Umm, where do you think greenhouses get their light?
Ah, you're one of those people... believe it or not, a good portion of the planet lives in latitudes where the sunlight in winter is inadequate for growing crops even in a greenhouse... and by changing the light cycles, you can change how long it takes to be able to harvest to a much shorter cycle.
In a lot of cases greenhouses still need to have big giant sodium lights because the few hours of daylight isn't enough to grow plants.
But, hey, I'm sure nobody has thought of any of this stuff and you know better than the people who have a running facility, right?
OK, pick your damned whining... either it's not as efficient as the sun, or it's more efficient than the greenhouse.
I assume at this point you're just moving the goal posts so you have something to complain about?
It can be a lot less efficient than the sun, and also be a lot more efficient than a green house. And you don't need to ship it half way around the world in the winter.
Honestly, WTF are you complaining about now? This doesn't sound like a problem with the summary, it sounds like a problem with the poster.
Which nobody is claiming... what they're saying is, given a finite amount of land, and the fact that nutrients are lost once you harvest and begin shipping... you can also grow some food close to where the people who will eat it actually live. And you can do it year round.
Efficiency, in this case, includes year round production, shipping, and the ability to have certain kinds of fresh produce without having to ship it around the world.
Unless you have a way to ship lettuce from Peru to London which is solar powered, you're kind of missing one of the points. Local production has its own efficiencies and benefits.
Ah, but if you're using fancy LEDs instead of big enormous power hungry lamps... how many LEDs can you run for the cost of a couple of those huge lights?
If you don't have several kilowats of lighting to deal with, putting out all that excess heat, just how noticeable is it likely to be?
A few tens of watts versus a few thousand changes a lot... that's a light bulb or an air conditioning unit instead of the power meter spinning enough to be noticeable.
So, I had to type "led gree" into Google to have it auto-suggest "led greenhouse lights", and get hits from Amazon, Home Depot, Phillips, and a bunch of other sites.
Maybe your current knowledge of LEDs for growing plants is outdated and thy actually have the technology for this? Because the sheer number of hits I got tells me it's real technology.
I have no idea about the pesticides, but people did farming for thousands of years without pesticides... so I'm not convinced it's not possible to grow plants without pesticides.
Oh, I have no doubt that Taser is overcharging... and I strongly suspect they're not as secure and robust as they need to be for something warehousing police data. But the cost of increased storage is seldom limited solely by the cost of the media.
And for legal purposes of any organization with a real retention schedule for whom failing to comply is a risk... you can't just buy a cheap hard drive and pretend you've solved the problem.
If these things are going to be legal records, they need to be secure, backed up, under a strict retention schedule, retrievable.
Which tells me if you think the added cost of that kind of storage is 'crap' you've probably never done it.
Sure, they're probably gouging, but there better be more to it than just slapping in cheap drives to a cheap machine... or they'll find themselves explaining to a whole bunch of police forces why they're doing that.
Unless of course all of these police forces have been hoodwinked into buying a system with a license which says "this system may or may not work, but we're not responsible if it doesn't". In which case law enforcement are really terrible at IT contracts.
Sure, a drive is cheap... having a robust and secure system (which I doubt they have) which gives you retention policies and other stuff suitable for evidentiary purposes is a much harder problem.
No...corporations give continuity to a legal entity which can outlast humans... if we start saying corporations have no culpability when their management turns over they could essentially give themselves a get out of jail free card... "Oh, sorry, we have a new board so we get a clean slate".
And that will pretty much mean we're all completely fucked, because corporations will never be liable for anything every again.
As an entity, the corporation better still be responsible, or you can expect every company to start playing music chairs with the board to allow them to engage in egregiously illegal activity.
Individuals might be in some ways shielded from legal/criminal liability... but no way in hell we need to be thinking about how to give corporations a legal loophole which will allow them to do anything they please.
Seriously, the past couple years it has reached the point where I'm questioning if half the things I'm reading online are even genuine, or just shilled marketing from some PR team to push an agenda or product.
Half? Wow, you're optimistic.
I see FAR too many things which are basically written as press releases, passed off in the media as an article, and which has a tiny little footnote indicating it's a press release.
Print media does this this too. They'll put it as a "special feature" or some other crap, and you have to look really close to realize it's really a multi-page ad posing as an in depth series of articles.
I have long since developed a strong distrust of the source of information, because it seems like increasingly "articles" and "science reporting" and "reviews" is code for "written by PR shills and other paid entities whose job it is to conceal who pays for producing this".
I can't even count how many "science articles" you see which if you follow who the "Institute for Corporate Factoids" really is (no, I made that up) will be an industry-paid for entity whose mandate it is to produce papers saying how awesome industry-X is doing.
We have definitely been inundated with so much crap, lies, and propaganda that it is difficult to tell what's honest anymore. So assume they're all lying assholes, and save yourself the time.
I'm waiting for the technology to completely fail, and then they'll announce the next thing.
The people making it are all going "yarg, teh 4K". The average consumer doesn't give a crap.
Having rode out the first decade of HD waiting until it stopped being a moving target on $10K TVs no sane person was going to buy... seen the format wars to move on from DVD... and having see a couple of early adopters discover their TV could no longer display HD because of the copy protection stuff... I can tell you the average consumer doesn't care about this and doesn't wish to get sucked into another format war.
The people who care about this would buy anything if you claimed it was new and better.
The industry is drooling at selling us new TVs, and DVD players, and amps, and monitors, and phones every few years because they've got the new hotness.
But people didn't care about 3D for the most part, and still don't care about 4K displays. Consumer demand isn't driving this, marketing is.
My 55" HDTV (without 3D and with no internet connection) is all I want for now. My BluRay player is fine. My amp does what I need it to. The 2x24" 1080p screens on my desk are just fine thanks.
If someone thinks I'm going to splash out on this stuff every few years because they've started selling it... they're morons. I mean, come on, 4K on a phone? And this would exhaust your data plan in, what, 30 minutes?
I have no doubt people will buy this stuff. But I also know they'll likely be wasting their money for little added benefit or to have bragging rights. Pretty much everybody else will view this with complete indifference.
Driving on a golf course is a relatively trivial problem to solve
For crying out loud.. nobody is looking at this for a fscking golf course:
As seen in a YouTube video, the carts transported 500 people along winding paths in public gardens in Singapore while autonomously navigating and watching for obstacles such as pedestrians and animals.
The carts picked up people at 10 stations in the gardens. They traveled at a maximum speed of only 24 kilometers per hour, so that the computers had time to process all the obstacles.
This has nothing to do with golf, and everything to do with smaller vehicles as a testbed for the damned technology.
I know nobody ever read the fscking article... but at least read the fscking summary.
And if you honestly think golf carts are going to follow pre-defined routes to known locations on a golf course, you've never played much golf.
Well, if we're getting into the business of banning things on the basis of what they could be used for, let's start with rocks
You joke, but from TFA:
Under the rule proposed by the FCC, devices with radios may be required to prevent modifications to firmware. All devices operating in the 5GHz WiFi spectrum will be forced to implement security features to ensure the radios cannot be modified. While prohibiting the modification of transmitters has been a mainstay of FCC regulation for 80 years
In other words, this is something they've been doing for a very long time, and they are suddenly saying you can't modify things which impact transmitters. It's kind of the things the FCC has been doing for decades.
So while TFA says "yarg, teh open source and teh tinkering"... in part it's the FCC reminding people there are long established rules in place for determining what you can do with a transmitting device.
If the Federal Rock Administration had been regulating rocks for 80 years, then your analogy might be bullshit.
But preventing making changes to a transmitting device is something they've been doing for a long time. It's not like they're newly asserting this authority, they're pointing out they've had it for decades.
As purely a WAG... my guess is things which radiate are tested and approved according to some form of standard for interference and the like.
Putting on a new firmware could cause the device to operate outside of those parameters, and would therefore be a non-conforming device.
It's not saying you can't put software on something you own. It's saying putting something onto a device which broadcasts can make changes you didn't expect.
As I said, that's purely a WAG, but it seems like the kind of thing within their mandate.
There is a lot arm waving but hardly any coherent solutions.
Which, in fairness to Marx, is no different than any other economic worldview. They're all incomplete or flawed in their own ways by their very nature.
They all try to force the world to behave according to arbitrary "rules", which are mostly observations which don't account for nearly as much as they claim to.
Anybody who claims to have "coherent solutions" in any field of economics is mostly full of shit. I remain unconvinced it is possible to have "coherent solutions"... merely a bunch of incoherent ideas which are so idealized as to be mostly wrong.
They all hand wave around everything, pretend it all works out in the end... and they all utterly fail to do anything of substance. Because no matter how you try, the world doesn't give a crap about how elegant your theory is.
directing scarce resources and re-allocating mis-allocated resources (and resources do get mis-allocated all the time, but in a free market economy the mis-allocation leads to lack of profits that eventually leads to ceasing of that particular activity and for a great reason n - resources that are mis-allocated hurt the economy).
And this is the fundamental flaw in your argument.
Nothing is "mis" allocated, it is allocated where the people who control them put them.
That this fails to match up with your perfect theory isn't a problem with the random, selfish, and stupid shit people do. It's a problem with your model which says people will achieve the perfect outcome your flawed model predicts.
What you're saying is, if people will only behave according to how you believe they should, there would be perfect outcomes. And I hate to tell you, but that will never happen.
I say there is no such thing as perfect outcomes, there is no such thing as rational actors, and there is no collective goal or "proper" allocation of anything. Merely a bunch of greedy, selfish, irrational actors doing whatever the hell makes sense at the time, or what they've been hoodwinked into believing will yield perfect outcomes. Many of whom will utterly fail to play by any rules or with anything other than pure, shortsighted greed.
If your theory can't account for the randomness of the human animal, it's your theory which is defective. Because the human animal will simply NEVER do anything according to someone's theory which has perfect outcomes.
The notion of "they're doing it wrong because it doesn't match my ideology" is the problem here.
Nobody can know exactly when a bubble will pop, but bubbles are created by malinvestments, and most malinvestments can be attributed to forced central bank interest rates, and central bank Open Market Operations.
Oh, look.. ideology pulled out of your ass and passed off as facts.
Blah blah blah.
Sorry, this is exactly my point. Show us some empirical proof, or STFU. What's that? Don't have empirical proof? Then you don't have facts. You have ideology.
Let's be clear: how you think economics is defined by your ideology, and most economics is bad math with unfounded assumptions arriving at un-supportable conclusions.
So, if you're the Chinese government and think you can manipulate markets to suit your beliefs, you'll be horribly mistaken. Likewise, if you subscribe to the ridiculous Austrian School of economics (which refuses to have empirical evidence), then you likewise believe your theory is so perfect it doesn't need to be validated.
Nobody has ever had any proof for "trickle down economics" other than they think it should work and it suits their ideology, but 30 years of actual real world data mostly shows it's utterly failed to work as planned.
Economics is useful to look at what came before, and understand some limited problems... but in general many people believe once you try to use that to predict things, or influence outcomes you get into a level of complete bullshit and voodoo. Time and time again when people try to take action or set policy based on economics, it fails utterly.
And until economics is based on anything other than sketchy math and ideology, it can never be a real science or have much more meaning than something people use to defend their ideology. But since people never look at economics separated from their ideology, it will never happen.
Economics is mostly a tool to make it look like the things you believe should happen, based on how you want the system to behave, have any actual relationship with the outcomes you expect to achieve with policy. The problem is that is a lie.
But it sure as hell can't be called an objective science. First you have to believe in the ideology and then you believe in the methodology.
The problem is people like to believe that the ideology is objective reality, and that their observations are in fact rules. And that simply isn't true.
Once corporations won the right to have a license which says anything they want, and which they can change any time they want... legal is whatever the hell they say it is.
Fraudulent and deceptive practices? Read the license.
Shady behavior designed to fool you into thinking you're being chatted up so you'll subscribe? Read the license.
They basically got carte blanche to do anything they want to, any time they want to.
And, really, from what I'm seeing they were also doing some shady dealings in terms of how they were trying to inflate their value in the IPO.
So... internet company with shady business model trying to nudge people into spending money, and trying to pass off their financials as making them a billion dollar company... film at 11.
This is why I don't give a damn about sites which want to charge me for a membership, because they have an interest in taking my money, and I don't really have any reason to trust them. Greedy bastards and sales people. Putting them on the internet doesn't change what they are.
Just like companies who want to be able to do direct billing to your credit card, and want to be able to auto-renew without you jumping through hoops to cancel... you should assume that all websites which want you to buy a subscription are probably a little dodgy, and ran by greedy bastards and sales people.
The business model was to get people to sign up in the belief they'd be getting laid. Which means the lying to you and exploiting that was probably a given. I'm not sure why people are surprised this was happening... it's the internet, and it dealt with sex... of course they're lying to you.
Which is always going to be the problem... because as long as there are human drivers on the road, there will always be cases in which the computer utterly fails.
And any technology future which is predicated on suddenly replacing all drivers with autonomous cars is complete crap and will never actually happen. Because nobody is going to pay for it.
It's the corner cases which will always cause these things to go wrong. And, I'm sorry, but the driver with his right turn signal on who swoops across two lanes and turns left... or the ones who think they can use the oncoming lane because there's something in their lane... or who randomly brake because they can see a cat a half mile away... or cyclists who do crazy and random shit... or any number of crazy things you can see on a daily basis... all of these things will create situations in which the autonomous car utterly fails to do the right thing.
As much as people think it will mostly work most of the time, if these things require the driver to constantly monitor it or have to swoop in when the system decides it doesn't know what to do, then the utility of the autonomous car pretty much vanishes.
I just don't see this technology ever becoming widespread or used in the real world, other than by companies trying to prove how awesome it is. Because it's just going to have too many cases which simply don't work, and the occupants will have to be ready to take the controls.
In which case you might as we be driving and actively engaged in the process instead of zoned out and not paying attention. Because the human reaction time is greatly diminished when you're reading the newspaper and suddenly have to take evasive reaction.
Right now, companies have no liability for writing products with shit security. So on pretty much a daily basis we hear about products with shit security.
At this point I mostly assume any consumer technology which is designed to connect to a network is riddled with security holes. Because companies are lazy, incompetent, cheap, unaccountable, indifferent, and greedy.
If the experience on your phone's browser sucks, that just means the website needs a better mobile site
I find the vast majority of web sites with a mobile version are complete crap.
You hit a site due to a search, get redirected to the crap which is their useless mobile site, and can never find what you're looking for because apparently mobile sites are written by morons who write useless sites.
I can't tell you how many sites I have had to do the "request desktop site" for because they don't seem to realize a useless mobile site is worse and more broken than not having a mobile website in the first place.
In my experience the mobile version of most websites are pointless, because they don't really work.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, you're one of those people ... believe it or not, a good portion of the planet lives in latitudes where the sunlight in winter is inadequate for growing crops even in a greenhouse ... and by changing the light cycles, you can change how long it takes to be able to harvest to a much shorter cycle.
In a lot of cases greenhouses still need to have big giant sodium lights because the few hours of daylight isn't enough to grow plants.
But, hey, I'm sure nobody has thought of any of this stuff and you know better than the people who have a running facility, right?
OK, pick your damned whining ... either it's not as efficient as the sun, or it's more efficient than the greenhouse.
I assume at this point you're just moving the goal posts so you have something to complain about?
It can be a lot less efficient than the sun, and also be a lot more efficient than a green house. And you don't need to ship it half way around the world in the winter.
Honestly, WTF are you complaining about now? This doesn't sound like a problem with the summary, it sounds like a problem with the poster.
Which nobody is claiming ... what they're saying is, given a finite amount of land, and the fact that nutrients are lost once you harvest and begin shipping ... you can also grow some food close to where the people who will eat it actually live. And you can do it year round.
Efficiency, in this case, includes year round production, shipping, and the ability to have certain kinds of fresh produce without having to ship it around the world.
Unless you have a way to ship lettuce from Peru to London which is solar powered, you're kind of missing one of the points. Local production has its own efficiencies and benefits.
Ah, but if you're using fancy LEDs instead of big enormous power hungry lamps ... how many LEDs can you run for the cost of a couple of those huge lights?
If you don't have several kilowats of lighting to deal with, putting out all that excess heat, just how noticeable is it likely to be?
A few tens of watts versus a few thousand changes a lot ... that's a light bulb or an air conditioning unit instead of the power meter spinning enough to be noticeable.
So, I had to type "led gree" into Google to have it auto-suggest "led greenhouse lights", and get hits from Amazon, Home Depot, Phillips, and a bunch of other sites.
Maybe your current knowledge of LEDs for growing plants is outdated and thy actually have the technology for this? Because the sheer number of hits I got tells me it's real technology.
I have no idea about the pesticides, but people did farming for thousands of years without pesticides ... so I'm not convinced it's not possible to grow plants without pesticides.
Please, you'd have to rent the capacity from the Russians to get to the moon in the first place. ;-)
Oh, I have no doubt that Taser is overcharging ... and I strongly suspect they're not as secure and robust as they need to be for something warehousing police data. But the cost of increased storage is seldom limited solely by the cost of the media.
And for legal purposes of any organization with a real retention schedule for whom failing to comply is a risk ... you can't just buy a cheap hard drive and pretend you've solved the problem.
If these things are going to be legal records, they need to be secure, backed up, under a strict retention schedule, retrievable.
Which tells me if you think the added cost of that kind of storage is 'crap' you've probably never done it.
Sure, they're probably gouging, but there better be more to it than just slapping in cheap drives to a cheap machine ... or they'll find themselves explaining to a whole bunch of police forces why they're doing that.
Unless of course all of these police forces have been hoodwinked into buying a system with a license which says "this system may or may not work, but we're not responsible if it doesn't". In which case law enforcement are really terrible at IT contracts.
I blame it on all those low-cost H1B pirates, they're undermining the integrity of the eye-patch industry.
Sure, a drive is cheap ... having a robust and secure system (which I doubt they have) which gives you retention policies and other stuff suitable for evidentiary purposes is a much harder problem.
And then you get into some other stuff.
No .. .corporations give continuity to a legal entity which can outlast humans ... if we start saying corporations have no culpability when their management turns over they could essentially give themselves a get out of jail free card ... "Oh, sorry, we have a new board so we get a clean slate".
And that will pretty much mean we're all completely fucked, because corporations will never be liable for anything every again.
As an entity, the corporation better still be responsible, or you can expect every company to start playing music chairs with the board to allow them to engage in egregiously illegal activity.
Individuals might be in some ways shielded from legal/criminal liability ... but no way in hell we need to be thinking about how to give corporations a legal loophole which will allow them to do anything they please.
Half? Wow, you're optimistic.
I see FAR too many things which are basically written as press releases, passed off in the media as an article, and which has a tiny little footnote indicating it's a press release.
Print media does this this too. They'll put it as a "special feature" or some other crap, and you have to look really close to realize it's really a multi-page ad posing as an in depth series of articles.
I have long since developed a strong distrust of the source of information, because it seems like increasingly "articles" and "science reporting" and "reviews" is code for "written by PR shills and other paid entities whose job it is to conceal who pays for producing this".
I can't even count how many "science articles" you see which if you follow who the "Institute for Corporate Factoids" really is (no, I made that up) will be an industry-paid for entity whose mandate it is to produce papers saying how awesome industry-X is doing.
We have definitely been inundated with so much crap, lies, and propaganda that it is difficult to tell what's honest anymore. So assume they're all lying assholes, and save yourself the time.
I'm waiting for the technology to completely fail, and then they'll announce the next thing.
The people making it are all going "yarg, teh 4K". The average consumer doesn't give a crap.
Having rode out the first decade of HD waiting until it stopped being a moving target on $10K TVs no sane person was going to buy ... seen the format wars to move on from DVD ... and having see a couple of early adopters discover their TV could no longer display HD because of the copy protection stuff ... I can tell you the average consumer doesn't care about this and doesn't wish to get sucked into another format war.
The people who care about this would buy anything if you claimed it was new and better.
The industry is drooling at selling us new TVs, and DVD players, and amps, and monitors, and phones every few years because they've got the new hotness.
But people didn't care about 3D for the most part, and still don't care about 4K displays. Consumer demand isn't driving this, marketing is.
My 55" HDTV (without 3D and with no internet connection) is all I want for now. My BluRay player is fine. My amp does what I need it to. The 2x24" 1080p screens on my desk are just fine thanks.
If someone thinks I'm going to splash out on this stuff every few years because they've started selling it ... they're morons. I mean, come on, 4K on a phone? And this would exhaust your data plan in, what, 30 minutes?
I have no doubt people will buy this stuff. But I also know they'll likely be wasting their money for little added benefit or to have bragging rights. Pretty much everybody else will view this with complete indifference.
For crying out loud .. nobody is looking at this for a fscking golf course:
This has nothing to do with golf, and everything to do with smaller vehicles as a testbed for the damned technology.
I know nobody ever read the fscking article ... but at least read the fscking summary.
And if you honestly think golf carts are going to follow pre-defined routes to known locations on a golf course, you've never played much golf.
Hey, don't blame us ... blame the people who buy his damned music and concert tickets.
He lives in LA now, which means he's as much the fault of Americans as Canada.
Most of us want nothing to do with him or his music.
You joke, but from TFA:
In other words, this is something they've been doing for a very long time, and they are suddenly saying you can't modify things which impact transmitters. It's kind of the things the FCC has been doing for decades.
So while TFA says "yarg, teh open source and teh tinkering" ... in part it's the FCC reminding people there are long established rules in place for determining what you can do with a transmitting device.
If the Federal Rock Administration had been regulating rocks for 80 years, then your analogy might be bullshit.
But preventing making changes to a transmitting device is something they've been doing for a long time. It's not like they're newly asserting this authority, they're pointing out they've had it for decades.
As purely a WAG ... my guess is things which radiate are tested and approved according to some form of standard for interference and the like.
Putting on a new firmware could cause the device to operate outside of those parameters, and would therefore be a non-conforming device.
It's not saying you can't put software on something you own. It's saying putting something onto a device which broadcasts can make changes you didn't expect.
As I said, that's purely a WAG, but it seems like the kind of thing within their mandate.
Which, in fairness to Marx, is no different than any other economic worldview. They're all incomplete or flawed in their own ways by their very nature.
They all try to force the world to behave according to arbitrary "rules", which are mostly observations which don't account for nearly as much as they claim to.
Anybody who claims to have "coherent solutions" in any field of economics is mostly full of shit. I remain unconvinced it is possible to have "coherent solutions" ... merely a bunch of incoherent ideas which are so idealized as to be mostly wrong.
They all hand wave around everything, pretend it all works out in the end ... and they all utterly fail to do anything of substance. Because no matter how you try, the world doesn't give a crap about how elegant your theory is.
And this is the fundamental flaw in your argument.
Nothing is "mis" allocated, it is allocated where the people who control them put them.
That this fails to match up with your perfect theory isn't a problem with the random, selfish, and stupid shit people do. It's a problem with your model which says people will achieve the perfect outcome your flawed model predicts.
What you're saying is, if people will only behave according to how you believe they should, there would be perfect outcomes. And I hate to tell you, but that will never happen.
I say there is no such thing as perfect outcomes, there is no such thing as rational actors, and there is no collective goal or "proper" allocation of anything. Merely a bunch of greedy, selfish, irrational actors doing whatever the hell makes sense at the time, or what they've been hoodwinked into believing will yield perfect outcomes. Many of whom will utterly fail to play by any rules or with anything other than pure, shortsighted greed.
If your theory can't account for the randomness of the human animal, it's your theory which is defective. Because the human animal will simply NEVER do anything according to someone's theory which has perfect outcomes.
The notion of "they're doing it wrong because it doesn't match my ideology" is the problem here.
Oh, look .. ideology pulled out of your ass and passed off as facts.
Blah blah blah.
Sorry, this is exactly my point. Show us some empirical proof, or STFU. What's that? Don't have empirical proof? Then you don't have facts. You have ideology.
Let's be clear: how you think economics is defined by your ideology, and most economics is bad math with unfounded assumptions arriving at un-supportable conclusions.
So, if you're the Chinese government and think you can manipulate markets to suit your beliefs, you'll be horribly mistaken. Likewise, if you subscribe to the ridiculous Austrian School of economics (which refuses to have empirical evidence), then you likewise believe your theory is so perfect it doesn't need to be validated.
Nobody has ever had any proof for "trickle down economics" other than they think it should work and it suits their ideology, but 30 years of actual real world data mostly shows it's utterly failed to work as planned.
Economics is useful to look at what came before, and understand some limited problems ... but in general many people believe once you try to use that to predict things, or influence outcomes you get into a level of complete bullshit and voodoo. Time and time again when people try to take action or set policy based on economics, it fails utterly.
And until economics is based on anything other than sketchy math and ideology, it can never be a real science or have much more meaning than something people use to defend their ideology. But since people never look at economics separated from their ideology, it will never happen.
Economics is mostly a tool to make it look like the things you believe should happen, based on how you want the system to behave, have any actual relationship with the outcomes you expect to achieve with policy. The problem is that is a lie.
But it sure as hell can't be called an objective science. First you have to believe in the ideology and then you believe in the methodology.
The problem is people like to believe that the ideology is objective reality, and that their observations are in fact rules. And that simply isn't true.
Was I unclear?
Lazy, incompetent, cheap, unaccountable, indifferent, greedy
Choose any of the above. It really is that simple.
Once corporations won the right to have a license which says anything they want, and which they can change any time they want ... legal is whatever the hell they say it is.
Fraudulent and deceptive practices? Read the license.
Shady behavior designed to fool you into thinking you're being chatted up so you'll subscribe? Read the license.
They basically got carte blanche to do anything they want to, any time they want to.
And, really, from what I'm seeing they were also doing some shady dealings in terms of how they were trying to inflate their value in the IPO.
So ... internet company with shady business model trying to nudge people into spending money, and trying to pass off their financials as making them a billion dollar company ... film at 11.
This is why I don't give a damn about sites which want to charge me for a membership, because they have an interest in taking my money, and I don't really have any reason to trust them. Greedy bastards and sales people. Putting them on the internet doesn't change what they are.
Just like companies who want to be able to do direct billing to your credit card, and want to be able to auto-renew without you jumping through hoops to cancel ... you should assume that all websites which want you to buy a subscription are probably a little dodgy, and ran by greedy bastards and sales people.
The business model was to get people to sign up in the belief they'd be getting laid. Which means the lying to you and exploiting that was probably a given. I'm not sure why people are surprised this was happening ... it's the internet, and it dealt with sex ... of course they're lying to you.
Which is always going to be the problem ... because as long as there are human drivers on the road, there will always be cases in which the computer utterly fails.
And any technology future which is predicated on suddenly replacing all drivers with autonomous cars is complete crap and will never actually happen. Because nobody is going to pay for it.
It's the corner cases which will always cause these things to go wrong. And, I'm sorry, but the driver with his right turn signal on who swoops across two lanes and turns left ... or the ones who think they can use the oncoming lane because there's something in their lane ... or who randomly brake because they can see a cat a half mile away ... or cyclists who do crazy and random shit ... or any number of crazy things you can see on a daily basis ... all of these things will create situations in which the autonomous car utterly fails to do the right thing.
As much as people think it will mostly work most of the time, if these things require the driver to constantly monitor it or have to swoop in when the system decides it doesn't know what to do, then the utility of the autonomous car pretty much vanishes.
I just don't see this technology ever becoming widespread or used in the real world, other than by companies trying to prove how awesome it is. Because it's just going to have too many cases which simply don't work, and the occupants will have to be ready to take the controls.
In which case you might as we be driving and actively engaged in the process instead of zoned out and not paying attention. Because the human reaction time is greatly diminished when you're reading the newspaper and suddenly have to take evasive reaction.
Really? Pick any of the following:
Lazy, incompetent, cheap, unaccountable, indifferent, greedy
Right now, companies have no liability for writing products with shit security. So on pretty much a daily basis we hear about products with shit security.
At this point I mostly assume any consumer technology which is designed to connect to a network is riddled with security holes. Because companies are lazy, incompetent, cheap, unaccountable, indifferent, and greedy.
I find the vast majority of web sites with a mobile version are complete crap.
You hit a site due to a search, get redirected to the crap which is their useless mobile site, and can never find what you're looking for because apparently mobile sites are written by morons who write useless sites.
I can't tell you how many sites I have had to do the "request desktop site" for because they don't seem to realize a useless mobile site is worse and more broken than not having a mobile website in the first place.
In my experience the mobile version of most websites are pointless, because they don't really work.