6. People like gasoline-powered cars
on
Air-Powered Cars
·
· Score: 1
People like gasoline-powered cars. Even most of the advocates for "alternative energies" prefer to drive gasoline-powered cars.
People are going to continue to like gasoline-powered cars until a really competitive alternative is available. Nothing has even come close yet. This air car is maybe 1/10th of the way there.
Since people like gasoline-powered cars, people will continue to drive gasoline-powered cars.
No amount of fanciful wishful thinking will change this.
Personal flight will never be widespread. Falling to your death is just too high a risk for a normal person. And personal ground transportation is OK (not great, but good enough).
This is how the world works. "Good enough" usually wins out.
And have you factored in government workers in your analysis? They don't produce anything. They should be classified as dependants. Just because they have "jobs" doesn't mean they're producers.
Add in the trial lawyers. They simply divide up the stuff other people have produced.
Add in the "cost of compliance" folks. These are the accountants you have to hire to do your taxes. They're there to help you keep producing, but they don't add to the total wealth. Also covered are the people who fill out regulatory reports.
Is your analysis still holding up?
Does it take into account that "dependants" are a lot more expensive per-capita than when we reached the boundaries of the historical range in the past? $2000 per month for a person on social security is more than it costs to raise a child, for example.
Now, lets say you're right and social security could be made to avoid bankruptcy. What standard of living would we have? It's not enough that we survive. Life needs to be worth living.
No matter how your analysis finally comes out, social security is a rip-off, and WE WILL HAVE IT REFORMED.
The young probably always will provide for the old. On the current path though, we're set for the old to demand far more than they need. This demand for luxury cannot be met, and we will not meet it.
Uncompulsory Voting: Compulsory anything is bad. This is a free country, not a free-to-do-what-you're-told country.
Prefferential Voting: This has its good and bad points. One of the bad points is that tiny minorities have power far beyond their numbers. I'm not really equipped to make a full analysis of the pros and cons though.
Presidential Power: The president is not supposed to have as much power as he does now. Things are slowly moving back toward where they're supposed to be.
The social contract: This is a subject that mostly never comes up in the US.
Religious and Sexual Preferrences: This is harder to explain because it depends on what you mean by "a good president". In peacetime, the president doesn't do much that can be quantitatively measured. So unless there's a catastrophe, the performance of the president is always in doubt.
So we have to make qualitative judgements. And Americans like to tell our children that if they do the right things, they'll be successful. So when the most successful person in government is a bad guy who does the wrong things, what do we say?
If it's OK for the president to be a bisexual Satanist, why isn't it ok for your son? Why isn't it better to be a bisexual Satanist like the president?
So we want the president to be a good man as well as a good administrator.
Social Security: No one starves in the US. And it's not care to just give people stuff. When people can't earn a living, they need help to learn to earn a living. They don't need lifetime handouts.
People who can pay for themselves are always better off than people who need government or charity help. Always. And in America, the vast, vast majority can eventually become able to pay for themselves. That needs to be the primary goal of government social programs.
The short answer is that we want things to be good, not just good enough.
Homelessness isn't a problem in the US either. The homeless don't want to live like the rest of us. If they did, they'd get a job and a place to live. Anyone who wants to do a job in the US can get a job. (This wasn't always the case, but it has been for about 13 of the last 15 years.)
People don't come to the US to be taken care of. People come to the US to become wealthy, to start a business, to own a house, and to leave the business and the house to their children.
OK. Going back to the original point. Safety is relative, and perfect safety isn't attainable. Trying to attain it for yourself at the expense of others is destructive. Trying to attain it for anyone at the expense of anyone else is destructive.
If you simply accept life and put problems in perspective instead of playing the blame and retribution (and reparations) game, then you can be happier, and you can be less destructive and more constructive.
Make responsible choices for yourself. Make responsible choices in your work. Don't try to choose for everyone. Live your life and trust me to live mine.
--
Now addressing some specifics:
>> I simply pointed out that your argument was severely flawed.
If my argument was flawed, then what was I argueing? I was saying that the dangers were exaggerated relative to the dangers of everyday life. My point above is that this exaggeration has caused fear. Fear leads to destructive behavior. I was attempting to assuage the fear and prevent the destruction.
>> Does that make the company's actions right in either case?
The exact rightness or wrongness of the actions of each person in each situation is not my concern. Those are their choices, not mine. Taking those choices from them just moves them around. It doesn't make the right decisions happen.
>> Would you prefer it if either incident had become bad enough to directly impact a large number of people's lives?
No. But the reaction to the problem is going to impact millions of people, some of whom will lose their jobs. Exaggeration and fear will be the cause. This is sad.
>> How about no government?
Nah. That's a false choice.
If I get hurt from bad tires, I won't be suing though. I'd suggest this is the correct choice.
But, of course, I won't get hurt, because almost no one does.
>> Did Firestone tell the people who bought cars with defective tires that quality control issues were overlooked?
Were they? What are "quality control issues" exactly? Did Firestone say that all tires were perfect and would remain perfect forever? What exactly did Firestone do wrong, besides trying to make tires and only being 99.999% successful?
Firestone is probably going to go out of business. Does that make you happy? Perhaps you'd like to see Ford go out of business too? You could probably get the car dealers and tire dealers too, if you really worked at it.
---
The point is that the 2 incidents cited were completely overblown.
Life is dangerous and accidents happen. No amount of cash in the hands of lawyers or power in the hands of government workers will change this.
The DMCA arguments relate to government. A small weak government could not threaten you with the DMCA. Without the government, what could the corporations do? Write a hot letter?
The same goes for the bad patents.
Reining corporations in with "law" seems counterproductive in the long run.
I'd suggest the solution is freedom, not ever-more-powerful government factions fighting for control over people and resources. You don't actually think you're going win that fight do you? And when you do, can YOU be trusted with the power? Can your successors?
Isn't it better to fear the people who'll put you in jail or kill you (the government) instead of the people who put grandmas on the internet (AOL)?
Freedom, not power.
(BTW: This is not a defense of any particular corporation. I just don't agree with calls to hate large segments of the population. Among other things, it's illogical.)
Almost everything bad is avoidable. It's just not worth the effort.
Sports injuries are avoidable by not playing.
Work injuries are avoidable by not working.
Electrocutions are avoidable by not having electricity.
Auto injuries are avoidable by staying home.
Bad things are a part of life. Life involves doing things. Doing things sometimes causes in bad results. Corporations do things. Sometimes there are bad results.
There's a huge industry involved in bashing corporations. It works. Now almost everyone hates corporations. This is a surprise?
Now what's phase 2? Communism? Looting the corporations with lawsuits? Starting a "new" type of corporation where (coincedentally) YOU are in charge?
Please help me to understand the HATE of corporations. They're just groups of people trying to make a living by selling you things you need or want. Please tell me how corporations exercise power over you without government help.
Why do you fear "problems"? What makes you think that the vendors will solve them for you? (What ever makes anyone think that?)
Stop worrying about blame, think, and solve all the "problems" as they come. Pick the best technologies with the best track records to keep the problems to a minimum. Sun, Oracle, Bea Systems or I-Planet.
Be a computer engineer, not a blame engineer. Succeed or fail and take your due of the credit and the blame.
NASA will have more money to do more missions, and it doesn't have to be taken out of people's paychecks.
Who could be against that?
I know. A bunch of Slashdotters who are full of hate for someone. Corporations (groups of people trying to make a good living by offering their customers desirable products and services) or Disney (a particular corporation) are the ones we hate today.
So fewer space missions or higher taxes then. Isn't that great..
These questions are extremely naive. Why are they on slashdot? Ask them again in 1000 years or so, and then Internet voting might make sense.
Here's the answer though: The reason things aren't going to change is because they're fine the way they are. Maybe they're not great, but they're good enough.
So just drive down to your polling place twice a year. Ok? And vote fot a smaller government with fewer powers so someday it really won't matter who gets elected.
Since the Internet is a no-boundaries system, you'd be dumb to locate in a regulated area when you can offer the identical service in a less-regulated (read lower-cost) area.
(Of course, the regulators would respond that they'll just force people to locate in Texas to do business with Texans. Then you could arrest Texans who illicitly use out-of-state services. Tell me when this starts sounding like a good idea. )
Slashdot Mirror
People are going to continue to like gasoline-powered cars until a really competitive alternative is available. Nothing has even come close yet. This air car is maybe 1/10th of the way there.
Since people like gasoline-powered cars, people will continue to drive gasoline-powered cars.
No amount of fanciful wishful thinking will change this.
This is how the world works. "Good enough" usually wins out.
And have you factored in government workers in your analysis? They don't produce anything. They should be classified as dependants. Just because they have "jobs" doesn't mean they're producers.
Add in the trial lawyers. They simply divide up the stuff other people have produced.
Add in the "cost of compliance" folks. These are the accountants you have to hire to do your taxes. They're there to help you keep producing, but they don't add to the total wealth. Also covered are the people who fill out regulatory reports.
Is your analysis still holding up?
Does it take into account that "dependants" are a lot more expensive per-capita than when we reached the boundaries of the historical range in the past? $2000 per month for a person on social security is more than it costs to raise a child, for example.
Now, lets say you're right and social security could be made to avoid bankruptcy. What standard of living would we have? It's not enough that we survive. Life needs to be worth living.
No matter how your analysis finally comes out, social security is a rip-off, and WE WILL HAVE IT REFORMED.
The young probably always will provide for the old. On the current path though, we're set for the old to demand far more than they need. This demand for luxury cannot be met, and we will not meet it.
Uncompulsory Voting: Compulsory anything is bad. This is a free country, not a free-to-do-what-you're-told country.
Prefferential Voting: This has its good and bad points. One of the bad points is that tiny minorities have power far beyond their numbers. I'm not really equipped to make a full analysis of the pros and cons though.
Presidential Power: The president is not supposed to have as much power as he does now. Things are slowly moving back toward where they're supposed to be.
The social contract: This is a subject that mostly never comes up in the US.
Religious and Sexual Preferrences: This is harder to explain because it depends on what you mean by "a good president". In peacetime, the president doesn't do much that can be quantitatively measured. So unless there's a catastrophe, the performance of the president is always in doubt.
So we have to make qualitative judgements. And Americans like to tell our children that if they do the right things, they'll be successful. So when the most successful person in government is a bad guy who does the wrong things, what do we say?
If it's OK for the president to be a bisexual Satanist, why isn't it ok for your son? Why isn't it better to be a bisexual Satanist like the president?
So we want the president to be a good man as well as a good administrator.
Social Security: No one starves in the US. And it's not care to just give people stuff. When people can't earn a living, they need help to learn to earn a living. They don't need lifetime handouts.
People who can pay for themselves are always better off than people who need government or charity help. Always. And in America, the vast, vast majority can eventually become able to pay for themselves. That needs to be the primary goal of government social programs.
The short answer is that we want things to be good, not just good enough.
Homelessness isn't a problem in the US either. The homeless don't want to live like the rest of us. If they did, they'd get a job and a place to live. Anyone who wants to do a job in the US can get a job. (This wasn't always the case, but it has been for about 13 of the last 15 years.)
People don't come to the US to be taken care of. People come to the US to become wealthy, to start a business, to own a house, and to leave the business and the house to their children.
Does that help?
How does this refute the statement "when the people got a chance to vote, McCain lost BIG"?
McCain lost in the popular vote. Maybe that didn't include you, but that doesn't change the votes of the people it did include.
McCain's popularity was with the press, not the people.
When the people got the chance to vote, McCain lost BIG.
You need to stop watching the news.
OK. Going back to the original point. Safety is relative, and perfect safety isn't attainable. Trying to attain it for yourself at the expense of others is destructive. Trying to attain it for anyone at the expense of anyone else is destructive.
If you simply accept life and put problems in perspective instead of playing the blame and retribution (and reparations) game, then you can be happier, and you can be less destructive and more constructive.
Make responsible choices for yourself. Make responsible choices in your work. Don't try to choose for everyone. Live your life and trust me to live mine.
--
Now addressing some specifics:
>> I simply pointed out that your argument was severely flawed.
If my argument was flawed, then what was I argueing? I was saying that the dangers were exaggerated relative to the dangers of everyday life. My point above is that this exaggeration has caused fear. Fear leads to destructive behavior. I was attempting to assuage the fear and prevent the destruction.
>> Does that make the company's actions right in either case?
The exact rightness or wrongness of the actions of each person in each situation is not my concern. Those are their choices, not mine. Taking those choices from them just moves them around. It doesn't make the right decisions happen.
>> Would you prefer it if either incident had become bad enough to directly impact a large number of people's lives?
No. But the reaction to the problem is going to impact millions of people, some of whom will lose their jobs. Exaggeration and fear will be the cause. This is sad.
>> How about no government?
Nah. That's a false choice.
If I get hurt from bad tires, I won't be suing though. I'd suggest this is the correct choice.
But, of course, I won't get hurt, because almost no one does.
Simpsons joke.
>> Did Firestone tell the people who bought cars with defective tires that quality control issues were overlooked?
Were they? What are "quality control issues" exactly? Did Firestone say that all tires were perfect and would remain perfect forever? What exactly did Firestone do wrong, besides trying to make tires and only being 99.999% successful?
Firestone is probably going to go out of business. Does that make you happy? Perhaps you'd like to see Ford go out of business too? You could probably get the car dealers and tire dealers too, if you really worked at it.
---
The point is that the 2 incidents cited were completely overblown.
Life is dangerous and accidents happen. No amount of cash in the hands of lawyers or power in the hands of government workers will change this.
The DMCA arguments relate to government. A small weak government could not threaten you with the DMCA. Without the government, what could the corporations do? Write a hot letter?
The same goes for the bad patents.
Reining corporations in with "law" seems counterproductive in the long run.
I'd suggest the solution is freedom, not ever-more-powerful government factions fighting for control over people and resources. You don't actually think you're going win that fight do you? And when you do, can YOU be trusted with the power? Can your successors?
Isn't it better to fear the people who'll put you in jail or kill you (the government) instead of the people who put grandmas on the internet (AOL)?
Freedom, not power.
(BTW: This is not a defense of any particular corporation. I just don't agree with calls to hate large segments of the population. Among other things, it's illogical.)
Almost everything bad is avoidable. It's just not worth the effort.
Sports injuries are avoidable by not playing.
Work injuries are avoidable by not working.
Electrocutions are avoidable by not having electricity.
Auto injuries are avoidable by staying home.
Bad things are a part of life. Life involves doing things. Doing things sometimes causes in bad results. Corporations do things. Sometimes there are bad results.
Yeah. That's where money comes from. It's donated.
Er, if you produce something of value, you don't have to go around begging for donations all the time.
Yes. The risks from both of these are horribly exaggerated. Look it up. Compare deaths and injuries to sports, bad weather, medical mistakes, etc.
Bad things happen. Bad things happen when corporations are involved too.
47% of people know that
There's a huge industry involved in bashing corporations. It works. Now almost everyone hates corporations. This is a surprise?
Now what's phase 2? Communism? Looting the corporations with lawsuits? Starting a "new" type of corporation where (coincedentally) YOU are in charge?
Please help me to understand the HATE of corporations. They're just groups of people trying to make a living by selling you things you need or want. Please tell me how corporations exercise power over you without government help.
Netscape actually planned to make money from the browser sales.
Why do you think "free IE" was such a problem for them? Why do you think they had to sell out to AOL?
Why do you fear "problems"? What makes you think that the vendors will solve them for you? (What ever makes anyone think that?)
Stop worrying about blame, think, and solve all the "problems" as they come. Pick the best technologies with the best track records to keep the problems to a minimum. Sun, Oracle, Bea Systems or I-Planet.
Be a computer engineer, not a blame engineer. Succeed or fail and take your due of the credit and the blame.
Deal with like people and do not fear anymore.
NASA will have more money to do more missions, and it doesn't have to be taken out of people's paychecks.
Who could be against that?
I know. A bunch of Slashdotters who are full of hate for someone. Corporations (groups of people trying to make a good living by offering their customers desirable products and services) or Disney (a particular corporation) are the ones we hate today.
So fewer space missions or higher taxes then. Isn't that great..
I can be one of the most paranoid people you'd ever meet, but this doesn't bother me.
I watch the Simpsons. I bought the Replay TV to record the Simpsons. I don't care who knows it.
My replay box is really cool BTW. No regrets on the purchase.
Extended analogies usually add confusion to a topic rather than clearing it up. This article illustrates that principle rather well.
Heh. Isn't that an oxymoron anyway? Like lazy tycoons or open-minded activists.
What's wrong with rich white men? Which part offends you? The rich part or the white part?
If you fail to vote, are you exiled to London?
These questions are extremely naive. Why are they on slashdot? Ask them again in 1000 years or so, and then Internet voting might make sense.
Here's the answer though: The reason things aren't going to change is because they're fine the way they are. Maybe they're not great, but they're good enough.
So just drive down to your polling place twice a year. Ok? And vote fot a smaller government with fewer powers so someday it really won't matter who gets elected.
Same arguments apply the same way.
Since the Internet is a no-boundaries system, you'd be dumb to locate in a regulated area when you can offer the identical service in a less-regulated (read lower-cost) area.
(Of course, the regulators would respond that they'll just force people to locate in Texas to do business with Texans. Then you could arrest Texans who illicitly use out-of-state services. Tell me when this starts sounding like a good idea. )