Only on slashdot are we presented with an example of a startup giving complete control of rental housing pricing to the renters, and then told that this is evil.
So this system will not allow reserve prices?
And if somehow the only bid is $5/month the landlord is required to take it?
And the landlord is prohibited from raising the rates or ending the lease early?
Seems to me the only control the renter gets is how high they're willing to go, which they already have.
Hey, if you want to maintain your view of the beach... join together with your neighborhoods to purchase that property, and maintain it as you see fit—and pool your resources together to fend off that violently imposed monopoly (something something eminent domain).
I did join together with my neighbors to purchase the property. It's called being a citizen and paying taxes.
Oh, wait, did you mean to pool together with such a small group that we could be easily overruled by a corporation?
noone is going to take an army to go to Arctic to destroy seeds, but they might to destroy an Archive, and while they are there they'll trample the seeds...
It goes both ways. If the day comes we actually need the seeds, whoever is fighting over them isn't going to give a shit about a couple of books. Every additional target you put in one location increases the risk to each of the others.
On February 22, 2013, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) directed federal agencies that conduct research to develop plans ensuring peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals and related digital scientific research data resulting from federally-funded scientific research are accessible to the public.
If they conduct the original research, yes. But they will no longer be able to cite anyone else's research. Will the EPA's budget be increased sufficiently that they can perform original research to duplicate all that is currently performed by other entities?
But we already know another blatant mistake of the governments, which has lead to the explosion of the obesity epidemics and millions of premature deaths — the War on Fat. And on cholesterol — though manufacturers are still marketing "low cholesterol" foods, the government's current stance is Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption...
I'm with you so far.
Though Americans — and other nations following America's lead — grew obese, no one was punished for that mistake.
Umm, maybe. Who do you think should be punished? The scientists? They were saying at the beginning of the War on Fat that the science was inconclusive. It was the politicians who said, "We don't have time to wait for facts. We need to act."
Without any accountability for the FDA personnel even when the fault is obvious, what is there to restraint the EPA? What "checks and balances" are there to prevent them from banning anything another "charismatic and confident" doctor suggests to ban without much proof?
I see how you can get there. But as I said, the problem wasn't with the scientists. It was the politicians pushing the agenda, and the sugar industry funding it.
The "Trust Us" science is junk science — and Congress is absolutely right to fight it, even if they are too chicken to abolish the EPA altogether.
And that's where you go off the rails. In the case of fat, there was heavy industry lobbying in favor of a position that scientists said was unsupported by current research. We now know that it wasn't just unsupported; it was wrong.
In the case of environmental regulations, the industry money is all lining up to say we don't need to reduce fossil fuel use. And the vast majority of scientists are saying that the science is settled, and it goes against what industry is pushing.
But my biggest gripe with your solution is the suggestion that if the EPA isn't perfect, the solution is not to fix it but to abolish it. That's a common solution for certain advocacy groups (and political parties) who know that it's a lot easier to destroy programs that benefit society than it is to build them.
My teenage daughters, and all their friends, live and breathe SnapChat. Not one of them is on Facebook. This could change, but I don't anticipate any of them switching.
"Everyone needs to be sure to tighten one's safety belt before approaching the cliff."
No. "Everyone" is a collective noun. In this context, the intent is that each member of that collective needs to take action individually. Therefore a plural pronoun would be appropriate.
Which means this isn't even a good example of needing a singular pronoun. It should be "their".
The linked Business Insider article breaks down every objection I had and confirms they're worse than I thought. I like his conclusion, too: It won't work, but it's good to see people coming up with new ideas. You never know what might come out of it.
"The FCC's new privacy rules would have been dramatic, to be sure -- but they would only have addressed one piece of the problem, leaving companies like Facebook and Google free to continue doing much the same thing."
So instead of repealing the law, how about extending to also apply to Google and Facebook?
This is a constant refrain from Republicans: "This solution doesn't solve the problem completely or perfectly, so it should be repealed." If there's any meaningful space between that often-repeated position and simply eliminating all corporate oversight, I can't see it.
For a while lots of telemarketing scams were located in Texas. Multiple people around the U.S. had tried to sue them for fraud, but the Attorney General of the victim's state would say they had no jurisdiction, and the Texas AG would say that his mandate was to defend citizens of Texas.
So as long as you made the call from Texas into another state, no one would take the case.
Note that yes, there were clearly interstate commerce laws being broken, but no one would prosecute.
This is piercing the corporate veil. If the precedent stands, look for lawsuits targeting corporate officers individually for the actions of the corporation.
Note that I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea, but probably not what they intend with this.
Slashdot Mirror
When high level execs come out to tell you how important you are, they are massaging your ego until they can afford to layoff/fire you.
Also known as diplomacy.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
-- Will Rogers
This is public land, owned by the city, I cannot buy it.
Who do you think "the city" is?
Only on slashdot are we presented with an example of a startup giving complete control of rental housing pricing to the renters, and then told that this is evil.
So this system will not allow reserve prices?
And if somehow the only bid is $5/month the landlord is required to take it?
And the landlord is prohibited from raising the rates or ending the lease early?
Seems to me the only control the renter gets is how high they're willing to go, which they already have.
Resources get allocated poorly, producing too much of what the economy doesn't need, and too little of what the economy does need.
"The economy" doesn't need shit. It's people who need things.
Hey, if you want to maintain your view of the beach ... join together with your neighborhoods to purchase that property, and maintain it as you see fit—and pool your resources together to fend off that violently imposed monopoly (something something eminent domain).
I did join together with my neighbors to purchase the property. It's called being a citizen and paying taxes.
Oh, wait, did you mean to pool together with such a small group that we could be easily overruled by a corporation?
noone is going to take an army to go to Arctic to destroy seeds, but they might to destroy an Archive, and while they are there they'll trample the seeds...
It goes both ways. If the day comes we actually need the seeds, whoever is fighting over them isn't going to give a shit about a couple of books. Every additional target you put in one location increases the risk to each of the others.
Shouldn't it be "Defense Innovation, Experimental"? Ooh, wait, bad acronym.
Here's from the summary:
allow anyone who signs a confidentiality agreement to view redacted personal or trade information in data
Right. If a government agency wants to publish, they must agree to release the data to anyone who signs the NDA.
And if the original research was not done by that government agency, then they may not have the authority to release that data.
So if they aren't allowed to release the data, they aren't allowed to publish the data.
On February 22, 2013, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) directed federal agencies that conduct research to develop plans ensuring peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals and related digital scientific research data resulting from federally-funded scientific research are accessible to the public.
If they conduct the original research, yes. But they will no longer be able to cite anyone else's research. Will the EPA's budget be increased sufficiently that they can perform original research to duplicate all that is currently performed by other entities?
But we already know another blatant mistake of the governments, which has lead to the explosion of the obesity epidemics and millions of premature deaths — the War on Fat. And on cholesterol — though manufacturers are still marketing "low cholesterol" foods, the government's current stance is Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption...
I'm with you so far.
Though Americans — and other nations following America's lead — grew obese, no one was punished for that mistake.
Umm, maybe. Who do you think should be punished? The scientists? They were saying at the beginning of the War on Fat that the science was inconclusive. It was the politicians who said, "We don't have time to wait for facts. We need to act."
Without any accountability for the FDA personnel even when the fault is obvious, what is there to restraint the EPA? What "checks and balances" are there to prevent them from banning anything another "charismatic and confident" doctor suggests to ban without much proof?
I see how you can get there. But as I said, the problem wasn't with the scientists. It was the politicians pushing the agenda, and the sugar industry funding it.
The "Trust Us" science is junk science — and Congress is absolutely right to fight it, even if they are too chicken to abolish the EPA altogether.
And that's where you go off the rails. In the case of fat, there was heavy industry lobbying in favor of a position that scientists said was unsupported by current research. We now know that it wasn't just unsupported; it was wrong.
In the case of environmental regulations, the industry money is all lining up to say we don't need to reduce fossil fuel use. And the vast majority of scientists are saying that the science is settled, and it goes against what industry is pushing.
But my biggest gripe with your solution is the suggestion that if the EPA isn't perfect, the solution is not to fix it but to abolish it. That's a common solution for certain advocacy groups (and political parties) who know that it's a lot easier to destroy programs that benefit society than it is to build them.
My teenage daughters, and all their friends, live and breathe SnapChat. Not one of them is on Facebook. This could change, but I don't anticipate any of them switching.
When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.
Except in this case if Costco is an elephant Titleist is maybe an aardvark.
With the proliferation of inexpensive motion triggered wildlife cameras it's hard to believe someone wouldn't have photographed one by now.
How many of those inexpensive cameras are set up in remote, inhospitable places that humans don't go?
"Everyone needs to be sure to tighten one's safety belt before approaching the cliff."
No. "Everyone" is a collective noun. In this context, the intent is that each member of that collective needs to take action individually. Therefore a plural pronoun would be appropriate.
Which means this isn't even a good example of needing a singular pronoun. It should be "their".
The linked Business Insider article breaks down every objection I had and confirms they're worse than I thought. I like his conclusion, too: It won't work, but it's good to see people coming up with new ideas. You never know what might come out of it.
"The FCC's new privacy rules would have been dramatic, to be sure -- but they would only have addressed one piece of the problem, leaving companies like Facebook and Google free to continue doing much the same thing."
So instead of repealing the law, how about extending to also apply to Google and Facebook?
This is a constant refrain from Republicans: "This solution doesn't solve the problem completely or perfectly, so it should be repealed." If there's any meaningful space between that often-repeated position and simply eliminating all corporate oversight, I can't see it.
The resource scarcity issue is constant, and has always been constant. When we find more, we expand.
Just like closet space.
They can kill healthy cells or trigger side effects such as a drop in the number of platelets, the cellular chunks that help our blood clot.
50 years from now, the world is populated by >100-year-old people who are afraid to prick their finger for fear of bleeding out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Slashdot is... going down the toilet?
Slashdot is ... quoting the headline of the source article?
Yeah, let's go with that one.
I have a notepad on my desk that has printed at the top of each page: "Teamwork is a bunch of people doing what I say."
It's supposed to be a joke.
For a while lots of telemarketing scams were located in Texas. Multiple people around the U.S. had tried to sue them for fraud, but the Attorney General of the victim's state would say they had no jurisdiction, and the Texas AG would say that his mandate was to defend citizens of Texas.
So as long as you made the call from Texas into another state, no one would take the case.
Note that yes, there were clearly interstate commerce laws being broken, but no one would prosecute.
This is piercing the corporate veil. If the precedent stands, look for lawsuits targeting corporate officers individually for the actions of the corporation.
Note that I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea, but probably not what they intend with this.
What's that happening from midnight to 3 am over Turkey and Romania?
Standardized cars will go over with the market about as well as standardized housing has.
I didn't say standardized cars, I said standardized transportation. Do you hold out for a specific model of Uber? Or taxi? Or bus?
If I want a car, I want a particular car. If I want to get from point A to point B I mostly care what it costs and how long it will take.
Transportation is to driving as shipping is to luxury cruise.