So you view interaction with more people as being more important than interaction in real life with fewer people?
Nope. I view the idea that we'd all just chat with strangers on the subway/bus/whatever if we didn't have devices is false. Because I was around when we didn't have those devices yet.
We keep trying to medicate all the 'negative' aspects of our lives, and it keeps biting us in the ass
[Citation Required]. Specifically that the "biting us in the ass" part happens more often than positive results.
We want everyone to be happy, and have a 'normal' psychological profile, and what we get it an opioid epidemic that is killing people
[Citation Required]. Specifically, that the people dying of drug overdoses received psychological treatment or other evidence that they were not "normal".
What happens is we make people have incredibly shitty lives with no future so that a very small number of people get extremely rich. The "normal" response to that is despair and escapism, which frequently manifests itself as drug use.
We are relative certain the appendix is vestigial, and removing it is of no great significance, but the preponderance of caution that defines medicine says that maybe we should treat appendicitis as it could be a repository for important bacteria.
.....are you trying to claim we routinely remove someone's appendix "just because"? Sepsis ain't a good time, yo.
Who know what the side effects of eliminating these cells are going to be.
The scientists studying the treatment will.
They may not appear for generations
.....how exactly is a treatment given to an individual, almost always after they're beyond reproductive age, going to pass to one new generation, much less several?
We thought that aggressive use of antibiotics and routine use of antibacterials would be a good idea, until we bred the superbugs that one day could eliminate us.
No, we thought we had a good tool to use to treat some diseases, and then people started using that tool outside those diseases. We knew we were creating antibiotic resistance. Many people without medical training just didn't care. That isn't the fault of the drug or the treatment, it's the fault of those people.
Also, you're completely disregarding the benefit to the people who were treated with those drugs. Bacterial diseases went from the primary killers of humans to killing a very small number of people. And still killing a very small number of people.
What a vile and disgusting statement, false in every regard. What makes you think that people don't get wiser as they get older?
The entirety of history.
What makes you think change in society, which you call progress, will be an improvement?
Almost the entirety of history. It's around 70/30.
Judging from the proclamations of those young people making the most noise in politics today, progress is torturing all males to death and giving 3-year-olds the vote.
Is this massive pile of stupid you are vomiting forth supposed to be "wisdom"?
Your overly-trite response based on discussing the effects on an individual. The OP's discussing the effects on society as a whole.
People do change their minds and the longer-term perspective and accumulated competence of people living for, say, 200 years will do a lot of good
Well, I'm looking at the Boomer generation and what they are insisting society must do. Currently it features whining about very slight harm done to powerful rapists, obsession over who is sitting in the next stall in the bathroom, rich people must be given more money, housing supply must be massively limited to increase their own wealth, and insisting they should get to destroy the ecosystem so their lifestyle doesn't change in the slightest.
So, not seeing a whole lot of reason to keep them around for their "wisdom". Nor any "responsibility". Heck, can't even get them to acknowledge they have ever done anything wrong.
...but do they do, scan all your devices and fine you?
No, you rely on people filling complaints.
It's one thing to make manufacturers *in* California to do this; I don't see how you can stop other manufacturers from motoring along as they are whether or not it's a good idea
You make it a condition for selling the product in CA, and go after the people in CA that are selling the product with a default password.
Also, we already burn unique serial numbers and MAC addresses into devices during manufacture. It's really not that hard to put in a unique password while you're doing that, and put that password on the same label you put the MAC address.......and there are manufacturers that already do this.
Alternatively, you set up the device such that it doesn't allow any Internet traffic until the user sets a password/pin/whatever.
Does the law now say I'm no longer allowed to do that?
No, and that's a rather dumb question. You aren't selling a new device in California.
Are they going to ship every frickin' device with a different default password?
Yes. And several manufacturers already do.
That would send their return rate through the ceiling as customers couldn't login to configure their equipment.
They put a sticker on the device with the default password, MAC address, serial number and any other unique-to-this-device information. Sometimes it's physically printed on the case of the device instead of a sticker.
Alternatively, they put in a default password or other authentication and the device requires you change it before the device connects to the Internet.
So who do I sue when their customer leaves the default password set and the device is used to DDOS me?
'Cause me suing someone is the only recourse you are leaving me for recovering those damages. So is it the customer who failed to secure their device who's liable, or the manufacturer negligent for not setting per-device passwords?
Oh, I'm sorry, this is delusion-land where third parties are never harmed by the actions of others.
I can't watch the video because work, but from the text this doesn't look much like Facebook is using systemd. Facebook is using an operating system that uses systemd. And may someday have a python api to do what everyone else does with bash.
but without competition they'll be sold for the price people expect to pay for a vehicle.
And, IMO, that's the big part of what Tesla has done. They demonstrated to other automakers that there actually is a very large market for electric vehicles.
So now those automakers are creating their own vehicles to complete with Tesla (and each other), and we get competition to drive prices down. (And yes, I think that poster is overly optimistic about price unless we accept drastically reduced range)
So, the post you replied to was pointing out that about 1/3rd of eligible voters did not vote in 2016, about 1/3rd voted for Trump and about 1/3rd voted for Clinton. That's it.
There supposedly are state laws contradicting it but then again, state courts are supposed to be bound by federal law in the event that state law were to contradict federal law
You are extremely confused and/or misinformed about what's going on.
What happens now: States choose "Electors" who go to a convention, and those people elect the President. How each state splits up it's electoral votes is up to the state. All but 2 states give all of their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote in their state. States can choose electors using any method they feel like.
What people are trying to change: There's something called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. States that are part of this agreement are passing laws that would change how their electors vote. Instead of popular vote per-state, their electors would be required to vote for the winner of the national popular vote. These laws are triggered once states with a total of 270 electoral votes have signed on (270 is the number of electoral votes required to win).
So no, states are not attempting to overrule federal law. States would still be choosing electors that then go vote for President. The states would just be changing how they choose electors.
You have no Constitutional right to fly a drone. Airspace is inherently "public", so the government gets to regulate what happens there.
Much like you have no Constitutional right to drive a car on public roads - that's why you have a driver's license, and why the state can deny driver's licenses to people.
Nuclear is much more expensive than any other method of power generation. So much so that if we over-build solar and wind by a factor of 3 to handle intermittency, it's still cheaper than nuclear.
There's also the matter of waste. If that was actually priced in, nuclear would be in even worse shape. Instead, we're still operating on the fiction that the government will take care of it for free.
Finally, "advanced designs" that were supposed to eliminate the problems with nuclear reactors have failed to deliver. For example, pebble-beds turned out to jam in the reactor, wore off the outside of the "pebble" much faster than expected, and have still-unexplained heavy metal contamination in their cooling loops.
Yeah. Call them "FEMA Alerts" or "National Emergency Alerts" instead. This is not something you want tied to anything political.
Those that dislike the current President will be annoyed by the message. And the next time there's a Democratic president, Trump's fans will be annoyed by the message.
That will increase the costs throughout the entire supply chain.
Here's what you're desperately skipping over:
It will increase the costs throughout the entire supply chain by a trivial amount because wages are a tiny fraction of the costs in the supply chain.
You keep insisting that the increase will be large because you keep mistakenly thinking wages are a large expense. They aren't. That 4% increase on a 106% increase in wages is one of the worst-case scenarios.
When you sum all of the costs down the supply chain, labor is the dominant force.
In most of those examples, there is still an underlying labor cost.
And no one is disputing that. What we are disputing is your attempt to make that labor cost a large part of the overall cost. And it simply isn't.
In the end, the vast majority of the cost of any goods are labor.
[Citation Required]
Let's look at some numbers instead. Raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 is a more than 100% increase. So what affect would that ~100% increase have on prices? Well, let's look at the worst-case scenario: Fast food. Because unlike all your examples, a significant percentage of the costs in a fast food restaurant is wages.
That 100% increase in wages translates to....a 4% increase in the cost of the food. Or about 17 cents for a Big Mac.
If a 100% increase in wages only yields a 4% increase in one of the most wage-intensive industries in the country, we probably shouldn't be worried much about the effect on the price of milling wheat into flour.
Slashdot Mirror
So you view interaction with more people as being more important than interaction in real life with fewer people?
Nope. I view the idea that we'd all just chat with strangers on the subway/bus/whatever if we didn't have devices is false. Because I was around when we didn't have those devices yet.
"Oh, I can't see all those screens. I'm better than you because I'm interacting with people!"
--Said to people who are using devices to interact with far more people than this person ever will.
Birth rate is already at or below replacement rate in the developed world where this treatment would be available.
We keep trying to medicate all the 'negative' aspects of our lives, and it keeps biting us in the ass
[Citation Required]. Specifically that the "biting us in the ass" part happens more often than positive results.
We want everyone to be happy, and have a 'normal' psychological profile, and what we get it an opioid epidemic that is killing people
[Citation Required]. Specifically, that the people dying of drug overdoses received psychological treatment or other evidence that they were not "normal".
What happens is we make people have incredibly shitty lives with no future so that a very small number of people get extremely rich. The "normal" response to that is despair and escapism, which frequently manifests itself as drug use.
We are relative certain the appendix is vestigial, and removing it is of no great significance, but the preponderance of caution that defines medicine says that maybe we should treat appendicitis as it could be a repository for important bacteria.
.....are you trying to claim we routinely remove someone's appendix "just because"? Sepsis ain't a good time, yo.
Who know what the side effects of eliminating these cells are going to be.
The scientists studying the treatment will.
They may not appear for generations
.....how exactly is a treatment given to an individual, almost always after they're beyond reproductive age, going to pass to one new generation, much less several?
We thought that aggressive use of antibiotics and routine use of antibacterials would be a good idea, until we bred the superbugs that one day could eliminate us.
No, we thought we had a good tool to use to treat some diseases, and then people started using that tool outside those diseases. We knew we were creating antibiotic resistance. Many people without medical training just didn't care. That isn't the fault of the drug or the treatment, it's the fault of those people.
Also, you're completely disregarding the benefit to the people who were treated with those drugs. Bacterial diseases went from the primary killers of humans to killing a very small number of people. And still killing a very small number of people.
Stop letting fear rule your life.
What a vile and disgusting statement, false in every regard. What makes you think that people don't get wiser as they get older?
The entirety of history.
What makes you think change in society, which you call progress, will be an improvement?
Almost the entirety of history. It's around 70/30.
Judging from the proclamations of those young people making the most noise in politics today, progress is torturing all males to death and giving 3-year-olds the vote.
Is this massive pile of stupid you are vomiting forth supposed to be "wisdom"?
Your overly-trite response based on discussing the effects on an individual. The OP's discussing the effects on society as a whole.
People do change their minds and the longer-term perspective and accumulated competence of people living for, say, 200 years will do a lot of good
Well, I'm looking at the Boomer generation and what they are insisting society must do. Currently it features whining about very slight harm done to powerful rapists, obsession over who is sitting in the next stall in the bathroom, rich people must be given more money, housing supply must be massively limited to increase their own wealth, and insisting they should get to destroy the ecosystem so their lifestyle doesn't change in the slightest.
So, not seeing a whole lot of reason to keep them around for their "wisdom". Nor any "responsibility". Heck, can't even get them to acknowledge they have ever done anything wrong.
I'm talking about the ULEV and SULEV and ZEV designations
Those aren't the first car exhaust standards that "California invented". The first standards were in 1972
"Smog Check", the first time CA required car exhaust to be measured as part of registration, started in 1982.
...but do they do, scan all your devices and fine you?
No, you rely on people filling complaints.
It's one thing to make manufacturers *in* California to do this; I don't see how you can stop other manufacturers from motoring along as they are whether or not it's a good idea
You make it a condition for selling the product in CA, and go after the people in CA that are selling the product with a default password.
Also, we already burn unique serial numbers and MAC addresses into devices during manufacture. It's really not that hard to put in a unique password while you're doing that, and put that password on the same label you put the MAC address.......and there are manufacturers that already do this.
Alternatively, you set up the device such that it doesn't allow any Internet traffic until the user sets a password/pin/whatever.
Does the law now say I'm no longer allowed to do that?
No, and that's a rather dumb question. You aren't selling a new device in California.
Are they going to ship every frickin' device with a different default password?
Yes. And several manufacturers already do.
That would send their return rate through the ceiling as customers couldn't login to configure their equipment.
They put a sticker on the device with the default password, MAC address, serial number and any other unique-to-this-device information. Sometimes it's physically printed on the case of the device instead of a sticker.
Alternatively, they put in a default password or other authentication and the device requires you change it before the device connects to the Internet.
Nah. In the 1990s when California invented Car Exhaust standards that only applied to California
It actually was 1972, acting on a law passed in 1967.
Also, 10 other states passed their own laws to follow California's standards. So no, there isn't a "CA model" and an "other 49 states" model.
So who do I sue when their customer leaves the default password set and the device is used to DDOS me?
'Cause me suing someone is the only recourse you are leaving me for recovering those damages. So is it the customer who failed to secure their device who's liable, or the manufacturer negligent for not setting per-device passwords?
Oh, I'm sorry, this is delusion-land where third parties are never harmed by the actions of others.
Those idiots couldn't feed themselves if they had to
*Looks at statistics of how much of the US food supply comes from CA*
Um...actually, they've got that covered pretty well.
Just like every grocery store, Wal-Mart, Costco, and everywhere else with their own private label brands.
I can't watch the video because work, but from the text this doesn't look much like Facebook is using systemd. Facebook is using an operating system that uses systemd. And may someday have a python api to do what everyone else does with bash.
but without competition they'll be sold for the price people expect to pay for a vehicle.
And, IMO, that's the big part of what Tesla has done. They demonstrated to other automakers that there actually is a very large market for electric vehicles.
So now those automakers are creating their own vehicles to complete with Tesla (and each other), and we get competition to drive prices down. (And yes, I think that poster is overly optimistic about price unless we accept drastically reduced range)
So, the post you replied to was pointing out that about 1/3rd of eligible voters did not vote in 2016, about 1/3rd voted for Trump and about 1/3rd voted for Clinton. That's it.
There supposedly are state laws contradicting it but then again, state courts are supposed to be bound by federal law in the event that state law were to contradict federal law
You are extremely confused and/or misinformed about what's going on.
What happens now: States choose "Electors" who go to a convention, and those people elect the President. How each state splits up it's electoral votes is up to the state. All but 2 states give all of their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote in their state. States can choose electors using any method they feel like.
What people are trying to change: There's something called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. States that are part of this agreement are passing laws that would change how their electors vote. Instead of popular vote per-state, their electors would be required to vote for the winner of the national popular vote. These laws are triggered once states with a total of 270 electoral votes have signed on (270 is the number of electoral votes required to win).
So no, states are not attempting to overrule federal law. States would still be choosing electors that then go vote for President. The states would just be changing how they choose electors.
You appear to have forgotten that private aircraft exist that are not drones.
How is any of this constitutional?
You have no Constitutional right to fly a drone. Airspace is inherently "public", so the government gets to regulate what happens there.
Much like you have no Constitutional right to drive a car on public roads - that's why you have a driver's license, and why the state can deny driver's licenses to people.
Grown ups are able to differentiate between a legal proceeding and a job interview, and thus apply different standards to those situations.
What gives is price.
Nuclear is much more expensive than any other method of power generation. So much so that if we over-build solar and wind by a factor of 3 to handle intermittency, it's still cheaper than nuclear.
There's also the matter of waste. If that was actually priced in, nuclear would be in even worse shape. Instead, we're still operating on the fiction that the government will take care of it for free.
Finally, "advanced designs" that were supposed to eliminate the problems with nuclear reactors have failed to deliver. For example, pebble-beds turned out to jam in the reactor, wore off the outside of the "pebble" much faster than expected, and have still-unexplained heavy metal contamination in their cooling loops.
Good news! Only about a third of the country is stupid enough to vote for Trump.
Unfortunately, another third of the country looked at their choices in 2016 and said "I'm not gonna bother".
Yeah. Call them "FEMA Alerts" or "National Emergency Alerts" instead. This is not something you want tied to anything political.
Those that dislike the current President will be annoyed by the message. And the next time there's a Democratic president, Trump's fans will be annoyed by the message.
That will increase the costs throughout the entire supply chain.
Here's what you're desperately skipping over:
It will increase the costs throughout the entire supply chain by a trivial amount because wages are a tiny fraction of the costs in the supply chain.
You keep insisting that the increase will be large because you keep mistakenly thinking wages are a large expense. They aren't. That 4% increase on a 106% increase in wages is one of the worst-case scenarios.
When you sum all of the costs down the supply chain, labor is the dominant force.
Once again [Citation Required].
In most of those examples, there is still an underlying labor cost.
And no one is disputing that. What we are disputing is your attempt to make that labor cost a large part of the overall cost. And it simply isn't.
In the end, the vast majority of the cost of any goods are labor.
[Citation Required]
Let's look at some numbers instead. Raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 is a more than 100% increase. So what affect would that ~100% increase have on prices? Well, let's look at the worst-case scenario: Fast food. Because unlike all your examples, a significant percentage of the costs in a fast food restaurant is wages.
That 100% increase in wages translates to....a 4% increase in the cost of the food. Or about 17 cents for a Big Mac.
If a 100% increase in wages only yields a 4% increase in one of the most wage-intensive industries in the country, we probably shouldn't be worried much about the effect on the price of milling wheat into flour.
An employment-population ratio of 100% is not something to strive for. But that assumption underlies all of the methodology used at ShadowStats.