roof to a single piece.)
Elon's a smart guy, and I get that "some paradigms need to be broken" but I tend to be suspicious whenever someone with basically no history in an industry shows up and says "You are all doing it wrong, I have all the answers!"...usually it means they don't REALLY comprehensively understand all the questions.
TSIA.
Since I need to add more to satisfy the /. posting god, my point is that
1) paper is portable and readable in all circumstances. I don't need to fire up a reader, connect to wifi, turn on laptop, whatever: here's your piece of paper, read it.
2) paper is durable and fixed-format: if I put a paper in a file and come back 10 or even 100 years later, barring catastrophe, it'll still be there. The vagaries of non-cloud storage, and (for the cloud) the evolution of estorage and edoc formats means that even if I HAVE the file, i might not be able to read/open it. Shit, I have enough trouble opening now 25 year old docs from my college days plunking on a MacSE.
3) it's harder to edit paper: simply put, edocs are easier to fake, generally.
There are a host of things that paper isn't: searchable, stored effortlessly taking no space, easily (instantly) sent to someone else not present, backed up in case of loss, there are probably a ton of others. But the fact is that for what paper does, and what's important in a business/legal context, it's pretty irreplaceable.
I wouldn't say he IS one, he merely acts as if he wishes he were one. Which is the point that I think people are making that use that language.
Keeping in mind the commentary here (http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/number-of-executive-orders-per-president/) that a simple count of exec orders is nearly meaningless, I think one could have a reasonable case that Mr Obama has issued more substantive exec orders in lieu of legislation than previous presidents.
Some might assert "he had to, the GOP refused to work with him at all" - which is simply bullshit. A president faced with an oppositional congress HAS TO COMPROMISE HEAVILY to advance his agenda. Full stop. That is how it is SUPPOSED to work. Mr Obama rarely was willing to compromise in any balanced way.
Regardless, I think it's pretty clear that Mr Obama did a fair amount of legislation-by-exec-order, which will be why his legacy will be so easily dismantled by whomever feels like it, whether or not they have a cooperative congress...it just takes the stroke of a pen, just like it did to initiate it.
At least you feel the same way about the voters that Hilary does.
I'd disagree.
Missiles are INTEGRAL to modern naval combat. They're important to the point that increasing your risk from handling and storage from 0.01% to 0.1% is absolutely worth it.
Seriously, going to an "all guns" navy, you might as well arm your sailors with cutlasses and boarding pikes.
I'd guess if you asked most naval officers, it's far better to still have somewhat-effective combat units with a slight rise in danger, than utterly defenseless naval units guaranteed to die to any enemy action.
"The Navyâ(TM)s Harpoon missiles will retire from the fleetâ(TM)s frigates and destroyers in 2018 without a replacement,"
So don't retire them?
Better to have a couple-year obsolete missiles (assuming they ARE obsolete, defense industry techs are pretty aggressive about selling upgrades) than NONE.
This is like local governments that, when told their state funds are being cut, START by laying off cops and firemen - it's a sham to make *any* budget cut seem agonizingly painful.
I'm a Republican, but that's completely stupid.
The FCC is part of the executive branch and last time I checked, Mr Obama is still very much president. Essentially, they just quit working because "some guys over there" said they should.
...still looking for someone, anyone to blame for their colossal defeat at the polls.
When the simple answer is that people were sick of patronizing liberalism, enough to roll the dice on goofy blowhard like Trump.
"this free-market solution may not work"
If not, then it's not that important, really.
I admit, I'd pay extra for devices I KNEW had been tested; the problem is what is a "successful test"? I mean, obviously the mfg are going to game around it. Besides that, what about devices that legitimately need to phone home? For example that stupid IoT thermostat that was connected to some Google server. Stupid design, yes. "Failure" (assuming it's not sending personal data) ?
Clippy: "Oh, I see you're on a test bench with no internet access, then don't phone home for 37 days"
It's so charming to watch the Liberal Left endorse censorship without the slightest trace of irony.
You guys really DON'T get it, do you? Or do you think the various actors and their sympathies today will /forever/ agree with your personal morality?
...but they'll never integrate the ecosystems because kb+mouse will still forever pwn consoles.
You'd have been one of those people who would have been perfectly cool with Bill Clinton's "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is", wouldn't you?
You don't REdedicate yourself to something you're already performing perfectly, nor do publishers write such a letter to say, as you interpret, "everything is perfectly fine, we're not going to change a thing, and keep doing precisely what we're doing without change". That would be, frankly, silly. Why write the letter?
It's almost funny that liberals are so deeply committed to denying media bias ("they agree with me, and I know I'm centrist, ergo, they CAN'T be biased!) that *even when the source admits bias and promises to change* they continue to rationalize it away.
Which itself seems like WPs desperate attempt to /spin/ what was simply a letter from the NYT. Who gives a shit what Trump said or tweeted about it, when you can RTFL yourself?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11... ..."
"...we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.
Notice the words "REdedicate" and "honestly"?
That's pretty fecking clearly an apologia, recognizing that any pretense of objectivity was abandoned in this season.
http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/n... was quite clear on what that letter meant.
...seriously?
They were afraid of a conservative backlash...BECAUSE THEY'D ALREADY BEEN MANIPULATING THE NEWS.
Jesus wept, people. How far down the rabbit hole of post-facto rationalization do you need to go? Even the NYT has admitted that they'd abandoned any pretense of objectivity in their coverage, to the point that LIBERALS were getting sick of it.
Not to mention: how about those (hundreds of?) millions of Chinese aspiring to a middle class life who suddenly don't have factories to work in because CHINA (ironically) is blocking sales to the US?
No, I think China isn't stupid. They know that this is an empty threat.
The US and China are linked like a heroin addict and dealer. Sure, if the heroin addict goes off, it will be brutally unpleasant and traumatic. But if the addict stops buying for whatever reason, the dealer's "suppliers" are going to make his life supremely unpleasant, up to and including murdering him.
...email was God's gift to business. Transformative, empowering, a paradigm-shift.
It's Satan that added Reply-all, and then BCC just to continue the general fuckery.
....too bad TPP had very little to do substantially with free trade, and everything to do with IP and expanding the US's rather ridiculous copyright bullshit to Asia.
I think Trump's enough of a loose cannon that there's actually a reasonable (small, but non-zero) chance that we see Snowden pardoned.
"My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."