If the cure for your disease is "just stop doing it", then is it really a health condition? Humans have agency. We decide what we do.
Perhaps we should change society so that we have two classes of individuals: people who are victims of their own choices (because they can’t control them), and people who control their choices and are therefore treated as full citizens.
Yes, it's well known that anything involving government services is 1000 times better in northern Europe than in the US. That's why people in the US are so down on government solutions to problems -- because government does a horrible job.
Using test scores meant they had to admit too many Asians and whites. Getting rid of test scores makes it easier to discriminate against Asians and whites.
If the math says a new technique is better, it won't matter if the first implementation isn’t good. Someone will fix the implementation and then it will match the mathematically predicted performance (or the guy who did the math with fix his error).
Environmentalism has only been a thing since the 1970s. It became a religion in the 1980s when it transcended rational conservation and became about advancing the sanctity of "the Earth" rather than making choices that were best for humans.
Before 1970, end-times Earth apocalypse wasn't a threat to survival. Now you're enlightened, so now survival requires daily rituals and observances and sacrifice.
It saves the Earth. You can't argue pros and cons with religious zealots. Saving the Earth brings a more profound meaning to their lives than rational decision-making could ever do.
My dad had a story about how he got his license. There was no requirement to get one, and then one year a new law was enacted requiring one. So he went to the government office to sign up for a license. The clerk asked him if he knew how to drive. He said "well, I drove here today". And they gave him a drivers license.
Also, foreigners show up and drive with foreign licenses all the time. You have no idea what the requirements are for foreign drivers licenses. Do you think it's a scandal? What about safety?
It would be easy to design a random study with different licensing requirements. One group with all the current rules and another group that only has to pass a vision test. Then you could track both groups over 5 years and see whether they had different safety outcomes. That would be the objective, scientific approach.
Not every activity, just the ones that create a danger to others.
Like dog attacks from unlicensed dog handlers? Fires and poisonings from unlicensed coffee brewing? How do we decide which ones "create a danger to others" and whether licensing lowers that danger significantly?
My suggestion: let’s use science to gather facts to inform those decisions.
Driver licensing will become less of a thing in a few years with autonomous cars anyway. There’s no reason it has to be beyond thoughtful consideration until then.
So you're saying "because unlicensed pilots seems like a bad idea, every activity every person engages in throughout his life should require a license: walking a dog, operating a coffee maker, swimming, setting an alarm clock, everything".
I'm saying "let’s actually use science and facts to help us decide". And let’s maybe use some sense and a little respect for our fellow man while we're at it.
Please cite a scientific study indicating driver licensing has a significant benefit. Science should help us decide how awesome and necessary drivers licensing (or any other government restrictions on individuals) are.
in the meantime the non-gunowning population continues to freak out and spew histrionics over every gun article printed by the media - for no logical reason.
It's not going to fail immediately, but there's a stink of decay about Intel these days.
On the contrary, Intel will do great. PCs are doing ok and could servers are selling very well. Intel will still get a majority of that business, and they have good margins. Intel also has Altera, Movidius, MobileEye, Flash RAM, Optane 3D crosspoint RAM, and other product lines.
The global semiconductor industry grew 27% in 2017. It will grow 20% in 2018. Intel might underperform the industry for a few quarters, but they will still do well. They are positioned well for future growth in 5G and autonomous cars.
This is why the rumor about Apple making their own Mac CPUs is believable. Intel lost their 18 month chip fabrication lead and they are now 9-12 months behind TSMC.
Tomorrow, will you be complaining that the business next door that only marks up parts half as much doesn't pay a "living wage"? Where is the money for beyond-economic wages supposed to come from without beyond-economic pricing to customers?
Jaguar and Land Rover drivers have already decided to pay up for upscale branding and features. They like paying a little more. They could buy a Hyundai or a Jeep if they would rather save money. They could also source their own 3rd party spare parts in some cases if they wanted to save.
This is a nothing story. Upscale brands like Louis Vuitton and Prada charge huge markups on something as ordinary as luggage and handbags. There's no practical rationale for it. People who buy that stuff know what they're getting into.
And if the people aren't paying attention, there is no law you can make that will get rid of corruption.
You can improve things by cutting government. If the corrupt divide up 30% of GDP it's s lot worse than letting them divide up 10% of GDP.
Cutting government is a lot better than telling people to spend even more of their lives watching over the 30-40% that’s already being taken from them.
Slashdot Mirror
So an alcoholic can just decide on a whim to throw away the bottle and just never buy one again?
Don’t they have to? Is there another acceptable option where alcoholics just keep drinking?
If the cure for your disease is "just stop doing it", then is it really a health condition? Humans have agency. We decide what we do.
Perhaps we should change society so that we have two classes of individuals: people who are victims of their own choices (because they can’t control them), and people who control their choices and are therefore treated as full citizens.
Some of us are tired of being dragged down.
Yes, it's well known that anything involving government services is 1000 times better in northern Europe than in the US. That's why people in the US are so down on government solutions to problems -- because government does a horrible job.
Using test scores meant they had to admit too many Asians and whites. Getting rid of test scores makes it easier to discriminate against Asians and whites.
You sound like a denier. What makes you doubt the plastic bag apocalypse?
Sure, all the rest of the apocalypses turned out to be hugely exaggerated or outright false. But c'mon, plastic bags!!!
It's almost as though people hate to see plastic bags up in their trees.....It's almost as though they have .. aesthetics?
Poor people can’t afford your whimsical aesthetics.
If the math says a new technique is better, it won't matter if the first implementation isn’t good. Someone will fix the implementation and then it will match the mathematically predicted performance (or the guy who did the math with fix his error).
It's a matter of survival.
Environmentalism has only been a thing since the 1970s. It became a religion in the 1980s when it transcended rational conservation and became about advancing the sanctity of "the Earth" rather than making choices that were best for humans.
Before 1970, end-times Earth apocalypse wasn't a threat to survival. Now you're enlightened, so now survival requires daily rituals and observances and sacrifice.
It saves the Earth. You can't argue pros and cons with religious zealots. Saving the Earth brings a more profound meaning to their lives than rational decision-making could ever do.
Because they want to go to environmentalist heaven.
I hope I don't get expelled from the congregation and shunned by the faithful.
But if you're not a religious environmentalist, your plastic bags are not a sin.
My dad had a story about how he got his license. There was no requirement to get one, and then one year a new law was enacted requiring one. So he went to the government office to sign up for a license. The clerk asked him if he knew how to drive. He said "well, I drove here today". And they gave him a drivers license.
Also, foreigners show up and drive with foreign licenses all the time. You have no idea what the requirements are for foreign drivers licenses. Do you think it's a scandal? What about safety?
It would be easy to design a random study with different licensing requirements. One group with all the current rules and another group that only has to pass a vision test. Then you could track both groups over 5 years and see whether they had different safety outcomes. That would be the objective, scientific approach.
Not every activity, just the ones that create a danger to others.
Like dog attacks from unlicensed dog handlers? Fires and poisonings from unlicensed coffee brewing? How do we decide which ones "create a danger to others" and whether licensing lowers that danger significantly?
My suggestion: let’s use science to gather facts to inform those decisions.
Driver licensing will become less of a thing in a few years with autonomous cars anyway. There’s no reason it has to be beyond thoughtful consideration until then.
So you're saying "because unlicensed pilots seems like a bad idea, every activity every person engages in throughout his life should require a license: walking a dog, operating a coffee maker, swimming, setting an alarm clock, everything".
I'm saying "let’s actually use science and facts to help us decide". And let’s maybe use some sense and a little respect for our fellow man while we're at it.
But it did make a difference... it gave police something else to charge minorities with.
Gun controllers can completely take minority voters for granted. So they see no need to consider gun laws' impact on minorities.
Please cite a scientific study indicating driver licensing has a significant benefit. Science should help us decide how awesome and necessary drivers licensing (or any other government restrictions on individuals) are.
in the meantime the non-gunowning population continues to freak out and spew histrionics over every gun article printed by the media - for no logical reason.
Moral panic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
All those concealed carry permits without background checks? It's an authoritarian's worst nightmare!
How many murders and shootings were committed by those unvetted CCW holders? I will guess zero.
It's not going to fail immediately, but there's a stink of decay about Intel these days.
On the contrary, Intel will do great. PCs are doing ok and could servers are selling very well. Intel will still get a majority of that business, and they have good margins. Intel also has Altera, Movidius, MobileEye, Flash RAM, Optane 3D crosspoint RAM, and other product lines.
The global semiconductor industry grew 27% in 2017. It will grow 20% in 2018. Intel might underperform the industry for a few quarters, but they will still do well. They are positioned well for future growth in 5G and autonomous cars.
This is why the rumor about Apple making their own Mac CPUs is believable. Intel lost their 18 month chip fabrication lead and they are now 9-12 months behind TSMC.
Tomorrow, will you be complaining that the business next door that only marks up parts half as much doesn't pay a "living wage"? Where is the money for beyond-economic wages supposed to come from without beyond-economic pricing to customers?
Jaguar and Land Rover drivers have already decided to pay up for upscale branding and features. They like paying a little more. They could buy a Hyundai or a Jeep if they would rather save money. They could also source their own 3rd party spare parts in some cases if they wanted to save.
This is a nothing story. Upscale brands like Louis Vuitton and Prada charge huge markups on something as ordinary as luggage and handbags. There's no practical rationale for it. People who buy that stuff know what they're getting into.
And if the people aren't paying attention, there is no law you can make that will get rid of corruption.
You can improve things by cutting government. If the corrupt divide up 30% of GDP it's s lot worse than letting them divide up 10% of GDP.
Cutting government is a lot better than telling people to spend even more of their lives watching over the 30-40% that’s already being taken from them.
Density is part of it, but in the US, we have things like this:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/201...
That’s a special example, but smaller versions of that are everywhere.
Graft and corruption and bureaucratic incompetence add up when it’s pervasive and continues on for 50 years.