That cable is what turned me away from Apple. Around 2007/8 I replaced my iPod and the video cables I had for my previous pod wouldn't work with the new pod because of some kind of verification chip. The old cables sold on Amazon for (literally) six cents (on sale, obvs but still) and Apple's cable cost $49.99. That's ridiculous! That iPod was my last Apple purchase which is a shame because Apple makes some great products.
You don't think it stops if confronted with a situation it can't understand? I'd be surprised if it did anything else. What do you think it does, go into a mode of "coast forward with no control"?
Yeah, totally, just like the entire progressive movement died after that total failure of government largesse, Social Security. People old enough to remember Social Security all agree on how terrible it was. Nobody liked it because it was a government takeover of medicine, just like the conservatives said when it was passed. Nobody ever again got to see the doctor of their choice, just like the conservatives said when it was passed. It was unaffordable and bankrupted the country, just like conservatives said when it was passed. It was very unpopular, was never expanded, and people cheered when it finally died a short time later.
Up to now we have rationed health care by price. Is that a horrible idea? or is it only a horrible idea to let poor people get a little bit of medical care?
I don't think it's a reasonable legal requirement to presume that every lens in your household must covered at all times. I also don't think it's reasonable to expect me to lock my closet doors, just because hey maybe someone snuck into my house while I was away and is in my closet. Do you sweep your house for bugs twice a day? Do you test your milk for poison before you eat a bowl of cereal, just in case someone put cyanide in it?
In my opinion it would be much better just to prosecute the perverts who illegally hack into personal computers and take surreptitious pictures of unsuspecting victims.
Autism or brain chemistry or whatever might be an explanation but in my opinion it is legally irrelevant. In the past we focused on judging criminals morally -- they are bad people. Western justice has been in a slow-motion process of dealing with the consequences of focusing on moral blame when criminals explain why, for various reasons, they aren't blameworthy: "I killed my dad because he was mean to me", "I have a predisposition to crime", whatever.
I predict that Western justice will soon do away with those excuses and focus instead on proximate cause. Are you the proximate cause of a crime? Meaning did you do it? If so, the the other dimensions of the defense will be irrelevant.
I appreciate your cites and your dedication to swaying me. I am listening to what you are saying; I'm not closed minded on this issue. I'm not convinced but I've thought about it and I will continue to do so. Here's my original point which you didn't address:
"Sometimes that works out, sometimes it doesn't, but even if there is a cost to the economy we might deem the cost to be 'worth it' for other reasons."
Policies have costs and give benefits and they are worth it when the benefits are greater than the costs, which might be subjective.
You also said these pair of statements which aren't exactly oppositional but do lessen each other:
* Everybody needs socks though, so we all pay more for socks * The demand for socks (both foreign and domestic) falls
A current example I'm aware of is tires: apparently we recently put a tariff on Chinese tires and there were stories about poor people struggling to pay for tires -- just like you said. The cost is the increased price of tires and the attendant decreased purchases of other goods [which should be net zero dollars spent in the economy, right?]; the benefits are higher profits for tire manufacturers, jobs in that sector, etc. So is that a tariff that worked out or didn't work out? I don't know but even considering your quite reasonable and complete argument, I don't think it's plain that the answer is that it didn't work out.
Maybe your purchasing power has gone down by a nickel but the purchasing power of the economy is the same, maybe greater. If you would have put that nickel into your coin jar to languish, then the tariff increased the economy by five cents. That nickel is still there, now in the pocket of a sockmaker or a tax enforcer or a recipient of government services.
I just don't think it's true that "it's already known that tariffs only serve to damage the local economy". If that were true then there would be no tariffs anywhere in the world because nobody would have an incentive to have one. Every local economy would maximize itself by eliminating tariffs, but that isn't so, so I don't think the premise is right.
And, again, even if there were an overall cost to the economy all that means is that a preferred policy had a cost. Yeah, things that we want have costs, so the question is whether the cost is worth it.
"Since Canada now pays less for socks, they also now have more money to spend on other things than we do. So in the end, we've crippled our own economy relative to theirs by sticking that tariff on there."
Uh, I'm not sure that's the whole picture. If I pay an extra nickel for socks, it's not like that nickel disappears into a black hole. The nickel then becomes part of the economy. My payment is your salary, and a nickel paid in taxes is a nickel spent again in the economy.
The point of tariffs is to encourage a broad local economy (protectionism). Sometimes that works out, sometimes it doesn't, but even if there is a cost to the economy we might deem the cost tobe "worth it" for other reasons. National security is an obvious example: we don't want to buy our nuclear bombs from North Korea, even if they could provide them cheaper than we can build them on our own.
It's not as though if your foot slips off the brake for a moment (something which, by the way, has never happened to me nor anyone has ever told me about that) your car magically slams forward into the next car. At most it would slowly start to idle forward and if your were really close, so you don't have time to put your foot back on the brake, then you might gently bump the next car (again, something I have never heard of happening in that way).
And wait, are you saying there are people who put on the hand brake at red lights? I've never even heard of that.
If you agree that a two-year timespan is totally meaningless to something as variable as climate, then it's disingenuous to turn around and try to give it credence.
Do you listen to Skeptic's Guide to the Universe? That's exactly how Steven Novella covered this item -- not that he is the only person who could make a straightforward conclusion like that, it just reminded me of his conversation.
As a Republican, I saw "Arctic Ice Extent Tops 2012's" and then stopped reading because that's all I need to know to conclude that all climate science is a hoax and we are headed toward a snowball planet. FUCK YOU SCIENCE!
"if an animal with 22 mutated and was accidentally born with 23, it could not breed with it's brethren."
You are thinking about it exactly right -- and that statement quoted is wrong. You can do the hard work of looking this up, but we already know how humans got one more chromosome than our ancestor primates. The DNA evidence is totally clear, it's an answered question. A chromosome split in two, just like you said, and quite obviously it did not render the individual infertile.
Slashdot Mirror
++
That cable is what turned me away from Apple. Around 2007/8 I replaced my iPod and the video cables I had for my previous pod wouldn't work with the new pod because of some kind of verification chip. The old cables sold on Amazon for (literally) six cents (on sale, obvs but still) and Apple's cable cost $49.99. That's ridiculous! That iPod was my last Apple purchase which is a shame because Apple makes some great products.
I think he was kidding but maybe not.
Your cite is unrelated to his request. Being unable to buy beer on Sunday is unrelated to getting a DUI while inside a bar.
That's one way. Another is to get blind-spot mirrors. I have a little one on each side and I love them.
You don't think it stops if confronted with a situation it can't understand? I'd be surprised if it did anything else. What do you think it does, go into a mode of "coast forward with no control"?
Dead, not brain dead.
Yeah, totally, just like the entire progressive movement died after that total failure of government largesse, Social Security. People old enough to remember Social Security all agree on how terrible it was. Nobody liked it because it was a government takeover of medicine, just like the conservatives said when it was passed. Nobody ever again got to see the doctor of their choice, just like the conservatives said when it was passed. It was unaffordable and bankrupted the country, just like conservatives said when it was passed. It was very unpopular, was never expanded, and people cheered when it finally died a short time later.
Yeah, totally.
"Rationing is a horrible idea"
Up to now we have rationed health care by price. Is that a horrible idea? or is it only a horrible idea to let poor people get a little bit of medical care?
I don't think it's a reasonable legal requirement to presume that every lens in your household must covered at all times. I also don't think it's reasonable to expect me to lock my closet doors, just because hey maybe someone snuck into my house while I was away and is in my closet. Do you sweep your house for bugs twice a day? Do you test your milk for poison before you eat a bowl of cereal, just in case someone put cyanide in it?
In my opinion it would be much better just to prosecute the perverts who illegally hack into personal computers and take surreptitious pictures of unsuspecting victims.
"This is what bullying is, taking unfair advantage over someone else."
That's also called "the free market". (Which is one reason why free markets are bad.)
Autism or brain chemistry or whatever might be an explanation but in my opinion it is legally irrelevant. In the past we focused on judging criminals morally -- they are bad people. Western justice has been in a slow-motion process of dealing with the consequences of focusing on moral blame when criminals explain why, for various reasons, they aren't blameworthy: "I killed my dad because he was mean to me", "I have a predisposition to crime", whatever.
I predict that Western justice will soon do away with those excuses and focus instead on proximate cause. Are you the proximate cause of a crime? Meaning did you do it? If so, the the other dimensions of the defense will be irrelevant.
For those who don't know.
I appreciate your cites and your dedication to swaying me. I am listening to what you are saying; I'm not closed minded on this issue. I'm not convinced but I've thought about it and I will continue to do so. Here's my original point which you didn't address:
"Sometimes that works out, sometimes it doesn't, but even if there is a cost to the economy we might deem the cost to be 'worth it' for other reasons."
Policies have costs and give benefits and they are worth it when the benefits are greater than the costs, which might be subjective.
You also said these pair of statements which aren't exactly oppositional but do lessen each other:
* Everybody needs socks though, so we all pay more for socks
* The demand for socks (both foreign and domestic) falls
A current example I'm aware of is tires: apparently we recently put a tariff on Chinese tires and there were stories about poor people struggling to pay for tires -- just like you said. The cost is the increased price of tires and the attendant decreased purchases of other goods [which should be net zero dollars spent in the economy, right?]; the benefits are higher profits for tire manufacturers, jobs in that sector, etc. So is that a tariff that worked out or didn't work out? I don't know but even considering your quite reasonable and complete argument, I don't think it's plain that the answer is that it didn't work out.
Maybe your purchasing power has gone down by a nickel but the purchasing power of the economy is the same, maybe greater. If you would have put that nickel into your coin jar to languish, then the tariff increased the economy by five cents. That nickel is still there, now in the pocket of a sockmaker or a tax enforcer or a recipient of government services.
I just don't think it's true that "it's already known that tariffs only serve to damage the local economy". If that were true then there would be no tariffs anywhere in the world because nobody would have an incentive to have one. Every local economy would maximize itself by eliminating tariffs, but that isn't so, so I don't think the premise is right.
And, again, even if there were an overall cost to the economy all that means is that a preferred policy had a cost. Yeah, things that we want have costs, so the question is whether the cost is worth it.
Maybe a beowulf cluster would help.
"Since Canada now pays less for socks, they also now have more money to spend on other things than we do. So in the end, we've crippled our own economy relative to theirs by sticking that tariff on there."
Uh, I'm not sure that's the whole picture. If I pay an extra nickel for socks, it's not like that nickel disappears into a black hole. The nickel then becomes part of the economy. My payment is your salary, and a nickel paid in taxes is a nickel spent again in the economy.
The point of tariffs is to encourage a broad local economy (protectionism). Sometimes that works out, sometimes it doesn't, but even if there is a cost to the economy we might deem the cost tobe "worth it" for other reasons. National security is an obvious example: we don't want to buy our nuclear bombs from North Korea, even if they could provide them cheaper than we can build them on our own.
It's not as though if your foot slips off the brake for a moment (something which, by the way, has never happened to me nor anyone has ever told me about that) your car magically slams forward into the next car. At most it would slowly start to idle forward and if your were really close, so you don't have time to put your foot back on the brake, then you might gently bump the next car (again, something I have never heard of happening in that way).
And wait, are you saying there are people who put on the hand brake at red lights? I've never even heard of that.
"it's not legal to just ram someone who doesn't accelerate fast enough for your liking."
Lo! And someday my people shall be liberated from the tyranny of the slowass mofo drivers! We shall overcome!
Cute, but being stopped at a red light in a sports car isn't illegal.
Is low shoe a typo or a reference to something I don't recognize? I can't figure it out.
If you agree that a two-year timespan is totally meaningless to something as variable as climate, then it's disingenuous to turn around and try to give it credence.
Do you listen to Skeptic's Guide to the Universe? That's exactly how Steven Novella covered this item -- not that he is the only person who could make a straightforward conclusion like that, it just reminded me of his conversation.
As a Republican, I saw "Arctic Ice Extent Tops 2012's" and then stopped reading because that's all I need to know to conclude that all climate science is a hoax and we are headed toward a snowball planet. FUCK YOU SCIENCE!
Science only contradicts faith/religion insofar as faith/religion make claims.
"if an animal with 22 mutated and was accidentally born with 23, it could not breed with it's brethren."
You are thinking about it exactly right -- and that statement quoted is wrong. You can do the hard work of looking this up, but we already know how humans got one more chromosome than our ancestor primates. The DNA evidence is totally clear, it's an answered question. A chromosome split in two, just like you said, and quite obviously it did not render the individual infertile.