The rates for standard taxis are strictly regulated and controlled. Uber rates vary when Uber thinks they should (e.g. surge pricing during tube strikes).
If you like the pricing and quality of regular Taxi service, great, just use it! How do your preferences justify outlawing the kind of transportation service I prefer?
Err, why do you think that Uber is superior? Surge pricing during a Tube strike is a real bitch, as is the difficulty in arranging for a guaranteed 5am pick-up for the airport arranged the night before.
Well, if surge pricing and guaranteed 5am pickups are "a bitch", then why don't you use regular Taxi service? Nobody is forcing you to use Uber.
Yes, all that bloated crap is a nuisance, but most of it can be disabled. There are also other manufacturers besides Samsung, most of whom customize much less than Samsung. Chinese manufacturers usually ship something close to Google's default Android.
Why not just get one of the Samsung 7" or 8" devices? I mean, Google isn't Apple: Google doesn't have to make everybody happy. Nexus devices are more a showcase of new technologies than anything else.
I think it would be much better if Google actually simply brought full Chrome to Android. There is no reason why Android Chrome remains a stripped down version.
Wireless charging means a phone like the Galaxy S6 can remain completely sealed against dust and water at all times. It also means less risk of damage from strain on the connector.
Biohacking is not a problem for now: there are large practical hurdles, as the article points out. People may argue (correctly) that these will eventually be overcome, so we don't know what may have to be done eventually. But the political question is whether anything needs to be done domestically right now, and the answer is no. That will likely remain the case for another decade or two.
The biggest bioweapons threat likely comes from well-financed terrorist organizations and religious cults. They do have the resources to get all the equipment, can mobilize dozens of trained professionals to work on a problem, and often operate in places where there is little government oversight to begin with. But that's already the CIA's responsibility, and it has a lot of leeway in dealing with such threats.
Colonization is certainly a desirable long term goal. But for the next few decades, robotic exploration gives us the best bang for the buck by far. It will also make manned space travel much more easier.
Furthermore, you won't get a colonization program going unless there are economic incentives for people to go there, and once those exist, the private sector will take over anyway.
That's the least concern, because zinc oxide occurs naturally. The bigger concern is how they actually will affect you. They think that by making smaller particles they're going to reduce absorption?
ZnO doesn't pass through the skin at all, even as nanoparticles.
But, yes, smaller particles often "get stuck" more easily passing through something porous than larger particles due to their larger surface area.
Based on the current weight of evidence of all available data, the risk for humans from the use of nano-structured titanium dioxide (TiO(2)) or zinc oxide (ZnO) currently used in cosmetic preparations or sunscreens is considered negligible. [...] Multiple studies have shown that under exaggerated test conditions neither nano-structured TiO(2) nor ZnO penetrates beyond the stratum corneum of skin.
It's all basically government money raised from borrowing and/or taxes.
No, it's not "government money", it is money that you and I and everybody else pays.
In any case, PopeRatzo's version of history is that our benevolent legislators made tough tradeoffs and prioritized between different long-term "investments", namely putting the "interstate highway system" and "Social Security and Medicare" ahead of the moon missions.
That reading of history is bullshit. There were no real tradeoffs involved (Social Security, for example, cost next to nothing when it was passed), and those decisions were largely made as handouts to special interest groups and the military. Among them, the Interstate Highway System was the most useful, but Eisenhower was motivated in large part by the German Reichsautobahn and its military applications.
Rational? I don't know about that. But I do know it's the public sector's job to do the things that the private sector is unable to do. Things that don't show immediate profit.
The private sector isn't "unable" to do them, it is unwilling to do them because it isn't rational to do them.
If you doubt that there was profit from the Apollo program, I suggest looking at the device on which you are reading this.
There was lots of "profit" from the Apollo program: all the military contractors that got government handouts as part of it made tons of money.
What you seem to be arguing is that there was also an overall benefit to society (although computers and the Internet are altogether the wrong example for that). You're right: there was indeed a social benefit from the Apollo program; unfortunately, it was a lot less than the opportunity cost.
The problem with government programs is not that they have no benefit, it's that their benefit is almost always less than the opportunity cost. But since the people who want those programs to happen have big lobbies and the opportunity costs are more difficult to understand (viz your failure to comprehend), we keep ending up with more and more government programs.
"Rational policies"? I'm going to have to ask for a citation there. Anything in the past decade will do.
I'm sorry you misunderstood. I'm not interested in debating with you the degree of rationality of the private sector in general, the "rational policies" we are talking about here are the pursuit of manned space flight.
So, my citation is you. You stated that manned space flight is irrational; the public sector pursued manned space flight, the private sector chose not to. Which of the two actors acted more rationally when it comes to manned space flight?
We didn't do the moon missions until after the interstate highway system was built and we had Social Security and Medicare. We have to prioritize better
Social Security and Medicare are financed separately from discretionary spending. They are also heading for bankruptcy.
Furthermore, the "interstate highway system" is never actually "built"; it is something that requires constant upkeep and continuing spending. But Congress chooses to neglect that and instead hands the money to politically connected businesses, the military, public sector unions, and powerful voting blocks.
I am against a manned mission to Mars. I'd rather see the money spent on something that will do some good, like infrastructure investment.
So why do you make fun of the private sector when the private sector pursues rational policies, while the public sector engages in massive corruption and crony capitalism?
Maybe we should wait until the "private sector" can manage to do what the US government did over half a century ago...put a human into orbit.
The private sector isn't putting people in orbit, on the moon, or on Mars, because it's a colossal waste of money. And it was a colossal waste of money half a century ago as well.
How is it gonna make it anywhere near Mars?
Hopefully it isn't, because there is nothing of value on Mars, and there is no value in settling Mars at this point.
The "private sector" can't find it's ass with both hands, tax breaks and a Federal Reserve subsidy in the form of 0% interest rates
Oh, "the private sector" is excellent at identifying risk-free boondoggles, crony capitalism, and government handouts, which is exactly what a manned NASA mission to Mars would be... and what you advocate.
think you greatly underestimate the public's appetite for risk. We've been willing to watch our sons and daughters die by the thousands to take villages and hilltops only to give them back a week, a month or a year later with zero long-term achievement and right now politicians running for President are advocating to ramp that up.
"The public" has had no appetite to go to war; when people support war, it is because politicians tell them that it is necessary for their own safety, and because it's mostly not their own kids that are dying. That reasoning doesn't apply to Mars. And it wouldn't apply to wars either if the sons and daughters of the politically powerful middle class were shipped off to die.
Exploration has always been risky.
Putting people on Mars isn't "exploration"; we can explore Mars much better with robotic probes.
Of course, politicians are misrepresenting the benefits of sending humans to Mars for the same reason they are misrepresenting the benefits of war: money and power for themselves and their cronies in industry.
But if you think you know exactly where to spend money on the next great breakthrough then go ahead.
We have a 17 year record of the ISS. $100 billion+ has not produced any breakthroughs in that program, according to the program managers and advocates themselves, who tried to make their best case in their book. Compared to the output of the NSF, which cost about the same, the ISS science output is extremely poor, by any measure of scientific output.
The point was that it is not possible to predict which science will lead to life changing discoveries
No, it is not possible to predict what programs will deliver life changing discoveries. But it is possible with a great deal of certainty to predict what programs will not deliver life changing discoveries, namely those with a lousy scientific track record and those that exist primarily as engines of crony capitalism. The ISS is one of those programs. That's why we shouldn't throw more money at it or similar programs.
Because it's a violation of trust between supposed allies.
An "alliance" just means that two nations pursue some common goal; it doesn't imply trust, friendship, or good will. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are also "allies" of the US; that doesn't mean that we trust them.
Germany has been a military ally since WWII, but it was full of Nazis and communists after WWII, which is why the US maintained an extensive spy program in Germany and throughout the German government. That was with the knowledge and support of the other victors and the German government itself. You might argue that such a program is not needed anymore today, but to argue that "allies don't spy on each other" flies in the face of German history. Besides, European spy agencies also try to spy on American government officials.
I never did business with Facebook, yet data about me is on their US servers.
Your idea that only companies that you did business with should have information about you is laughably wrong. It also doesn't even apply in Europe, where there are plenty of exceptions.
In any case, the EU may or may not be able to bully companies like Facebook into compliance because they do business in Europe. But don't kid yourself: Americans are not going to comply with European wishes or views on personally identifiable information. Even companies like Facebook may simply create a European subsidiary that is going to offer a compliant, degraded service, leaving the option for Europeans to sign up with the US service under US rules.
I suggest you start by getting off Slashdot. There are too many Europeans on Slashdot anyway.
Facebook almost certainly does some things with personal data about some EU citizens against their will. For example, by uploading the contents of users' phone books, it would be collecting personal data about everyone in those phone books, not just their owners.
If you take my private data and send it to someone else, then you are violating my privacy.
But what Facebook reportedly does with personal data about individuals who didn't opt in seems pretty far towards the shady side of legal in Europe.
It may well be against European law, but that doesn't make it shady. A lot of European law is bullshit, intended simply to further the economic interests of European corporations and to create trade barriers. In this case, Europe doesn't have a lot of competitive Internet businesses, so the losers in Europe are lobbying their governments to make life difficult for American companies. And don't kid yourself: when data is uploaded to European servers, European governments mine it up the wazoo, completely legally under European law.
I actually think EU citizens have a right to be angry that their data is being handed over to the US en masse. [...] Actually, what you're saying is false. The case stems from a complaint brought by an Austrian citizen against Facebook.
You make it sound like Facebook forces does something with EU citizen data against their will. In fact, Schrems chooses to use Facebook and enter private data, knowing that it will end up on US servers, and that's the same with all other EU citizens whose data ends up on US servers: you do business with a US company (directly or indirectly) and your data ends up in the US.
It works the same the other way around too: when I do business with European companies, my data ends up on European servers, with their shitty data protection against access by European governments. Of course, that's less of a problem because Europe has so few Internet companies worth doing business with.
I despise mass surveillance like what's going on in the US.
And how is that different from what is going on in Europe?
Like for example when Snowden revealed that the US has been spying on the German Chancellor. That's a big no-no.
Why should that be a "no-no"? Spying on foreign leaders is one of the primary jobs of spy agencies. The US has no reason to trust Merkel. Oh, Merkel probably won't attack the US militarily, but the German government has engaged in anything from weapons exports and toleration of right wing extremism to secret illegal international agreements.
The US isn't a safe place to store anyone's personal data. Never has been.
For foreigners? No, of course not. US spy agencies have always had a right to look into the data of foreigners. That's the same for all spy agencies anywhere.
The difference is that Americans used to be legally protected against that kind of spying by their own government, and the scandal in the US is that those laws were violated. Europeans have never been legally protected in the same way from their own governments at all.
The irony here sadly is that "EU" includes the UK (for the time being at least) and here the GHCQ do whatever they like. There is no meaningful oversight nor will there ever be.
There is no "irony" in this, and this isn't unique to the UK. French, German, and Swedish spy agencies have been spying on their own citizens with impunity and without meaningful oversight, and likely has much of the rest of Europe.
Europeans are being whipped into a frenzy over this by their public and corporate media for two simple reasons: (1) to distract from the massive intrusions into their own privacy by their own governments, and (2) as a barrier to US companies doing business in Europe because European media and telecom companies want that business.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, then you are free to use government-licensed drivers; there is no reason for you to keep me from riding with who I want.
Those "incompetent taxi drivers", as well as their riders, pay their taxes for the use of city streets like everybody else.
Not at all; the Dutch police, like police forces anywhere, falls somewhere on the spectrum between mafia and fascist enforcers.
If you like the pricing and quality of regular Taxi service, great, just use it! How do your preferences justify outlawing the kind of transportation service I prefer?
Well, if surge pricing and guaranteed 5am pickups are "a bitch", then why don't you use regular Taxi service? Nobody is forcing you to use Uber.
Yes, all that bloated crap is a nuisance, but most of it can be disabled. There are also other manufacturers besides Samsung, most of whom customize much less than Samsung. Chinese manufacturers usually ship something close to Google's default Android.
Why not just get one of the Samsung 7" or 8" devices? I mean, Google isn't Apple: Google doesn't have to make everybody happy. Nexus devices are more a showcase of new technologies than anything else.
I think it would be much better if Google actually simply brought full Chrome to Android. There is no reason why Android Chrome remains a stripped down version.
Wireless charging means a phone like the Galaxy S6 can remain completely sealed against dust and water at all times. It also means less risk of damage from strain on the connector.
Biohacking is not a problem for now: there are large practical hurdles, as the article points out. People may argue (correctly) that these will eventually be overcome, so we don't know what may have to be done eventually. But the political question is whether anything needs to be done domestically right now, and the answer is no. That will likely remain the case for another decade or two.
The biggest bioweapons threat likely comes from well-financed terrorist organizations and religious cults. They do have the resources to get all the equipment, can mobilize dozens of trained professionals to work on a problem, and often operate in places where there is little government oversight to begin with. But that's already the CIA's responsibility, and it has a lot of leeway in dealing with such threats.
Colonization is certainly a desirable long term goal. But for the next few decades, robotic exploration gives us the best bang for the buck by far. It will also make manned space travel much more easier.
Furthermore, you won't get a colonization program going unless there are economic incentives for people to go there, and once those exist, the private sector will take over anyway.
Unless you run around with a burqa all day, you'll need sunscreen for your face and hands.
ZnO doesn't pass through the skin at all, even as nanoparticles.
But, yes, smaller particles often "get stuck" more easily passing through something porous than larger particles due to their larger surface area.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
No, it's not "government money", it is money that you and I and everybody else pays.
In any case, PopeRatzo's version of history is that our benevolent legislators made tough tradeoffs and prioritized between different long-term "investments", namely putting the "interstate highway system" and "Social Security and Medicare" ahead of the moon missions.
That reading of history is bullshit. There were no real tradeoffs involved (Social Security, for example, cost next to nothing when it was passed), and those decisions were largely made as handouts to special interest groups and the military. Among them, the Interstate Highway System was the most useful, but Eisenhower was motivated in large part by the German Reichsautobahn and its military applications.
The private sector isn't "unable" to do them, it is unwilling to do them because it isn't rational to do them.
There was lots of "profit" from the Apollo program: all the military contractors that got government handouts as part of it made tons of money.
What you seem to be arguing is that there was also an overall benefit to society (although computers and the Internet are altogether the wrong example for that). You're right: there was indeed a social benefit from the Apollo program; unfortunately, it was a lot less than the opportunity cost.
The problem with government programs is not that they have no benefit, it's that their benefit is almost always less than the opportunity cost. But since the people who want those programs to happen have big lobbies and the opportunity costs are more difficult to understand (viz your failure to comprehend), we keep ending up with more and more government programs.
I'm sorry you misunderstood. I'm not interested in debating with you the degree of rationality of the private sector in general, the "rational policies" we are talking about here are the pursuit of manned space flight.
So, my citation is you. You stated that manned space flight is irrational; the public sector pursued manned space flight, the private sector chose not to. Which of the two actors acted more rationally when it comes to manned space flight?
Social Security and Medicare are financed separately from discretionary spending. They are also heading for bankruptcy.
Furthermore, the "interstate highway system" is never actually "built"; it is something that requires constant upkeep and continuing spending. But Congress chooses to neglect that and instead hands the money to politically connected businesses, the military, public sector unions, and powerful voting blocks.
So why do you make fun of the private sector when the private sector pursues rational policies, while the public sector engages in massive corruption and crony capitalism?
The private sector isn't putting people in orbit, on the moon, or on Mars, because it's a colossal waste of money. And it was a colossal waste of money half a century ago as well.
Hopefully it isn't, because there is nothing of value on Mars, and there is no value in settling Mars at this point.
Oh, "the private sector" is excellent at identifying risk-free boondoggles, crony capitalism, and government handouts, which is exactly what a manned NASA mission to Mars would be... and what you advocate.
"The public" has had no appetite to go to war; when people support war, it is because politicians tell them that it is necessary for their own safety, and because it's mostly not their own kids that are dying. That reasoning doesn't apply to Mars. And it wouldn't apply to wars either if the sons and daughters of the politically powerful middle class were shipped off to die.
Putting people on Mars isn't "exploration"; we can explore Mars much better with robotic probes.
Of course, politicians are misrepresenting the benefits of sending humans to Mars for the same reason they are misrepresenting the benefits of war: money and power for themselves and their cronies in industry.
We have a 17 year record of the ISS. $100 billion+ has not produced any breakthroughs in that program, according to the program managers and advocates themselves, who tried to make their best case in their book. Compared to the output of the NSF, which cost about the same, the ISS science output is extremely poor, by any measure of scientific output.
No, it is not possible to predict what programs will deliver life changing discoveries. But it is possible with a great deal of certainty to predict what programs will not deliver life changing discoveries, namely those with a lousy scientific track record and those that exist primarily as engines of crony capitalism. The ISS is one of those programs. That's why we shouldn't throw more money at it or similar programs.
An "alliance" just means that two nations pursue some common goal; it doesn't imply trust, friendship, or good will. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are also "allies" of the US; that doesn't mean that we trust them.
Germany has been a military ally since WWII, but it was full of Nazis and communists after WWII, which is why the US maintained an extensive spy program in Germany and throughout the German government. That was with the knowledge and support of the other victors and the German government itself. You might argue that such a program is not needed anymore today, but to argue that "allies don't spy on each other" flies in the face of German history. Besides, European spy agencies also try to spy on American government officials.
Your idea that only companies that you did business with should have information about you is laughably wrong. It also doesn't even apply in Europe, where there are plenty of exceptions.
In any case, the EU may or may not be able to bully companies like Facebook into compliance because they do business in Europe. But don't kid yourself: Americans are not going to comply with European wishes or views on personally identifiable information. Even companies like Facebook may simply create a European subsidiary that is going to offer a compliant, degraded service, leaving the option for Europeans to sign up with the US service under US rules.
I suggest you start by getting off Slashdot. There are too many Europeans on Slashdot anyway.
If you take my private data and send it to someone else, then you are violating my privacy.
It may well be against European law, but that doesn't make it shady. A lot of European law is bullshit, intended simply to further the economic interests of European corporations and to create trade barriers. In this case, Europe doesn't have a lot of competitive Internet businesses, so the losers in Europe are lobbying their governments to make life difficult for American companies. And don't kid yourself: when data is uploaded to European servers, European governments mine it up the wazoo, completely legally under European law.
You make it sound like Facebook forces does something with EU citizen data against their will. In fact, Schrems chooses to use Facebook and enter private data, knowing that it will end up on US servers, and that's the same with all other EU citizens whose data ends up on US servers: you do business with a US company (directly or indirectly) and your data ends up in the US.
It works the same the other way around too: when I do business with European companies, my data ends up on European servers, with their shitty data protection against access by European governments. Of course, that's less of a problem because Europe has so few Internet companies worth doing business with.
And how is that different from what is going on in Europe?
Why should that be a "no-no"? Spying on foreign leaders is one of the primary jobs of spy agencies. The US has no reason to trust Merkel. Oh, Merkel probably won't attack the US militarily, but the German government has engaged in anything from weapons exports and toleration of right wing extremism to secret illegal international agreements.
For foreigners? No, of course not. US spy agencies have always had a right to look into the data of foreigners. That's the same for all spy agencies anywhere.
The difference is that Americans used to be legally protected against that kind of spying by their own government, and the scandal in the US is that those laws were violated. Europeans have never been legally protected in the same way from their own governments at all.
There is no "irony" in this, and this isn't unique to the UK. French, German, and Swedish spy agencies have been spying on their own citizens with impunity and without meaningful oversight, and likely has much of the rest of Europe.
Europeans are being whipped into a frenzy over this by their public and corporate media for two simple reasons: (1) to distract from the massive intrusions into their own privacy by their own governments, and (2) as a barrier to US companies doing business in Europe because European media and telecom companies want that business.