This sounds about like what I would do. you don't buy a fast car without actually planning to try to get it up to speed every now and then. I can see this being a selling point on a lot of the economy cars, but on a 500+ hp car, something like this isn't a selling point, it's more of a detractor, unless it can be disabled.
the other thing I saw was bringing road deaths to 0? I think this is a bit naive, there are plenty of deaths that occur due to animals crossing the roadway, and as long as people are involved in the equation of driving there will always be stupid mistakes that cause accidents.
the US government actually gives huge tax benefits to investors who fund oil and gas exploration. Also with the US currently being the worlds larges oil producer, I don't see this going away any time in the near future. Renewable energy would need to come up a lot, as it's currently only around 11%.
it's not just taxes though. This bill also gets into how houses are built, how you get your electricity, etc. There are major infrastructure changes that would be needed to see this through. In the end no only would you see higher taxes, housing, food, electric, and many other costs would go up substantially as well. For the people that are barley scraping by, something like this could be the final nail in the coffin for them.
I totally agree. In fact I think the hidden speed traps are more hazardousness than they are helpful. There have been too many times when I'm jamming on the breaks and swerving into the median trying not to hit the car in front of me, or seeing this in cars ahead, because we went from 70 down to 45, just because over a hill or around a corner was a speed trap. when you see the police just driving in traffic, people slow down, less abruptly, and drive more safely. The speed traps are all about revenue and have nothing to do with public safety.
even that you can get out of with a good attorney. I once passed a cop going around 110 MPH in a 55 MPH zone. Not only did I not have to come in to court. My attorney took care of everything for me, and about $700 later (to my attorney), the whole thing went away. Nothing on my driving record, and no reckless driving or speeding conviction.
I'm more of the belief that a lot of these laws are put in place to relieve the poor of their money, and fund local government entities. Anybody who has enough to fight, even when clearly in the wrong, can in a lot of cases get out of it.
in the areas I'm in there are no speed cameras. Though I could easily afford to pay the $100-250 that might come from being caught on one. In most cases I had an attorney fight it, and pay them in the end rather than the local government. They in no way affect the way I drive, unless I know of one, where I slow down a bit for that area, then go right back to the the normal whatever speed I feel like going.
I agree with their view on speed cameras. Most cities use them as a huge revenue source. Along with that, most are placed in areas where lower income people are. More than likely because they don't have the money or power to fight against it.
I sort of agree with you on that. It seems as if particularly under Bush and Obama we tried our hardest to insert ourselves in every minor skirmish that came up. In a lot of cases, the country we invaded ended up far worse off than they had been before. Yes we may have removed a terrible leader, though the ones that replaced them never seem to be much better. I actually do think that rather than trying to insert ourselves into everything, focusing on our own infrastructure would be good. it would create jobs, and would make many of our roads, bridges, internet, and other things safer and more reliable.
just blanket telling someone that they are wrong because they don't agree with you, isn't part of the scientific method, nor does it get people on your side.
Science is subject to peer review, I do agree that peer review tends to support his statements, though the way he goes at stating things he seems to want to put things into absolutes. very few things in life are truly like that. over times views change, new information is found on things, what we thought was previously an impossibility becomes possible.
I just think rather than telling people who don't agree with him they are wrong, he should be challenging them to review the data, or to search for new solutions that might change the current outlook. Just shutting people down, doesn't lead to new ideas and innovation, encouraging research and new ideas does.
I'll agree, a lot of things do stay science fiction, and just aren't practical or worth bringing to market, though 45 years ago handheld phones? 45 years ago those weren't what I would consider handheld, they were huge and weighed a lot! even through the late 80's a cell phone was typically put installed in a car because it was too big/heavy to carry around.
yeah, in the recent past he seems to have gone the way of a lot of our political leaders... if you're not with me, your wrong.
The way I had learned science was that most things are considered to be truth, though open to other ideas, and the idea that a new option might come up that brings about a different view.
his comments on this one just get me thinking of the comment in the past that nobody will ever use more than 265k of ram.
many of the things of science fiction have a strange way of becoming common every day items... look at cell phones, or microwaves, or any number of other common items, 50 years ago many were only science fiction...
This is talking about how capitalism is driving inefficient and fossil fuel based plans that are leading to climate change? last I checked it seemed like the biggest polluters were non-capitalist countries (China being one of the biggest). Capitalism from what I've seen does a lot more to drive innovation and efficiencies. Along with that, unless your vision is very short sited, depleting the source of your future products at an unsustainable level makes no sense. This is again where innovation and adapting come along. Based on their argument, I really don't see how capitalism really relates to this at all.
This is the same stuff they told me when I was in elementary school. To me at all sounds like a bunch of BS with the less creative and lazy trying to blame previous generations for their issues. things they told me that I found were either not true or had no barring on anything in reality. 1. if you don't go to college and get a degree, you'll spend your life working a min. wage job and poor. 2. kids these days don't have a chance of making as much as their parents 3. you won't be able to afford a house as big/nice as your parents. 4. pollution will engulf the earth causing a global ice age.
of what I've seen.. 1. I have no college degree, though make more than many of my friends who did go to college. I've seen people go to college and become poor and wealthy just as I've seen people no get a degree and do the same. This has more to do with motivation, creativity, curiosity, and the drive to learn then anything else in my opinion. 2. for many of my friends. I would say, indexed for inflation, many make just as much or more than their parents. 3. same as 2.... 4. the narrative has changed a bit on this one... but a lot has changed in a good way in many areas.
summed up, if all you do is look for handouts and someone to give you something, yes your future won't go well, but if you have creativity, ambition, and the desire to learn, all they tell you is a bunch of BS.
you need to look at the data in the doc... there was a huge drop in 15-18 year olds... thats probably good. 18-24 year olds dropped too, though not by much... that is probably good also. All other age groups increased.
so? this looks good. young kids aren't getting pregnant like hey had been in the past. all of the categories other than 15-24 year old show that there had been an increase. The ages that declined, at least in my opinion, set you up for a rough life when you have a kid that young.
This looks to me more like a promotional stunt. Going to their site it looks like they are trying to use this to promote their token. The video there looked to me more like they were warning about the risks of many ICO's and the type of exit that many take.
I'm not promoting them in any way, I do think that a lot of these ico's are very scammy, and like any investment you need to do your own work to verify that it actually is a good investment.
Anyone who has worked with sensitive processes (esp computer security processes) knows that relying on one person for a mission-critical function is not a "human error" - it's a process failure. If this person's communication job was that essential, they should have had a team-based process in place with multiple individuals charged with making sure the process got executed, backed up by computerized records and nag alerts if not done. Seems like this "human error" would have happened if the person had gone on vacation, gotten fired, or went off their meds. That's not a human error. That's execs failing to make sure they build a resilient security process. Quarter billion in expenditure won't buy common sense, it seems.
I totally agree, in a company of that size, it's not one person managing this type of thing, it's a team. This is a failure in their security processes, which hopefully now they are reviewing and updating.
whatever you say, it may have consequences even if it is free. I don't think that someone should be have to fear publicly saying something they believe or their support for a cause even if it is unpopular to to others. People tend to judge based on their own views and that could come back.. I do think that trying to ban speech based on "hate speech" or just things that may be deemed socially wrong is not a good thing. There are a lot of gray areas in speech and if it's left up to the interpretation of few can manipulated to attack, imprison, or persecute groups that are unpopular to them or the ruling power. for me, I'd rather hear and see people these groups and think to myself that they are crazy and stupid than see free speech taken away. I think it's much better than the thought that one day I may have to watch what I say or do for fear of being labeled as a member of a group that may be unpopular. free speech is just one of the ideas behind why the US and other countries that allow it are so great. at least in the US you can say whatever you want without fear of arrest. the down side is you see and hear some things you don't like every now and then, but you know that even if you have ideas that may be unpopular you can still talk about them without fearing arrest.
why does this even matter? vote bullying? does the fact that someone you work with or know voted matter to you? if it does that much...you have other issues... seek help! as long as your not intentionally trying to get an unwilling photo of me, I really don't care where someone is taking a selfie... and to that point, I really don't see how it would be anyone elses.
This guy should write a book on how to drive away the American tech industry and promote off-shoring of jobs.
Just because most encryption is developed by us companies, doesn't mean it'll always stay that way. Something like this just makes Offshore and Foreign vendors become more attractive. Why would anyone buy a software security package that is known to be compromised or have back doors. Even if it's meant only for the "good guys" to get through, something like that is just a ticking timebomb, eventually it'll get into the hands of someone who shouldn't have it, then at that point, you may as well have no encryption at all.
Wasn't this in the news over a year ago. I though by now everyone knew this... I guess not the US Gov...much like the fact that you can do things... good and sometimes bad with computers.. this must be a recent and frighting revelation for them.
I totally agree... to me it seems as if Republican and Democrat are both basically the same anymore... both for more war... bigger government.... this spying on Americans has already proven to be a huge waste as it hasn't been proven to have found much of anything... and in a country where your more likely to be shot by the police... or die of a hear attack, all this focus on terrorism and how we need to send the military off to X middle-eastern country to "protect us interests"... or build a wall... or whatever.. just sounds like nationalist propaganda to me.
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds about like what I would do. you don't buy a fast car without actually planning to try to get it up to speed every now and then.
I can see this being a selling point on a lot of the economy cars, but on a 500+ hp car, something like this isn't a selling point, it's more of a detractor, unless it can be disabled.
the other thing I saw was bringing road deaths to 0? I think this is a bit naive, there are plenty of deaths that occur due to animals crossing the roadway, and as long as people are involved in the equation of driving there will always be stupid mistakes that cause accidents.
the US government actually gives huge tax benefits to investors who fund oil and gas exploration. Also with the US currently being the worlds larges oil producer, I don't see this going away any time in the near future. Renewable energy would need to come up a lot, as it's currently only around 11%.
it's not just taxes though.
This bill also gets into how houses are built, how you get your electricity, etc.
There are major infrastructure changes that would be needed to see this through. In the end no only would you see higher taxes, housing, food, electric, and many other costs would go up substantially as well. For the people that are barley scraping by, something like this could be the final nail in the coffin for them.
you also don't realize until you go to court, most times those people have no money and will never pay you.
I totally agree. In fact I think the hidden speed traps are more hazardousness than they are helpful.
There have been too many times when I'm jamming on the breaks and swerving into the median trying not to hit the car in front of me, or seeing this in cars ahead, because we went from 70 down to 45, just because over a hill or around a corner was a speed trap.
when you see the police just driving in traffic, people slow down, less abruptly, and drive more safely. The speed traps are all about revenue and have nothing to do with public safety.
I know this isn't a speed camera article, but being stop light one, it is similar in nature.
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/judge-rules-chicago-red-light-and-speed-camera-tickets-void/
the city of Chicago had shorted yellow light times at intersections with cameras to increase revenue. I'm sure they aren't the only ones to do this.
even that you can get out of with a good attorney.
I once passed a cop going around 110 MPH in a 55 MPH zone. Not only did I not have to come in to court. My attorney took care of everything for me, and about $700 later (to my attorney), the whole thing went away. Nothing on my driving record, and no reckless driving or speeding conviction.
I'm more of the belief that a lot of these laws are put in place to relieve the poor of their money, and fund local government entities. Anybody who has enough to fight, even when clearly in the wrong, can in a lot of cases get out of it.
this is exactly what I was getting at.
in the areas I'm in there are no speed cameras. Though I could easily afford to pay the $100-250 that might come from being caught on one. In most cases I had an attorney fight it, and pay them in the end rather than the local government.
They in no way affect the way I drive, unless I know of one, where I slow down a bit for that area, then go right back to the the normal whatever speed I feel like going.
I agree with their view on speed cameras. Most cities use them as a huge revenue source.
Along with that, most are placed in areas where lower income people are. More than likely because they don't have the money or power to fight against it.
I sort of agree with you on that. It seems as if particularly under Bush and Obama we tried our hardest to insert ourselves in every minor skirmish that came up. In a lot of cases, the country we invaded ended up far worse off than they had been before. Yes we may have removed a terrible leader, though the ones that replaced them never seem to be much better.
I actually do think that rather than trying to insert ourselves into everything, focusing on our own infrastructure would be good. it would create jobs, and would make many of our roads, bridges, internet, and other things safer and more reliable.
just blanket telling someone that they are wrong because they don't agree with you, isn't part of the scientific method, nor does it get people on your side.
Science is subject to peer review, I do agree that peer review tends to support his statements, though the way he goes at stating things he seems to want to put things into absolutes. very few things in life are truly like that. over times views change, new information is found on things, what we thought was previously an impossibility becomes possible.
I just think rather than telling people who don't agree with him they are wrong, he should be challenging them to review the data, or to search for new solutions that might change the current outlook. Just shutting people down, doesn't lead to new ideas and innovation, encouraging research and new ideas does.
I'll agree, a lot of things do stay science fiction, and just aren't practical or worth bringing to market, though 45 years ago handheld phones? 45 years ago those weren't what I would consider handheld, they were huge and weighed a lot! even through the late 80's a cell phone was typically put installed in a car because it was too big/heavy to carry around.
yeah, in the recent past he seems to have gone the way of a lot of our political leaders... if you're not with me, your wrong.
The way I had learned science was that most things are considered to be truth, though open to other ideas, and the idea that a new option might come up that brings about a different view.
his comments on this one just get me thinking of the comment in the past that nobody will ever use more than 265k of ram.
many of the things of science fiction have a strange way of becoming common every day items... look at cell phones, or microwaves, or any number of other common items, 50 years ago many were only science fiction...
all this just makes it sound to me like China and Russia may end up having higher potential for free speech than EU countries...
This is talking about how capitalism is driving inefficient and fossil fuel based plans that are leading to climate change?
last I checked it seemed like the biggest polluters were non-capitalist countries (China being one of the biggest).
Capitalism from what I've seen does a lot more to drive innovation and efficiencies. Along with that, unless your vision is very short sited, depleting the source of your future products at an unsustainable level makes no sense. This is again where innovation and adapting come along.
Based on their argument, I really don't see how capitalism really relates to this at all.
This is the same stuff they told me when I was in elementary school. To me at all sounds like a bunch of BS with the less creative and lazy trying to blame previous generations for their issues.
things they told me that I found were either not true or had no barring on anything in reality.
1. if you don't go to college and get a degree, you'll spend your life working a min. wage job and poor.
2. kids these days don't have a chance of making as much as their parents
3. you won't be able to afford a house as big/nice as your parents.
4. pollution will engulf the earth causing a global ice age.
of what I've seen..
1. I have no college degree, though make more than many of my friends who did go to college. I've seen people go to college and become poor and wealthy just as I've seen people no get a degree and do the same. This has more to do with motivation, creativity, curiosity, and the drive to learn then anything else in my opinion.
2. for many of my friends. I would say, indexed for inflation, many make just as much or more than their parents.
3. same as 2....
4. the narrative has changed a bit on this one... but a lot has changed in a good way in many areas.
summed up, if all you do is look for handouts and someone to give you something, yes your future won't go well, but if you have creativity, ambition, and the desire to learn, all they tell you is a bunch of BS.
you need to look at the data in the doc... there was a huge drop in 15-18 year olds... thats probably good. 18-24 year olds dropped too, though not by much... that is probably good also. All other age groups increased.
so? this looks good. young kids aren't getting pregnant like hey had been in the past.
all of the categories other than 15-24 year old show that there had been an increase. The ages that declined, at least in my opinion, set you up for a rough life when you have a kid that young.
This looks to me more like a promotional stunt. Going to their site it looks like they are trying to use this to promote their token. The video there looked to me more like they were warning about the risks of many ICO's and the type of exit that many take.
I'm not promoting them in any way, I do think that a lot of these ico's are very scammy, and like any investment you need to do your own work to verify that it actually is a good investment.
Anyone who has worked with sensitive processes (esp computer security processes) knows that relying on one person for a mission-critical function is not a "human error" - it's a process failure. If this person's communication job was that essential, they should have had a team-based process in place with multiple individuals charged with making sure the process got executed, backed up by computerized records and nag alerts if not done. Seems like this "human error" would have happened if the person had gone on vacation, gotten fired, or went off their meds. That's not a human error. That's execs failing to make sure they build a resilient security process. Quarter billion in expenditure won't buy common sense, it seems.
I totally agree, in a company of that size, it's not one person managing this type of thing, it's a team. This is a failure in their security processes, which hopefully now they are reviewing and updating.
whatever you say, it may have consequences even if it is free. I don't think that someone should be have to fear publicly saying something they believe or their support for a cause even if it is unpopular to to others. People tend to judge based on their own views and that could come back..
I do think that trying to ban speech based on "hate speech" or just things that may be deemed socially wrong is not a good thing. There are a lot of gray areas in speech and if it's left up to the interpretation of few can manipulated to attack, imprison, or persecute groups that are unpopular to them or the ruling power.
for me, I'd rather hear and see people these groups and think to myself that they are crazy and stupid than see free speech taken away. I think it's much better than the thought that one day I may have to watch what I say or do for fear of being labeled as a member of a group that may be unpopular.
free speech is just one of the ideas behind why the US and other countries that allow it are so great. at least in the US you can say whatever you want without fear of arrest. the down side is you see and hear some things you don't like every now and then, but you know that even if you have ideas that may be unpopular you can still talk about them without fearing arrest.
why does this even matter?
vote bullying? does the fact that someone you work with or know voted matter to you? if it does that much...you have other issues... seek help!
as long as your not intentionally trying to get an unwilling photo of me, I really don't care where someone is taking a selfie... and to that point, I really don't see how it would be anyone elses.
This guy should write a book on how to drive away the American tech industry and promote off-shoring of jobs.
Just because most encryption is developed by us companies, doesn't mean it'll always stay that way. Something like this just makes Offshore and Foreign vendors become more attractive. Why would anyone buy a software security package that is known to be compromised or have back doors. Even if it's meant only for the "good guys" to get through, something like that is just a ticking timebomb, eventually it'll get into the hands of someone who shouldn't have it, then at that point, you may as well have no encryption at all.
Wasn't this in the news over a year ago. I though by now everyone knew this... I guess not the US Gov...much like the fact that you can do things... good and sometimes bad with computers.. this must be a recent and frighting revelation for them.
I totally agree... to me it seems as if Republican and Democrat are both basically the same anymore... both for more war... bigger government.... ... or die of a hear attack, all this focus on terrorism and how we need to send the military off to X middle-eastern country to "protect us interests"... or build a wall... or whatever.. just sounds like nationalist propaganda to me.
this spying on Americans has already proven to be a huge waste as it hasn't been proven to have found much of anything... and in a country where your more likely to be shot by the police