And how about the claim that it's a "short range attack"? They've got Bluetooth "sniper rifles" that can connect to a device a mile away, how much do you want to bet the same thing exists for keyless fobs? Sweep that through the parking lot and across the store/restaurant/whatever as you drive past, and let it give a chirp when it unlocks something - along with a readout of whatever model-identifying information can be recognized. You wouldn't want to waste your time stealing the cheap junk after all.
Agreed. I don't have a garage, but if I did I certainly wouldn't waste valuable weatherproof space by filling it with a car that's already designed to be weatherproof on its own.
I've always thought the entire concept of a garage represented an unhealthy relationship with a tool.
Why is dark fluid being "magically" replenished any less plausible than dark energy being magically replenished?
And what evidence do you have that space itself is coming apart, much less the things within it? I've never heard of any model that postulates such a thing.
If I understand correctly, author actually cites the fact that the Hubble constant does in fact seem to change between measurements as supporting evidence that dark fluid may be a more accurate model than dark energy.
Sure - just like female hormonal birth control can cause all sorts of horrible problems for them.
As for having no value, why are you talking about women? Male birth control is for men, not women. Women have a few different options to give them the confidence of knowing they can have sex with near certainty of avoiding pregnancy, without having to trust anyone else. This gel would give the same thing to men.
You only have to browse the comments above to see that there's a definite market for such a thing.
Personally I think vasagel sounds like a much better alternative - but it's good to have options.
Reversal success rates vary from about 40% to over 90% according to Mayo clinic, based on a number of factors including how long it's been in place. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tes...
Depending on your personal priorities and risk factors, a 60% (or even 10%) chance of permanent sterilization may be an unacceptable risk. Of course if you're absolutely certain you'll never want kids, then it's probably a great choice.
Personally I'm following the progress of vasagel and similar "temporary vasectomies" with interest - it sounds like they've had great success both in medium-term (5+year) effectiveness and reversal, and even avoid some of the potential side effects of vasectomies, though they do have their own, different set of mostly minor risks.
>You'll note the application method requires a partner...
Really? Can you not reach most of your own back and shoulders? You might want to work on that. I'm not especially flexible and can easily reach my entire lower back with either hand, up to about the base of my shoulder blades, and I can reach most of each shoulder blade with my opposing hand. Plus as others have mentioned there's no shortage of applicators designed for exactly this sort of purpose.
Probably good advice, if you can afford it. The flip side of higher risk investment, is higher risk of losing money instead of gaining it. If not for that the only people who would waste their time investing in low-yield investments are the ones who might need to cash out within a few years.
You are correct I'm not factoring in opportunity costs associated with education and student debt - I'm not consider student debt at all. Just pointing out that your initial statement was painting investment in a rather rosy light.
One interesting take on "Free" university I've seen, that *does* address the problem, is to do away with grants and loans and have the university itself eat the cost of your education, and then claim a substantial percentage of your income for 5-10 years afterwards. Gives them great incentive to both give you a useful education, AND help you find jobs that will leverage that education into as much short-to-mid-term income as possible.
Admittedly I would assume such a university would drop a whole lot of the arts, humanities, and other largely financially useless "Renaissance" education, as well as refusing students whose high school performance doesn't speak well of their potential - but that's probably for the best all around. At least so long as universities are being marketed as white-collar trade schools.
Of course, you have to get an 8% annual return to pull that off, which seems to be considerably above the average.
And, once you adjust for inflation, that 1.3 million is only going to be worth 366k in today's dollars. So the gains aren't nearly as dramatic as they seem
The benefits of Investment have dried up considerably, probably in large part to high frequency trading and other mechanisms by which unscrupulous actors game the system to steal profit from real investors.
I did not consider the homophone other than out of a certain humorously decorative rhyming. The poetic relationship I see is rather the parallel between the solstice marking the day on which sun light begins increase again in Winter, and the birth of Jesus marking a symbolic increase of God's light in the world.
At any rate, whatever the truth of the man was, the legend has obviously drawn extensively on many much older epic tales of other heroes. Take my comment as born part in snark about that, and part in sincere appreciation of the ways in which joyous rituals can spread across very different cultures to draw people together.
If there's one thing everyone should be able to get behind, it's a pagan solstice party. It's based on an undeniable physical event of great significance to everyone, and draws heavily on rituals developed by a people skilled in maintaining good cheer though particularly long and dark winters. It even caught on like wildfire among Christians. In fact, if God hadn't already seen fit to have the Birth of the Son coincide with the Return of the Sun, it might have been necessary for the keepers of religious legend to take some poetic license.
Unfortunately, "through WINE" only counts if it's reliable. And WINE working properly out of the box is NOT reliable. Especially for pro software, where proper font rendering is a generally a must-have feature. The eye- and brain-strain of reading badly rendered text for several hours a day just can't be reasonably justified. And then there's all the stuff that just won't run on WINE - Autodesk's Fusion 360 is my current bugaboo.
Games are admittedly a particular problem as well - but most of those actually run fine under WINE as well, though sometimes with a serious performance loss, which is generally only relevant to serious gamers - a small part of the population. And Steam actually seems to be putting some serious effort in on that front. ( at least I presume they're using WINE under the hood)
It seems to me that first-class WINE support under the major distros would go a long way to solving the market share problem with Linux. Software doesn't support Linux natively, because the potential customer base isn't there to justify the effort of porting to a whole new OS. Partially that's down to a small user base, and partially it's down to the user base largely preferring Free software, and partially it's probably down to simple "brand awareness". The MacOS user base is probably somewhere between twice and half the size of the desktop Linux user base, but generally has much broader software support.
We're already at the point where competent Linux users willing to put in the effort to tweak WINE into working properly can run most Windows software without problems. If we expanded that to *most* Linux users, most especially newbies just testing the waters, it would drastically lower the bar for people looking to switch - that gets the user base growing faster, which increases the value of supporting it to software developers. And since that could just mean making sure the existing Windows version runs properly on WINE as well, the expected cost-benefit proposition would likely look a lot more attractive than MacOS.
In theory it absolutely is the same. In practice the market share difference means it's a whole lot easier finding a laptop without decent Linux drivers than without decent Windows drivers
Not *a* company, but a handful of them. Just like in a dictatorship, power is not held by *a* person, but by a cabal. Kim Jong Un wants to really change how things are run, he'd better have most of the most powerful members of his cabal on board first if he wants to keep breathing.
That would be one of those special cases where the laptop actually ships with Linux, and thus the manufacturer makes sure there is proper hardware support for the hardware they install in order to met their marketing targets. Put Linux on a laptop not designed for it (a.k.a. most of them) and things aren't quite so rosy.
Actually, I'd say the desktop experience of many Linux distros already outshines the proprietary alternatives, even before you start delving into the far deeper options to fine-tune things to your own tastes.
What's lacking is the software support for a lot of major "must have" applications. WINE solves much (most?) of that, but isn't always the most user-friendly software to set up, particularly for the sort of people that are most likely to need it.
I'm eternally surprised that so few desktop-oriented distros ship with a really dialed-in copy of WINE as a default package, (perhaps opt-out during install for the sake of purists). You want to lure new users, make it so that they can easily run their "must-have" software until they learn better. *They* may not know or care about the details, but I'd be a lot more enthusiastic about convincing people to give it a shot if I could honestly say it would run at least most of their existing software out of the box, without appalling font rendering and the many other quirks WINE often displays without a lot of fine-tuning.
This is a bit out of left field, but speaking of font rendering, has anyone else noticed glitches in Firefox text boxes in the last year? I'll be typing, and suddenly it's like the entire text box suddenly pops back into sharp focus when I hadn't even noticed it had gone blurry. Haven't seen that in any other program, and it happens across all the sites I type at.
Property is singular - what you have, I do not. If I take a piece of property from you, you no longer have it. That is the single defining quality of ownership rights over property.
Intellectual assets do not share that quality. They can be duplicated infinitely at negligible cost, and the original owner loses nothing. The actual legal ownership of a grant of patent or copyright may behave in a similar manner - but that's just a document. The actual copyright itself is an artificial legal restriction imposed on everyone else.
Well, keep producing it as quickly at least - it's not like technology doesn't advance without patents, they just provide added incentive to a game that already rewards the first mover. (And there's even some case studies suggesting they might actually be a net loss, though I suspect those are a bit overly optimistic)
Also, there's no such thing as Intellectual Property. There's patents, trademarks, and copyright - three completely unrelated classes of artificially protected work, none of which bears any similarity to property. IP is a term coined by vested interests in increasing protections in order to create a false equivalency to falsely skew the political conversation in their favor.
Perhaps so, I'm not versed in that aspect, so won't comment.
But hey, once we go "post quantum" practically the entire cryptographic infrastructure of the world is going to be in shambles - we'll have bigger problems on our hands than some fringe cryptocurrency no longer being trustworthy.
>They are equally bad Your evidence for that assertion?
Meanwhile, the fact remains that one *is* going to happen, and the only choice is which one. At least so long as consumers are allowed to make their own choices, and a massive cultural shift doesn't take place. I'm all for the cultural shift, but I'm not holding my breath. Just making electric cars popular is taking decades - but it does seem like the energy of that is also spreading a bit to electric scooters and the like, which are a big step in the right direction. Though perhaps that's just coincidence.
It's pointless to do so in this context. To evaluate the impact of someone buying a Tesla, you have to compare it to the impact of the expected alternative behavior. Not to the hypothetical ideal alternative.
I'm going out on a limb here, and guess that nobody buying a Tesla would seriously consider riding a bike or using mass transit instead. Few would even consider just not buying a new car and continuing to drive what they have. (And with the trickle-down effects of the used car market the society-scale benefits of doing so are debatable anyway)
So, time comes to buy a new car - are the long-term interests of humanity best served by them buying an electric vehicle, or a traditional gasoline one?
I've heard it claimed it burns 50-100% more calories than sitting motionless, which is hardly in the same class as exercising, but better than nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
And how about the claim that it's a "short range attack"? They've got Bluetooth "sniper rifles" that can connect to a device a mile away, how much do you want to bet the same thing exists for keyless fobs? Sweep that through the parking lot and across the store/restaurant/whatever as you drive past, and let it give a chirp when it unlocks something - along with a readout of whatever model-identifying information can be recognized. You wouldn't want to waste your time stealing the cheap junk after all.
Agreed. I don't have a garage, but if I did I certainly wouldn't waste valuable weatherproof space by filling it with a car that's already designed to be weatherproof on its own.
I've always thought the entire concept of a garage represented an unhealthy relationship with a tool.
Why is dark fluid being "magically" replenished any less plausible than dark energy being magically replenished?
And what evidence do you have that space itself is coming apart, much less the things within it? I've never heard of any model that postulates such a thing.
If I understand correctly, author actually cites the fact that the Hubble constant does in fact seem to change between measurements as supporting evidence that dark fluid may be a more accurate model than dark energy.
Sure - just like female hormonal birth control can cause all sorts of horrible problems for them.
As for having no value, why are you talking about women? Male birth control is for men, not women. Women have a few different options to give them the confidence of knowing they can have sex with near certainty of avoiding pregnancy, without having to trust anyone else. This gel would give the same thing to men.
You only have to browse the comments above to see that there's a definite market for such a thing.
Personally I think vasagel sounds like a much better alternative - but it's good to have options.
>Men, don't take anything that messes with your hormones.
Don't limit your advice to men. Sadly, that's a definite risk of female birth control as well.
Reversal success rates vary from about 40% to over 90% according to Mayo clinic, based on a number of factors including how long it's been in place.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/tes...
Depending on your personal priorities and risk factors, a 60% (or even 10%) chance of permanent sterilization may be an unacceptable risk. Of course if you're absolutely certain you'll never want kids, then it's probably a great choice.
Personally I'm following the progress of vasagel and similar "temporary vasectomies" with interest - it sounds like they've had great success both in medium-term (5+year) effectiveness and reversal, and even avoid some of the potential side effects of vasectomies, though they do have their own, different set of mostly minor risks.
>You'll note the application method requires a partner...
Really? Can you not reach most of your own back and shoulders? You might want to work on that. I'm not especially flexible and can easily reach my entire lower back with either hand, up to about the base of my shoulder blades, and I can reach most of each shoulder blade with my opposing hand. Plus as others have mentioned there's no shortage of applicators designed for exactly this sort of purpose.
Probably good advice, if you can afford it. The flip side of higher risk investment, is higher risk of losing money instead of gaining it. If not for that the only people who would waste their time investing in low-yield investments are the ones who might need to cash out within a few years.
You are correct I'm not factoring in opportunity costs associated with education and student debt - I'm not consider student debt at all. Just pointing out that your initial statement was painting investment in a rather rosy light.
One interesting take on "Free" university I've seen, that *does* address the problem, is to do away with grants and loans and have the university itself eat the cost of your education, and then claim a substantial percentage of your income for 5-10 years afterwards. Gives them great incentive to both give you a useful education, AND help you find jobs that will leverage that education into as much short-to-mid-term income as possible.
Admittedly I would assume such a university would drop a whole lot of the arts, humanities, and other largely financially useless "Renaissance" education, as well as refusing students whose high school performance doesn't speak well of their potential - but that's probably for the best all around. At least so long as universities are being marketed as white-collar trade schools.
Of course, you have to get an 8% annual return to pull that off, which seems to be considerably above the average.
And, once you adjust for inflation, that 1.3 million is only going to be worth 366k in today's dollars. So the gains aren't nearly as dramatic as they seem
The benefits of Investment have dried up considerably, probably in large part to high frequency trading and other mechanisms by which unscrupulous actors game the system to steal profit from real investors.
I did not consider the homophone other than out of a certain humorously decorative rhyming. The poetic relationship I see is rather the parallel between the solstice marking the day on which sun light begins increase again in Winter, and the birth of Jesus marking a symbolic increase of God's light in the world.
At any rate, whatever the truth of the man was, the legend has obviously drawn extensively on many much older epic tales of other heroes. Take my comment as born part in snark about that, and part in sincere appreciation of the ways in which joyous rituals can spread across very different cultures to draw people together.
If there's one thing everyone should be able to get behind, it's a pagan solstice party. It's based on an undeniable physical event of great significance to everyone, and draws heavily on rituals developed by a people skilled in maintaining good cheer though particularly long and dark winters. It even caught on like wildfire among Christians. In fact, if God hadn't already seen fit to have the Birth of the Son coincide with the Return of the Sun, it might have been necessary for the keepers of religious legend to take some poetic license.
Unfortunately, "through WINE" only counts if it's reliable. And WINE working properly out of the box is NOT reliable. Especially for pro software, where proper font rendering is a generally a must-have feature. The eye- and brain-strain of reading badly rendered text for several hours a day just can't be reasonably justified. And then there's all the stuff that just won't run on WINE - Autodesk's Fusion 360 is my current bugaboo.
Games are admittedly a particular problem as well - but most of those actually run fine under WINE as well, though sometimes with a serious performance loss, which is generally only relevant to serious gamers - a small part of the population. And Steam actually seems to be putting some serious effort in on that front. ( at least I presume they're using WINE under the hood)
It seems to me that first-class WINE support under the major distros would go a long way to solving the market share problem with Linux. Software doesn't support Linux natively, because the potential customer base isn't there to justify the effort of porting to a whole new OS. Partially that's down to a small user base, and partially it's down to the user base largely preferring Free software, and partially it's probably down to simple "brand awareness". The MacOS user base is probably somewhere between twice and half the size of the desktop Linux user base, but generally has much broader software support.
We're already at the point where competent Linux users willing to put in the effort to tweak WINE into working properly can run most Windows software without problems. If we expanded that to *most* Linux users, most especially newbies just testing the waters, it would drastically lower the bar for people looking to switch - that gets the user base growing faster, which increases the value of supporting it to software developers. And since that could just mean making sure the existing Windows version runs properly on WINE as well, the expected cost-benefit proposition would likely look a lot more attractive than MacOS.
In theory it absolutely is the same. In practice the market share difference means it's a whole lot easier finding a laptop without decent Linux drivers than without decent Windows drivers
Not *a* company, but a handful of them. Just like in a dictatorship, power is not held by *a* person, but by a cabal. Kim Jong Un wants to really change how things are run, he'd better have most of the most powerful members of his cabal on board first if he wants to keep breathing.
That would be one of those special cases where the laptop actually ships with Linux, and thus the manufacturer makes sure there is proper hardware support for the hardware they install in order to met their marketing targets. Put Linux on a laptop not designed for it (a.k.a. most of them) and things aren't quite so rosy.
Actually, I'd say the desktop experience of many Linux distros already outshines the proprietary alternatives, even before you start delving into the far deeper options to fine-tune things to your own tastes.
What's lacking is the software support for a lot of major "must have" applications. WINE solves much (most?) of that, but isn't always the most user-friendly software to set up, particularly for the sort of people that are most likely to need it.
I'm eternally surprised that so few desktop-oriented distros ship with a really dialed-in copy of WINE as a default package, (perhaps opt-out during install for the sake of purists). You want to lure new users, make it so that they can easily run their "must-have" software until they learn better. *They* may not know or care about the details, but I'd be a lot more enthusiastic about convincing people to give it a shot if I could honestly say it would run at least most of their existing software out of the box, without appalling font rendering and the many other quirks WINE often displays without a lot of fine-tuning.
This is a bit out of left field, but speaking of font rendering, has anyone else noticed glitches in Firefox text boxes in the last year? I'll be typing, and suddenly it's like the entire text box suddenly pops back into sharp focus when I hadn't even noticed it had gone blurry. Haven't seen that in any other program, and it happens across all the sites I type at.
Property is singular - what you have, I do not. If I take a piece of property from you, you no longer have it. That is the single defining quality of ownership rights over property.
Intellectual assets do not share that quality. They can be duplicated infinitely at negligible cost, and the original owner loses nothing. The actual legal ownership of a grant of patent or copyright may behave in a similar manner - but that's just a document. The actual copyright itself is an artificial legal restriction imposed on everyone else.
Well, keep producing it as quickly at least - it's not like technology doesn't advance without patents, they just provide added incentive to a game that already rewards the first mover. (And there's even some case studies suggesting they might actually be a net loss, though I suspect those are a bit overly optimistic)
Also, there's no such thing as Intellectual Property. There's patents, trademarks, and copyright - three completely unrelated classes of artificially protected work, none of which bears any similarity to property. IP is a term coined by vested interests in increasing protections in order to create a false equivalency to falsely skew the political conversation in their favor.
Perhaps so, I'm not versed in that aspect, so won't comment.
But hey, once we go "post quantum" practically the entire cryptographic infrastructure of the world is going to be in shambles - we'll have bigger problems on our hands than some fringe cryptocurrency no longer being trustworthy.
>They are equally bad
Your evidence for that assertion?
Meanwhile, the fact remains that one *is* going to happen, and the only choice is which one. At least so long as consumers are allowed to make their own choices, and a massive cultural shift doesn't take place. I'm all for the cultural shift, but I'm not holding my breath. Just making electric cars popular is taking decades - but it does seem like the energy of that is also spreading a bit to electric scooters and the like, which are a big step in the right direction. Though perhaps that's just coincidence.
>which from a logistical standpoint will lead to centralization.
I get the impression he's not trying to avoid centralization - so that doesn't seem like that would present a problem.
It's pointless to do so in this context. To evaluate the impact of someone buying a Tesla, you have to compare it to the impact of the expected alternative behavior. Not to the hypothetical ideal alternative.
I'm going out on a limb here, and guess that nobody buying a Tesla would seriously consider riding a bike or using mass transit instead. Few would even consider just not buying a new car and continuing to drive what they have. (And with the trickle-down effects of the used car market the society-scale benefits of doing so are debatable anyway)
So, time comes to buy a new car - are the long-term interests of humanity best served by them buying an electric vehicle, or a traditional gasoline one?
I've heard it claimed it burns 50-100% more calories than sitting motionless, which is hardly in the same class as exercising, but better than nothing.