but someone being richer DOES require someone being poorer. not in the dollars and cents method, but in the items and services they can afford.
Saying you agree with my other points while disagreeing with this one shows that you don't even understand my other points. or the nature of wealth.
If you give people something, by necessity it has to be taken from someone or somewhere else. meaning that person or place no longer has the item. this is what I mean by zero-sum. you can't make everyone "rich" because there isn't enough "stuff" to go around.
I agree with you when you say there is more "stuff" now than there was many years ago. but that doesn't mean there is enough of everything for everyone.
You are arguing for communism, which while noble, has some serious downfalls. I am not arguing that capitalism is perfect either, or even that it is better, just that communism can't work in a world where items are in limited supply. This is a problem that humanity has not yet solved.
I have never stated that we aren't producing more than we were before. What I'm saying is that we are not producing enough of everything for everyone. Could we do better at allocating resources? definitely. could we make everyone on the planet "rich". not at this point.
To extend your logic, if we can give everyont $75,000/yr, why not $1,000,000/yr? or $100,000,000/yr?
If I had that kind of money I could jet-set around the world on my private jet, spend my time off on a mega-yacht, etc.
The reason we can't is that there aren't enough private jets and mega-yachts (among other things) to do this. and it's not simply a matter of "make more" either.
Money doesn't mean anything by itself. All it does is facilitate a bartering system which is really what the world has. And to simplify it further, there's only one thing being barterred. Labour. everything we spend is a function of "man hours". If I sell you a product, then I must sell it to you for the same amount of money as I paid for it, plus the amount of money to cover the amount of time it took me to aquire it and sell it. my suppliers must do the same. all the way back to the people that mined the minerals out of the ground, or grew the crops, or whatever else. As such everything has a price of exactly the number of man-hours put in to it. Now the "value" of those man hours varies, but by raising the price of the lowest priced man hours, you automatically have to raise the price of the item as well.
If it takes a year worth of man hours to build something (including all steps along the supply chain), then it by necessity must cost a year's sallary to afford it (assuming everyone is being paid equally) simply giving people the money to afford it doesn't change this, so by necessity, that money has to be re-valued to make the system work again.
Now obviously the world is a lot more complex than this example illustrates, but this is the basics of it and shows right away why giving everyone more money doesn't suddenly make everyone "rich"
not until we come up with a way for people to make their products themselves from free materials and energy, and without spending time doing so.
Don't get me wrong, I truley believe that humanity WILL get to a point where everyone will be "rich" and money will be irrelevant, where we've automated the essentials, and everyone reaps the benefits. I also don't believe that will be any time soon.
of course it's a zero sum game, those computers didn't make themselves, people had to make them, the raw materials didn't magically appear, they've been here all along, but people had to work to extract and process them.
If you think minimum wage should be raised to accomodate that, then that immediately drives the price of everything up to compensate, therefore, inflation. suddenly the $75,000 doesn't mean anything anymore because everything costs more.
If you're simply talking wealth re-distribution (from the wealthiest to the poorest) then you have a partial point, but only that, the wealthiest people dont' spend their share, so their money isn't "worth" as much as that of a poorer person who is putting it back in to the economy. as such, moving it to the poorer people would improve their buying power a bit, but would also cause inflation which would limit it. All in all, wealth redistribution would work, but not to the extent you imagine, you'd have to take more dollars from the rich than the buying power it would give the poor. (prices would go up, but not quite as much as the amount you redistributed)
it all boils down to scarcity of resources. until we have free unlimited power, and the ability to create products for free in our own homes, there will never be a way to put everyone in the "above average" category, because for their to be an "above average" there has to be a "below average" to cancel it out.
but you are talking about a resource creating jobs which creates wealth, that is very different from just "giving away" money (wether that be by handing people a cheque, or simply by raising minimum wage)
The reason it's different is that it has increased the production of the country in relation to other countries, which is similar to increasing one's pay in relation to someone else.
It makes them "richer" in relation to other countries. The world is still a zero sum game, if I can afford more I can buy more, but if everyone can afford more, the stuff simply costs more and I'm in the same boat. Remember, money by itself has no real meaning, only it's power to buy things. We still in effect barter for everything. If there are 4 people but only 3 items, the 3 "richest" will be able to afford the items, the 4th won't, if everyone is bumped up by an arbitraty amount, the item must too go up, because it would be impossible for all 4 people to have one of the 3 items.
Now obviously that's over simplifying things when you look at the world economy, but the basic principle still stands. having more money means nothing if everyone has it, it just re-sets the baseline.
Now I'm sure that inflation in that country did take some of a bite out of their new found wealth (especially for any domestic products), however obviously less than the amount gained in relation to other countries.
Until we can make items for free (replicators?) and have free energy to do so, there will always be scarcity or resources, which will always have the effect of making one person wealthier than another.
Happiness is something you should have the liberty to pursue. It's not something which should be given to people by the government.
Why not? Assuming that an external entity (government or otherwise) could grant one "happiness" (caveats about actual ability of doing so and different individuals' definitions of same being applied, etc.), why would you not want this external entity to do so?.
Because they would quickly realize that it doesn't work. If everyone had a 75k/yr job then immediately inflation would make that 75k equivalent to our current 11k poverty level. You can't suddenly make everyone rich, economies don't work that way. one person being richer requires someone else being poorer it's a zero sum game. This is why most people in communist countries are "poor", it's because with everyone being "equal" there's never enough to go around.
Sure it sucks to be on the bottom end of the scale, but at the moment that can't be solved by simply raising the bottom end.
Personally I think that some day money will be irrelevant, and everyone will be "equal", that the "happiness level" will be attainable by all. I do not however believe it will be any time soon, and I definitely think things are likely to get much worse before they get any better.
You visit site1.org, that site includes an ad script that loads from adserver.com which then sets a cookie When you then go to site2.net that site is using the same advertising network, and loads an ad script from adserver.com which reads that same cookie.
The result is that while site1.org and site2.net are completely separate, and neither one can read the other's cookies, adserver.com was used by both and it can still read it's own cookies.
I solve this at the DNS level by blocking all requests to adserver.com and therefore I can still see all the content from site1.org and site2.net, without seeing any ads at all.
Most sites do not host the ads you see on them, most simply subscribe to a third-party ad provider, and it's those ad providers that are the ones tracking you, more so than the main sites that you go to.
Actually, I think the fact that I never see commercials on TV, or ads online might cause me to be MORE likely to buy things.
I have never bought something based on seeing an ad, however when I see a particularly annoying ad I DO make a note not to buy anything from that particular company. So while in the absence of ads I base my purchasing decisions solely on my own requirements and the merits of the product itself, when I have seen advertising I also include the annoying nature of the company's marketing department in the decision. So while an ad can never convince me TO buy something, ads frequently convince me NOT to buy a specific thing.
You certainly could, but that is not what was being discussed by the OP here (that was discussed by a different poster further up) The OP here was asking why the police haven't solved this, and that is what I answered.
The idea of null-routing at the other end of the pipe has a lot of merit, but is unfortunately not something that the big providers are willing to do it seems, they are more interested in the $$$ coming in than the cyber-crime they are enabling.
As to whether we want to legislate that the big providers must null-route "bad" traffic from other parts of the world is a different discussion entirely. In this case it would probably be a good thing, but it also falls victim to the classic "slippery slope" argument where you worry about who decides what "bad" is.
That's not even a problem for law enforcement to deal with. they can track fake cards and fake addresses, that part is easy and done on a daily basis.
The hard part is that the people running large botnets aren't kind enough to run all the control servers in a single jurisdiction that a) has the appropriate laws to do something, b) has the resources to do something, and c) cares to do something.
Like any other business they shop around for countries with laws favourable to their business model.
I work part time on an ambulance, and my girlfriend works as a nurse in a hospital. and while there is some validity to some parts of the story, there are also some pretty large issues with it.
There is no way you could accidentally hook up a blood pressure line to an IV line, the connections are different, the hoses look different (blood pressure lines are opaque (usually black or navy blue) and IV lines are transparent, IV lines are also less than 1/4 the diameter), and the blood pressure one is basically never separated from the cuff anyway so there's almost never a "line" to plug in. If someone has actually managed to do this one, then there is nothing in the world you could do to prevent it, because they would have had to try VERY hard to do so!
As for oxygen lines vs IV lines, same thing again, the connections are different and the lines look different (very different diameters)
The only possibly legitimate one listed was using a drug intended to be administered to the spinal cord to the blood stream. This is not a problem of tubes, this is a fairly standard medication issue, the big issue being that almost all injected medications, no matter what they are injected for, are drawn up and injected with syringes, sometimes you inject straight in to the patient (a needle in to a vein, under the skin, in to a muscle, etc (depending on the drug)) and sometimes you inject in to an IV line. (which is already in to a vein) to "fix" this isn't so simple though, a different connection depending on where you're going to inject doesn't really work, because you can't make the human skin reject the wrong type of needle if used in the wrong place.
That said, large strides are already being made in dealing with a highly related problem in hospitals. the problem being of drugs that look similar to other drugs. for example, all IV bags used to look identical, with you having to stop and read the label to make sure you have the right one (normally not a problem, except when somehow one ends up on the wrong shelf and you don't pay enough attention), they have started to change the packaging so that they look different sitting on the shelf. Now I suppose you could take it a step further and make them all require different tubes and different IV catheters, but frequently you administer multiple medications to one patient, so you'd have to put MANY IVs in instead of just 1 now, and you'd also end up with exponentially more supplies as you need to carry hundreds of IV catheters instead of just 4 or 5 sizes.
But one of the biggest things taught over and over and over again in any medical program dealing with medication administration is checking the medication multiple times before administration... there's no better way at the moment than simply doing your job right.
Next time these hikers request help (rescue call #3 and beyond)... respond, but move their request to the bottom of the queue with a super-low priority.
The problem with this is that, in general, these resources aren't working on a waiting list of rescues (though there are exceptions!) so as a result, "the bottom of the queue" is still the same place as "the top of the queue". The actual problems that arise are the cost difference between a crew on stand-by and a crew on an active rescue (cost of helicopter time, cost of bringing in off-shift personnel, etc, etc) However an even bigger problem is when you get 3/4 of the way through dealing with the idiots, and a REAL call comes in at the other end of the service area, because now you have your resources tied up on an unnecessary rescue delaying your response to the one that is truly needed (travel time between incidents, refuelling time, crews facing exhaustion, etc)
As for what the solution is, that's hard to say, I think the best solution is still the fine for unnecessary calls (I'm in favour of legitimate ones being covered) Though I've seen it handled various different ways. I hiked the "West Coast Trail" in British Colombia (Canada) (a roughly week long hike through extremely challenging terrain) and their policy was that if they could rescue you by boat, it was free, if they had to call a helicopter you paid actual costs. However they also stated that they would not evacuate you if you were just tired, sore, blistered, etc. it had to be a real emergency (though how much their crews actually stick to that I'm not sure) You were also not allowed on the trail without attending a mandatory safety briefing explaining how difficult the trail was, what you needed to carry with you, and what procedures to use if you had a real emergency.
In most of the areas I hike in (the Rocky Mountains of Alberta Canada) rescues are free, however one large mitigating factor is that in most of the areas there is no cell phone coverage, this greatly reduces frivolous 911 calls! As coverage improves, and frivolous calls increase, they may have to re-think that policy.
As for the people comparing the cost to normal ambulance costs, our ambulance system actually has a bit of an anomaly here, ground ambulance service costs money, (generally $300-500, sometimes more if they have to take you a long way) however helicopter ambulance service is free (the organization running the helicopter service is a charitable organization and is entirely self funded) Now usually you can't get a helicopter unless a ground ambulance calls one for you (so you get the ground ambulance fee) however if you manage to avoid them somehow (and I've been involved as an emergency responder in 2 rescues where it's happened) you get a free ambulance trip.
I've been out to troubleshoot "it's fine until 5pm" many times... it has NEVER been a problem with the DSLAM being oversubscribed. I've had it be a few things: - failing copper lines (heating and cooling cycles thorughout the day can cause it to fail, or have errors, at specific times of day) usually easilly fixed. (once they decide to call in instead of just cancelling!) - Most commonly, it's fine until 5pm really means it's fine until their own kid gets home from school and turns on their favourite P2P program. Remember, you aren't sharing a line with your neighbours, but you ARE sharing one with your kids!
I'm curious... do these speed issues pertain only to certain countries? or certain technologies? The reason I ask, is that my ADSL connection is advertised as "up to 15 Mbps"... the speed I get? 15 Mbps. now that doesn't mean 15 Mbps from any site, (you loose a fair amount just by virtue of the fact that you aren't always the only one going to a specific site, and there are often busy routers in between) but it DOES mean that I have 15 Mbps available, this is usually easy to see by downloading several things from different places and seeing a total of 15 Mbps.
Further though, I'm not a rarity here, I am an ADSL tech, I go to people's houses when they complain that they aren't getting the full speed they were expecting. What I've found is that there are only a few reasons why they wouldn't get the maximum: - They don't understand that they can't download at 15Mbps from a server hosted on a private ADSL line somewhere else in the world that only has a 600kbps upstream rate! - Their computer is so laden down with garbage that IE takes 25 mins to even load, let alone transfer any data - Their P2P program in the background is using 14.999999999999Mbps of their 15Mbps total leaving them with nothing. - And lastly, and extremely rare, is someone stuck in an area that just can't do more than 1Mbps (long lines back to the DSLAM), This is quite rare at this point, but more than that, it means that they won't be paying for a 15Mbps connection because we won't sell them one if they don't qualify. they'll be paying for a much lower speed (and if they somehow DO get on to one of the higher plans, they get changed to a slower plan as soon as we realize we can't provide that speed)
Now that said, our largest competitor, a cable company, used to quote speeds that weren't even physically possible with the equipment they were offering... but even they are quoting much lower speeds than they used to (though I don't know if people actually get those speeds on the shared cable topology)
I don't think it has anything to do with reading manuals, manufacturers of such devices now include all sorts of "setup" apps which force users to do this, on the bright side it means fewer unsecured wireless access points lying around (many ship secure by default now) on the down side it means fewer unsecured wireless access points lying around (when you just need your net connection in a strange location!)
I am finding that on more and more customer owned equipment though that I am no longer able to just sit down and enter "admin" in either the user or password field (or both) and get access. the next step is the manufacturers need to get their setup applications to put a sticker on the router with the settings info, it's all great to be secure, but when the users don't know the settings or password you're back to square one.
He said it was a city-wide network, often it's MUCH easier to do the software fix in such a case as locating the problem, and dispatching someone to the right location to deal with it can take significant amounts of time. That said, if you are in charge of a network of that size you should have the ability to turn off the port that it's connected to (rather a software version of unplugging it) and then you can wait for the idiot to call your help desk and administer the appropriate punishment.
However more often than not, the person who finds the problem isn't one of the people trusted with such access, nor do they have any meaningful way of contacting anyone who does, or even of being taken seriously by the IT department, leaving their only option being to take matters in to their own hands and doing what the original poster suggested and simply logging in to the device and disabling it in any way they can.
I had a friend years ago (who worked for the local cable company) who had 2 cable modems in the same house, at one point they ended up accidentally configured as follows: modem1 -> linksys router -> hub -> modem2 This ended up causing havoc on the entire cable company's node at the time as the internal DHCP server ended up exposed to the external network and many other customers were reaching it instead of the cable co's server. Apparently his buddy in the cable company's NOC called him up and was quite unhappy with him....
Now in the defence of cable networks, I believe that they are much more secure than they were at that time (must have been about 13 or 14 years ago) and I suspect a similar trick these days would not result in a similar level of havoc.
To this day most cheap switches still can't handle a network cable with the 2 ends plugged in to the same switch. As a telco company technician I can't count the number of times I've solved someone's Internet connectivity problem by unplugging said cable. (I sort of understand it when there's a big mess of cables and you can't see where they all go, but I've also seen some really ridiculous ones where the troublesome cable is less than a foot long and therefore extremely obviously out of place!)
And before someone says it, yes I'm positive these are switches and not hubs. (I don't think I've actually seen a hub in use in a couple of years now... can you still even buy them?)
Now I hope that high end switch gear is better, but I have to admit that I haven't tried the experiment to find out (most high end switch gear I have access to is in use for mission critical stuff, no matter how remote the chances of actually taking it down, I'm not going to try the experiment)
And I'll keep my car where it belongs. Ride side up and intact.
I never suggested being upside down in the ditch, I suggested right side up in the ditch, quite possible if you know what you are doing, and frequently a better option than hitting a large animal.
A competant driver will ALWAYS be safer without ABS. An INCOMPETANT driver will NEVER be safe behind the wheel regardless of ABS.
It's time we stop pandering to incompetant drivers and start making sure people know how to drive before being allowed to. Not everyone is capable of safely operating a multi-ton vehicle travelling at speeds in excess of 100km/hr. And that's ok. What's not ok is allowing them to do it anyway.
If you can't do things that require thought while driving in stressfull situations PLEASE do not get behind the wheel ever again!
As for what would have happened without ABS... we'll never know because you didn't try it. there are good odds that mashing the brake pedal down all the way would have avoided the collision with the deer alltogether, though you may have ended up in the ditch (which if done properly isn't a bad thing, if done without thought could get you in more trouble.) The only thing that can be 100% guaranteed is that your stopping distance would have been shorter without ABS. whether you were capable of keeping the vehicle under control in such a situation would be a matter of your driving skill. (which considering that swerving wasn't something you considered, I don't put much faith in)
Having ABS forced on us removes the option to stop in the shorter distance. Just because many people don't know how to drive, those of us who do are forced to drive with inferior vehicles.
I would much rather people be forced to learn to drive than that any of these technologies be forced uppon us. unfortunately in a world where nobody ever takes any responsibility for their own actions, and where everyone is "entitled" to a car, it doesn't look like we'll make people learn to drive any time soon. So we won't get rid of the huge number of injuries and deaths from automotive collisions every year.
However, in circumstances where locking your wheels is not fastest way to stop, ABS will beat you.
Unfortunately for you, there is no such situation, on EVERY road surface, and under ALL conditions, there is ALWAYS a faster way than pumping the brakes, sometimes the best solution is threshold braking, sometimes it is locking up the wheels, but it is NEVER pumping the brakes. Which means that until ABS does something OTHER than pump the brakes, there will NEVER be a situation in which ABS stops the car in a shorter distance than someone who knows how to drive properly.
Why? Well, wheels kept just at the threshold of locking should provide the best braking power. Both you and the ABS try to achieve this.
Name one vehicle that has an ABS system that works on the principle of threshold braking, they don't exist. All an ABS system does is pump the brakes really fast, the fancy ones do it only on certain wheels instead of on all of them, but they still pump the brakes. something that is just never a good idea.
So, on hard surfaces any ABS can probably best you, and a good ABS can definitely best you.
My previous example of ABS vs threshold braking has been tried on the following surfaces: - dirt - gravel - asphalt - metal
and under all of the following conditions: - dry - wet - muddy - snowy - icy
In ALL of these cases braking properly has proven more effective than letting the ABS kick in, and in all cases allowing the ABS to kick in has caused a substantial DECREASE in braking power.
If you can't reproduce these results, it's not because your ABS is better. It's because you don't know how to brake properly.
you may be able to stop in a shorter distance than the ABS, but at the cost of loosing maneuverability.
Threshold braking ALSO provides better manoeuvrability than ABS, locking up the brakes does not, but is still a handy tool in situations where the shorter distance is more important than the manoeuvrability.
ok, how about the test where I threshold brake properly and stop fine, and then go again and slam on the brakes (allowing the ABS to kick in) and stop in a much longer distance? or are you simply one of those ABS evangelicists who will never admit that ABS could possibly be flawed (now why is it that race cars don't have ABS?)
There are no 2 ways about it. ABS will make you stop in a longer distance than if you knew what you were doing 100% of the time, regardless of "modern" or not. pulsing the brakes will NEVER make you stop faster than if you brake properly, so as long as that's all ABS does, it is incapable of stopping you faster.
stopping distances: shortest: brakes locked up. next: proper threshold braking next: "new" ABS that only pulses the wheel/wheels that loose traction next: "old" ABS that pulses all the wheels longest: pumping the brakes manually.
control: most: proper threshold braking next: "new" ABS next: "old" ABS next: pumping the brakes manually least: locking up the brakes.
I hate that as a driver I'm penalized because OTHER drivers don't know what they are doing. it's time we stop regulating "smarter cars" and start regulating smarter drivers. driving is NOT a right, it's a privilege, and if you aren't capable of doing it safely you shouldn't be on the road endangering those of us who do know how.
I can, and have proved it many times. Or do you not qualify my 2010 truck as having "modern ABS"? because I can definitely feel the loss of braking power any time the ABS kicks in, and it has nearly caused several collisions.
You might think you don't need ABS, but as another driver on the road, I'd prefer you had it. I'd prefer it a lot.
I would MUCH prefer if other drivers were forced to learn to drive instead of using ineffective technical measures which are more likely to cause a collision than a properly operated automobile without them.
I don't care if you think you can pump the braes well. ABS can pump them a lot faster
If you are pumping the brakes, or want the brakes to pump automatically, you don't know how to drive and shouldn't be allowed on public roads.
There's also the danger of you not being able to avoid an accident with me, and I like being alive!.
Please be considerate of your other drivers.
As a driver considerate of other drivers, and of myself, I choose a vehicle WITHOUT ABS, and a vehicle with a driver who knows how to use the brake pedal to stop the vehicle in a distance shorter than ABS ever can and with far more control.
If the copyright owner decides that they want the recordings back, then you will probably have to turn it over to them.
While the first part of your post was spot on, I don't believe this to be the case. The owner of the copyright can sue you if you make copies of this material or if you play it for an audience, but there is nothing at all that they can do to force you to turn over the material to them, or even provide them a copy. If they didn't think it valuable enough to keep a copy (or the originals) for themselves, that's their fault, not yours.
You are contradicting MANY people who know a lot more than you do. Just not the ones that you personally choose to believe.
You MAY agree with the majority, but that doesn't mean that nobody smarter than you is on the other side of the argument.
You might have a point if you said that nobody unqualified to speak on the matter should do so, but to say people that are unqualified are allowed to speak as long as they are on YOUR side isn't science, it's fanaticism.
You can either allow all opinions, or only qualified opinions, but picking the conclusion first and then only allowing arguments that agree with it is one of the biggest problems with this whole mess in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
but someone being richer DOES require someone being poorer. not in the dollars and cents method, but in the items and services they can afford.
Saying you agree with my other points while disagreeing with this one shows that you don't even understand my other points. or the nature of wealth.
If you give people something, by necessity it has to be taken from someone or somewhere else. meaning that person or place no longer has the item. this is what I mean by zero-sum. you can't make everyone "rich" because there isn't enough "stuff" to go around.
I agree with you when you say there is more "stuff" now than there was many years ago. but that doesn't mean there is enough of everything for everyone.
You are arguing for communism, which while noble, has some serious downfalls. I am not arguing that capitalism is perfect either, or even that it is better, just that communism can't work in a world where items are in limited supply. This is a problem that humanity has not yet solved.
I have never stated that we aren't producing more than we were before.
What I'm saying is that we are not producing enough of everything for everyone. Could we do better at allocating resources? definitely. could we make everyone on the planet "rich". not at this point.
To extend your logic, if we can give everyont $75,000/yr, why not $1,000,000/yr? or $100,000,000/yr?
If I had that kind of money I could jet-set around the world on my private jet, spend my time off on a mega-yacht, etc.
The reason we can't is that there aren't enough private jets and mega-yachts (among other things) to do this. and it's not simply a matter of "make more" either.
Money doesn't mean anything by itself. All it does is facilitate a bartering system which is really what the world has. And to simplify it further, there's only one thing being barterred. Labour. everything we spend is a function of "man hours". If I sell you a product, then I must sell it to you for the same amount of money as I paid for it, plus the amount of money to cover the amount of time it took me to aquire it and sell it. my suppliers must do the same. all the way back to the people that mined the minerals out of the ground, or grew the crops, or whatever else.
As such everything has a price of exactly the number of man-hours put in to it. Now the "value" of those man hours varies, but by raising the price of the lowest priced man hours, you automatically have to raise the price of the item as well.
If it takes a year worth of man hours to build something (including all steps along the supply chain), then it by necessity must cost a year's sallary to afford it (assuming everyone is being paid equally)
simply giving people the money to afford it doesn't change this, so by necessity, that money has to be re-valued to make the system work again.
Now obviously the world is a lot more complex than this example illustrates, but this is the basics of it and shows right away why giving everyone more money doesn't suddenly make everyone "rich"
not until we come up with a way for people to make their products themselves from free materials and energy, and without spending time doing so.
Don't get me wrong, I truley believe that humanity WILL get to a point where everyone will be "rich" and money will be irrelevant, where we've automated the essentials, and everyone reaps the benefits.
I also don't believe that will be any time soon.
of course it's a zero sum game, those computers didn't make themselves, people had to make them, the raw materials didn't magically appear, they've been here all along, but people had to work to extract and process them.
If you think minimum wage should be raised to accomodate that, then that immediately drives the price of everything up to compensate, therefore, inflation. suddenly the $75,000 doesn't mean anything anymore because everything costs more.
If you're simply talking wealth re-distribution (from the wealthiest to the poorest) then you have a partial point, but only that, the wealthiest people dont' spend their share, so their money isn't "worth" as much as that of a poorer person who is putting it back in to the economy. as such, moving it to the poorer people would improve their buying power a bit, but would also cause inflation which would limit it.
All in all, wealth redistribution would work, but not to the extent you imagine, you'd have to take more dollars from the rich than the buying power it would give the poor. (prices would go up, but not quite as much as the amount you redistributed)
it all boils down to scarcity of resources. until we have free unlimited power, and the ability to create products for free in our own homes, there will never be a way to put everyone in the "above average" category, because for their to be an "above average" there has to be a "below average" to cancel it out.
but you are talking about a resource creating jobs which creates wealth, that is very different from just "giving away" money (wether that be by handing people a cheque, or simply by raising minimum wage)
The reason it's different is that it has increased the production of the country in relation to other countries, which is similar to increasing one's pay in relation to someone else.
It makes them "richer" in relation to other countries. The world is still a zero sum game, if I can afford more I can buy more, but if everyone can afford more, the stuff simply costs more and I'm in the same boat. Remember, money by itself has no real meaning, only it's power to buy things. We still in effect barter for everything. If there are 4 people but only 3 items, the 3 "richest" will be able to afford the items, the 4th won't, if everyone is bumped up by an arbitraty amount, the item must too go up, because it would be impossible for all 4 people to have one of the 3 items.
Now obviously that's over simplifying things when you look at the world economy, but the basic principle still stands. having more money means nothing if everyone has it, it just re-sets the baseline.
Now I'm sure that inflation in that country did take some of a bite out of their new found wealth (especially for any domestic products), however obviously less than the amount gained in relation to other countries.
Until we can make items for free (replicators?) and have free energy to do so, there will always be scarcity or resources, which will always have the effect of making one person wealthier than another.
Happiness is something you should have the liberty to pursue. It's not something which should be given to people by the government.
Why not? Assuming that an external entity (government or otherwise) could grant one "happiness" (caveats about actual ability of doing so and different individuals' definitions of same being applied, etc.), why would you not want this external entity to do so? .
Because they would quickly realize that it doesn't work.
If everyone had a 75k/yr job then immediately inflation would make that 75k equivalent to our current 11k poverty level.
You can't suddenly make everyone rich, economies don't work that way. one person being richer requires someone else being poorer it's a zero sum game. This is why most people in communist countries are "poor", it's because with everyone being "equal" there's never enough to go around.
Sure it sucks to be on the bottom end of the scale, but at the moment that can't be solved by simply raising the bottom end.
Personally I think that some day money will be irrelevant, and everyone will be "equal", that the "happiness level" will be attainable by all. I do not however believe it will be any time soon, and I definitely think things are likely to get much worse before they get any better.
because it's NOT a different domain.
You visit site1.org, that site includes an ad script that loads from adserver.com which then sets a cookie
When you then go to site2.net that site is using the same advertising network, and loads an ad script from adserver.com which reads that same cookie.
The result is that while site1.org and site2.net are completely separate, and neither one can read the other's cookies, adserver.com was used by both and it can still read it's own cookies.
I solve this at the DNS level by blocking all requests to adserver.com and therefore I can still see all the content from site1.org and site2.net, without seeing any ads at all.
Most sites do not host the ads you see on them, most simply subscribe to a third-party ad provider, and it's those ad providers that are the ones tracking you, more so than the main sites that you go to.
Actually, I think the fact that I never see commercials on TV, or ads online might cause me to be MORE likely to buy things.
I have never bought something based on seeing an ad, however when I see a particularly annoying ad I DO make a note not to buy anything from that particular company. So while in the absence of ads I base my purchasing decisions solely on my own requirements and the merits of the product itself, when I have seen advertising I also include the annoying nature of the company's marketing department in the decision.
So while an ad can never convince me TO buy something, ads frequently convince me NOT to buy a specific thing.
You certainly could, but that is not what was being discussed by the OP here (that was discussed by a different poster further up) The OP here was asking why the police haven't solved this, and that is what I answered.
The idea of null-routing at the other end of the pipe has a lot of merit, but is unfortunately not something that the big providers are willing to do it seems, they are more interested in the $$$ coming in than the cyber-crime they are enabling.
As to whether we want to legislate that the big providers must null-route "bad" traffic from other parts of the world is a different discussion entirely. In this case it would probably be a good thing, but it also falls victim to the classic "slippery slope" argument where you worry about who decides what "bad" is.
That's not even a problem for law enforcement to deal with. they can track fake cards and fake addresses, that part is easy and done on a daily basis.
The hard part is that the people running large botnets aren't kind enough to run all the control servers in a single jurisdiction that a) has the appropriate laws to do something, b) has the resources to do something, and c) cares to do something.
Like any other business they shop around for countries with laws favourable to their business model.
I work part time on an ambulance, and my girlfriend works as a nurse in a hospital. and while there is some validity to some parts of the story, there are also some pretty large issues with it.
There is no way you could accidentally hook up a blood pressure line to an IV line, the connections are different, the hoses look different (blood pressure lines are opaque (usually black or navy blue) and IV lines are transparent, IV lines are also less than 1/4 the diameter), and the blood pressure one is basically never separated from the cuff anyway so there's almost never a "line" to plug in. If someone has actually managed to do this one, then there is nothing in the world you could do to prevent it, because they would have had to try VERY hard to do so!
As for oxygen lines vs IV lines, same thing again, the connections are different and the lines look different (very different diameters)
The only possibly legitimate one listed was using a drug intended to be administered to the spinal cord to the blood stream. This is not a problem of tubes, this is a fairly standard medication issue, the big issue being that almost all injected medications, no matter what they are injected for, are drawn up and injected with syringes, sometimes you inject straight in to the patient (a needle in to a vein, under the skin, in to a muscle, etc (depending on the drug)) and sometimes you inject in to an IV line. (which is already in to a vein) to "fix" this isn't so simple though, a different connection depending on where you're going to inject doesn't really work, because you can't make the human skin reject the wrong type of needle if used in the wrong place.
That said, large strides are already being made in dealing with a highly related problem in hospitals. the problem being of drugs that look similar to other drugs. for example, all IV bags used to look identical, with you having to stop and read the label to make sure you have the right one (normally not a problem, except when somehow one ends up on the wrong shelf and you don't pay enough attention), they have started to change the packaging so that they look different sitting on the shelf.
Now I suppose you could take it a step further and make them all require different tubes and different IV catheters, but frequently you administer multiple medications to one patient, so you'd have to put MANY IVs in instead of just 1 now, and you'd also end up with exponentially more supplies as you need to carry hundreds of IV catheters instead of just 4 or 5 sizes.
But one of the biggest things taught over and over and over again in any medical program dealing with medication administration is checking the medication multiple times before administration... there's no better way at the moment than simply doing your job right.
Next time these hikers request help (rescue call #3 and beyond)... respond, but move their request to the bottom of the queue with a super-low priority.
The problem with this is that, in general, these resources aren't working on a waiting list of rescues (though there are exceptions!) so as a result, "the bottom of the queue" is still the same place as "the top of the queue". The actual problems that arise are the cost difference between a crew on stand-by and a crew on an active rescue (cost of helicopter time, cost of bringing in off-shift personnel, etc, etc) However an even bigger problem is when you get 3/4 of the way through dealing with the idiots, and a REAL call comes in at the other end of the service area, because now you have your resources tied up on an unnecessary rescue delaying your response to the one that is truly needed (travel time between incidents, refuelling time, crews facing exhaustion, etc)
As for what the solution is, that's hard to say, I think the best solution is still the fine for unnecessary calls (I'm in favour of legitimate ones being covered) Though I've seen it handled various different ways. I hiked the "West Coast Trail" in British Colombia (Canada) (a roughly week long hike through extremely challenging terrain) and their policy was that if they could rescue you by boat, it was free, if they had to call a helicopter you paid actual costs. However they also stated that they would not evacuate you if you were just tired, sore, blistered, etc. it had to be a real emergency (though how much their crews actually stick to that I'm not sure) You were also not allowed on the trail without attending a mandatory safety briefing explaining how difficult the trail was, what you needed to carry with you, and what procedures to use if you had a real emergency.
In most of the areas I hike in (the Rocky Mountains of Alberta Canada) rescues are free, however one large mitigating factor is that in most of the areas there is no cell phone coverage, this greatly reduces frivolous 911 calls! As coverage improves, and frivolous calls increase, they may have to re-think that policy.
As for the people comparing the cost to normal ambulance costs, our ambulance system actually has a bit of an anomaly here, ground ambulance service costs money, (generally $300-500, sometimes more if they have to take you a long way) however helicopter ambulance service is free (the organization running the helicopter service is a charitable organization and is entirely self funded) Now usually you can't get a helicopter unless a ground ambulance calls one for you (so you get the ground ambulance fee) however if you manage to avoid them somehow (and I've been involved as an emergency responder in 2 rescues where it's happened) you get a free ambulance trip.
I've been out to troubleshoot "it's fine until 5pm" many times... it has NEVER been a problem with the DSLAM being oversubscribed.
I've had it be a few things:
- failing copper lines (heating and cooling cycles thorughout the day can cause it to fail, or have errors, at specific times of day) usually easilly fixed. (once they decide to call in instead of just cancelling!)
- Most commonly, it's fine until 5pm really means it's fine until their own kid gets home from school and turns on their favourite P2P program. Remember, you aren't sharing a line with your neighbours, but you ARE sharing one with your kids!
I'm curious... do these speed issues pertain only to certain countries? or certain technologies?
The reason I ask, is that my ADSL connection is advertised as "up to 15 Mbps"... the speed I get? 15 Mbps. now that doesn't mean 15 Mbps from any site, (you loose a fair amount just by virtue of the fact that you aren't always the only one going to a specific site, and there are often busy routers in between) but it DOES mean that I have 15 Mbps available, this is usually easy to see by downloading several things from different places and seeing a total of 15 Mbps.
Further though, I'm not a rarity here, I am an ADSL tech, I go to people's houses when they complain that they aren't getting the full speed they were expecting. What I've found is that there are only a few reasons why they wouldn't get the maximum:
- They don't understand that they can't download at 15Mbps from a server hosted on a private ADSL line somewhere else in the world that only has a 600kbps upstream rate!
- Their computer is so laden down with garbage that IE takes 25 mins to even load, let alone transfer any data
- Their P2P program in the background is using 14.999999999999Mbps of their 15Mbps total leaving them with nothing.
- And lastly, and extremely rare, is someone stuck in an area that just can't do more than 1Mbps (long lines back to the DSLAM), This is quite rare at this point, but more than that, it means that they won't be paying for a 15Mbps connection because we won't sell them one if they don't qualify. they'll be paying for a much lower speed (and if they somehow DO get on to one of the higher plans, they get changed to a slower plan as soon as we realize we can't provide that speed)
Now that said, our largest competitor, a cable company, used to quote speeds that weren't even physically possible with the equipment they were offering... but even they are quoting much lower speeds than they used to (though I don't know if people actually get those speeds on the shared cable topology)
I don't think it has anything to do with reading manuals, manufacturers of such devices now include all sorts of "setup" apps which force users to do this, on the bright side it means fewer unsecured wireless access points lying around (many ship secure by default now) on the down side it means fewer unsecured wireless access points lying around (when you just need your net connection in a strange location!)
I am finding that on more and more customer owned equipment though that I am no longer able to just sit down and enter "admin" in either the user or password field (or both) and get access. the next step is the manufacturers need to get their setup applications to put a sticker on the router with the settings info, it's all great to be secure, but when the users don't know the settings or password you're back to square one.
He said it was a city-wide network, often it's MUCH easier to do the software fix in such a case as locating the problem, and dispatching someone to the right location to deal with it can take significant amounts of time. That said, if you are in charge of a network of that size you should have the ability to turn off the port that it's connected to (rather a software version of unplugging it) and then you can wait for the idiot to call your help desk and administer the appropriate punishment.
However more often than not, the person who finds the problem isn't one of the people trusted with such access, nor do they have any meaningful way of contacting anyone who does, or even of being taken seriously by the IT department, leaving their only option being to take matters in to their own hands and doing what the original poster suggested and simply logging in to the device and disabling it in any way they can.
I had a friend years ago (who worked for the local cable company) who had 2 cable modems in the same house, at one point they ended up accidentally configured as follows:
modem1 -> linksys router -> hub -> modem2
This ended up causing havoc on the entire cable company's node at the time as the internal DHCP server ended up exposed to the external network and many other customers were reaching it instead of the cable co's server. Apparently his buddy in the cable company's NOC called him up and was quite unhappy with him....
Now in the defence of cable networks, I believe that they are much more secure than they were at that time (must have been about 13 or 14 years ago) and I suspect a similar trick these days would not result in a similar level of havoc.
To this day most cheap switches still can't handle a network cable with the 2 ends plugged in to the same switch. As a telco company technician I can't count the number of times I've solved someone's Internet connectivity problem by unplugging said cable. (I sort of understand it when there's a big mess of cables and you can't see where they all go, but I've also seen some really ridiculous ones where the troublesome cable is less than a foot long and therefore extremely obviously out of place!)
And before someone says it, yes I'm positive these are switches and not hubs. (I don't think I've actually seen a hub in use in a couple of years now... can you still even buy them?)
Now I hope that high end switch gear is better, but I have to admit that I haven't tried the experiment to find out (most high end switch gear I have access to is in use for mission critical stuff, no matter how remote the chances of actually taking it down, I'm not going to try the experiment)
And I'll keep my car where it belongs. Ride side up and intact.
I never suggested being upside down in the ditch, I suggested right side up in the ditch, quite possible if you know what you are doing, and frequently a better option than hitting a large animal.
A competant driver will ALWAYS be safer without ABS.
An INCOMPETANT driver will NEVER be safe behind the wheel regardless of ABS.
It's time we stop pandering to incompetant drivers and start making sure people know how to drive before being allowed to.
Not everyone is capable of safely operating a multi-ton vehicle travelling at speeds in excess of 100km/hr. And that's ok. What's not ok is allowing them to do it anyway.
If you can't do things that require thought while driving in stressfull situations PLEASE do not get behind the wheel ever again!
As for what would have happened without ABS... we'll never know because you didn't try it. there are good odds that mashing the brake pedal down all the way would have avoided the collision with the deer alltogether, though you may have ended up in the ditch (which if done properly isn't a bad thing, if done without thought could get you in more trouble.)
The only thing that can be 100% guaranteed is that your stopping distance would have been shorter without ABS. whether you were capable of keeping the vehicle under control in such a situation would be a matter of your driving skill. (which considering that swerving wasn't something you considered, I don't put much faith in)
Having ABS forced on us removes the option to stop in the shorter distance. Just because many people don't know how to drive, those of us who do are forced to drive with inferior vehicles.
I would much rather people be forced to learn to drive than that any of these technologies be forced uppon us. unfortunately in a world where nobody ever takes any responsibility for their own actions, and where everyone is "entitled" to a car, it doesn't look like we'll make people learn to drive any time soon. So we won't get rid of the huge number of injuries and deaths from automotive collisions every year.
However, in circumstances where locking your wheels is not fastest way to stop, ABS will beat you.
Unfortunately for you, there is no such situation, on EVERY road surface, and under ALL conditions, there is ALWAYS a faster way than pumping the brakes, sometimes the best solution is threshold braking, sometimes it is locking up the wheels, but it is NEVER pumping the brakes. Which means that until ABS does something OTHER than pump the brakes, there will NEVER be a situation in which ABS stops the car in a shorter distance than someone who knows how to drive properly.
Why? Well, wheels kept just at the threshold of locking should provide the best braking power. Both you and the ABS try to achieve this.
Name one vehicle that has an ABS system that works on the principle of threshold braking, they don't exist. All an ABS system does is pump the brakes really fast, the fancy ones do it only on certain wheels instead of on all of them, but they still pump the brakes. something that is just never a good idea.
So, on hard surfaces any ABS can probably best you, and a good ABS can definitely best you.
My previous example of ABS vs threshold braking has been tried on the following surfaces:
- dirt
- gravel
- asphalt
- metal
and under all of the following conditions:
- dry
- wet
- muddy
- snowy
- icy
and in ABS equipped vehicles manufactured in:
- 1994
- 2001
- 2006
- 2007
- 2008
- 2009
- 2010
In ALL of these cases braking properly has proven more effective than letting the ABS kick in, and in all cases allowing the ABS to kick in has caused a substantial DECREASE in braking power.
If you can't reproduce these results, it's not because your ABS is better. It's because you don't know how to brake properly.
you may be able to stop in a shorter distance than the ABS, but at the cost of loosing maneuverability.
Threshold braking ALSO provides better manoeuvrability than ABS, locking up the brakes does not, but is still a handy tool in situations where the shorter distance is more important than the manoeuvrability.
ok, how about the test where I threshold brake properly and stop fine, and then go again and slam on the brakes (allowing the ABS to kick in) and stop in a much longer distance? or are you simply one of those ABS evangelicists who will never admit that ABS could possibly be flawed (now why is it that race cars don't have ABS?)
There are no 2 ways about it. ABS will make you stop in a longer distance than if you knew what you were doing 100% of the time, regardless of "modern" or not. pulsing the brakes will NEVER make you stop faster than if you brake properly, so as long as that's all ABS does, it is incapable of stopping you faster.
stopping distances:
shortest: brakes locked up.
next: proper threshold braking
next: "new" ABS that only pulses the wheel/wheels that loose traction
next: "old" ABS that pulses all the wheels
longest: pumping the brakes manually.
control:
most: proper threshold braking
next: "new" ABS
next: "old" ABS
next: pumping the brakes manually
least: locking up the brakes.
I hate that as a driver I'm penalized because OTHER drivers don't know what they are doing. it's time we stop regulating "smarter cars" and start regulating smarter drivers. driving is NOT a right, it's a privilege, and if you aren't capable of doing it safely you shouldn't be on the road endangering those of us who do know how.
I can, and have proved it many times. Or do you not qualify my 2010 truck as having "modern ABS"? because I can definitely feel the loss of braking power any time the ABS kicks in, and it has nearly caused several collisions.
You might think you don't need ABS, but as another driver on the road, I'd prefer you had it. I'd prefer it a lot.
I would MUCH prefer if other drivers were forced to learn to drive instead of using ineffective technical measures which are more likely to cause a collision than a properly operated automobile without them.
I don't care if you think you can pump the braes well. ABS can pump them a lot faster
If you are pumping the brakes, or want the brakes to pump automatically, you don't know how to drive and shouldn't be allowed on public roads.
There's also the danger of you not being able to avoid an accident with me, and I like being alive!.
Please be considerate of your other drivers.
As a driver considerate of other drivers, and of myself, I choose a vehicle WITHOUT ABS, and a vehicle with a driver who knows how to use the brake pedal to stop the vehicle in a distance shorter than ABS ever can and with far more control.
If the copyright owner decides that they want the recordings back, then you will probably have to turn it over to them.
While the first part of your post was spot on, I don't believe this to be the case.
The owner of the copyright can sue you if you make copies of this material or if you play it for an audience, but there is nothing at all that they can do to force you to turn over the material to them, or even provide them a copy. If they didn't think it valuable enough to keep a copy (or the originals) for themselves, that's their fault, not yours.
You are contradicting MANY people who know a lot more than you do. Just not the ones that you personally choose to believe.
You MAY agree with the majority, but that doesn't mean that nobody smarter than you is on the other side of the argument.
You might have a point if you said that nobody unqualified to speak on the matter should do so, but to say people that are unqualified are allowed to speak as long as they are on YOUR side isn't science, it's fanaticism.
You can either allow all opinions, or only qualified opinions, but picking the conclusion first and then only allowing arguments that agree with it is one of the biggest problems with this whole mess in the first place.