As far as the google link spaghetti goes, this is honestly part of why I choose bing. I can search for something and bookmark the actual URL from the search heading to look at later if its something I don't feel like opening at that time.
Personally, I think this "feature" is pretty much crap. How reliable is this going to be? Is google going to guarantee that whatever it trims from a URL is going to keep the link functional? I don't use Chrome with exception to testing web code. Decisions like this will certainly keep me away from a good number of their products.
dumping agricultural waste into the sewer rather than recycling it into the soil.
I didn't see where it said what type of farming they were intending to do but there are very successful aquaponic systems that recycle nearly everything and don't even use soil. Also, you mitigate the need for pesticides, which greatly benefits the bee population, and heavy fertilizers which runoff into the watershed and enormously pollute downstream systems. I encourage you to read about how far from the Mississippi delta, fishermen have to travel to continue their operations (hint: a long damn way).
you could have avoided 65 round-trip commutes from the suburbs
So you're going to ignore the concept that this system is intended to be localized in grocery stores? Last I checked, suburbs, while vacant of most businesses, do often have nearby banks, convenience stores and grocery stores. Maybe I travel to different cities than you. Nonetheless, even if there were "65 round trip commutes", a good portion of your produce travels all the way from places like Florida, California, and even South America, which are far from large swathes of the country. These people are going to the grocery store already, so there is a net-zero impact on fuel consumption for consumers and a negative fuel impact for delivery of produce.
And, while not vertical farms, this concept is already tried and true for large parts of Europe, which gets a lot of their produce from an enormous group of greenhouses in Spain, rather than the typical farm. Locating these closer to their distribution points, makes a lot of sense if the technology allows.
Walmart has these too and unless the self-checkout is nearly empty, its almost always faster going to a checker. People fuck up self-checkout all the time, scan slowly, read prompts slowly, its an all around disaster for efficiency most of the time. Now take a restaurant and reduce its entire front-line to the same self-checkout where people arrive at the counter, often not even knowing what the fuck they want... Yeah, its gonna be great.
but if you added even a tiny service fee for a human to do it, I think you'd see 95% self-service orders.
And you'd likely see a similar uptick in the length of time it takes to place an order. If Walmart is any indication for how well most people are accustomed to self-checkout, get ready for much longer lines while people constantly fuck up their own orders.
It is interesting to think about the parallel histories of playing games on consoles and personal computers. There have been multiple times where console games have been able to outpace desktop graphics on a dollar for dollar comparison, and they just made sense to purchase if you wanted to best visual experience. However at this point, GPU and CPU cycles are so cheap these days for desktop machines, especially if you include the used market, that there almost isn't even room for games consoles to exist anymore. Its only going to be companies that will take huge risks in trying to be innovative like Nintendo, that will survive in the coming game market. I think I scoffed at the Switch when I first saw what Nintendo was bringing to market. I was sure that this wouldn't be their WiiU replacement but honestly, they see the tides ahead and are making proper adjustments to sty relevant.
The only question that will remain in the post-console market is, where are they going to port games from?/s
University courses in my experience, do not function to properly to impart knowledge upon the students taking the course. They are mostly teach for the test type classes where your goal isn't to learn and fluently understand the material in a dynamic way, its to understand how to pass a roadblock test with the ultimate goal of receiving an expensive piece of paper that allows you to show that you'll be a terrific whipping-boy type employee.
If someone wanted to start their own business, you are much better off saving your money by going to your local library and using the internet to learn and understand the information that is important to your field. You are much more likely to get a solid understanding of the information when using it to design a model for your business.
Employing people with strong critical thinking skills can be a hazard to certain fields. Better to just employ drones that show up regularly to collect their paycheck and shut the hell up.
Honestly I've been mostly disappointed in the quality of large flat panel displays. Large LCDs are great because because they are thin but CRTs have a certain quality to them that is unparalleled in any other display tech right now. CRTs are both soft and sharp at the same time because the phosphor element density on a CRT screen can be insanely dense and independent of the input or output resolution for the display. Now, when considering the electronics in aging CRTs, especially cheap television varieties, yeah, just like any other cheap crap, they look like cheap crap. But the higher end CRT units found in computer monitors, are still mostly unsurpassed in numerous aspects of image quality and it makes me a bit sad that the technology was pretty much entirely abandoned. Basically like going from well cut vinyl records to often poorly processed cassette tapes, maybe more convenient but generally inferior.
If you weren't aware, the American Red Cross, who runs the most visible blood donation operation in the US, does not turn around and donate it to hospitals. They sell it at a pretty high cost at around $150 per pint.
On its tax form, OBI describes one of its key programs as managing the blood donations from more than 209,000 people each year. The blood is tested and processed by OBI, then distributed “to patients across the states we serve,” a task that cost $65 million but generated $75 million in the 2012 tax year.
They actually can compel you to reveal the location of the murder weapon used, but first they have to give you immunity to any repercussions that may result in you revealing the location of the murder weapon. Now, this doesn't require that the defendent recall or even have any recent knowledge of where the weapon is. This sort of tactic is used against people facing accessory to a crime to catch the bigger fish in the case, supposing there is one.
You may have read the agreement, but you apparently don't understand it. You think each country was supposed to pony up $100B a year for this? Lets just skim the top countries and say there are 20 "developed" nations. You think we are a few years away from dumping $2TRILLION into green tech with public funds? No...
Thats $100B a year collectively among the signed members and it doesn't even have to entirely come from tax revenue! The goal is to get private and public interests aligned by providing hard money and in-kind contributions to that goal.
There is nearly 200 countries signed to this agreement but if we just take the top 20 countries that emit >1% of the greenhouse gases globally, that's $5B per country. If we were to suggest each country contribute a nearly equal amount, that's about $500M. Obviously thats not going to be possible for the smallest and most struggling of countries, but it can clearly be seen that its not nearly as striking as you are suggesting it to be.
You also conveniently neglected to acknowledge that even though the agreement mentions $100B, its strictly mentioned as a goal and not an absolute requirement. In fact, the lack of any enforcement was one of the most controversial aspects to the agreement to begin with.
The is absolutely laughable!
She ran a money laundering operation to drive funds into her campaign while starving the the state-run Democratic parties. Millions of dollars went into the coffers of the DNC office and Hillary Clinton's victory fund and she has the gall to say it was "bankrupted"?
The DNC was an entity wholly within the umbrella of the Clinton machine for the 2016 election. To say it was bankrupted suggests her own inability to manage her operation. Its as if Hillary Clinton and the DNC spent millions on research to find out why people hate the smell of turds and millions more on trying to find a way for people to enjoy the smell of turds, and left with the conclusion it must just be everyone else's problem for why they don't enjoy the smell of turds. And to top it off, then she whines about being short on money. If every room you walk into smells like shit, check your pants.
Yeah, lets take someone with an unknown allergic reaction to hallucinogenic mushrooms to "some place safe" instead of the ER. I seriously doubt that 0.2% of folks were going to the ER because they were having a bad trip.
I've never even heard of this site and I have been looking for a reddit alternative that isn't Voat. I've been around/. for a long-long-long time and nothing will likely ever replace its format adequately and I'm fine with that. Reddit has a much broader scope in usage and I really liked that about the site from the mid 2000s to about 2012. But its appeal to that broader scope is what truly made the site absolute trash. It wasn't even necessarily the mass-appeal that reddit finally achieved. It was the realization from marketing companies that it had reached a mass-appeal and started using the site as a new marketing platform for everything from hawking new movies and products to attempting to sway public opinion on certain topics with paid political astroturfers.
I used to spend entire days on reddit reading often insightful comments and learning things from people who do things you aren't always exposed to. It was a wonderful platform for that. Once they sold out, I can't even stand to be on the site more than an hour before I'm offensively bored.
As for imzy, the front page isn't very welcoming. If I didn't know what I had just stumbled onto, I might just move on to another website. Seriously guys, I can't even tell what the hell the site is supposed to be from the front page. Theres a scrolling ticker that keep iterating new items that appeal to the concept of "community". What if I don't want to belong to a "community" and just want to read shit other people post? Too bad I guess. Forcing people to sign up to view the content is a pretty antiquated style for a forum that is supposed to sponsor discussion. Also, that video doesn't even need to exist. It says nothing about what the site is about. Hell, I might be more inclined to think I'm watching some trailer for a terribly disjointed game or something. Its no shock these folks are closing shop. They decided "community" meant walled off from the trolls and forgot that they still needed to exist outside of that wall if they wanted to grow.
If you want to beat reddit, make a website that looks exactly like reddit and use a scoring and modding system like slashdot. Then, don't sell out like a bitch.
They get around this by not really needing a warrant (technically). A lot of the internet traffic goes through computers they control, meaning its technically a publicly owned intersection. They're argument in this will be that they aren't performing anything beyond what a beat cop does on a walk-through patrol of a neighborhood in observing the ongoings in the public space.
Does that mean this shit is ok? Hell no. However, it isn't as cut and dry as people want it to be.
The main issue isn't the lack of a warrant, its the lack of observed privacy. Where do you define your private space to be in the digital domain? Your own personal computer files stored locally, sure. But once you get onto the internet, now you are utilizing a lot of publicly funded infrastructure. How do we clearly define this differently than if we are traveling in a car on a public road, visible to all? Your car is maintained as a semi-private space. However, the privacy ends if something illegal is observable through a window. One could argue that unencrypted packets running on a public network through a packet sniffer operated by a policing agency isn't a whole lot different.
The only way to truly mitigate this sort of issue is to have privacy clearly spelled out in our constitution. And good luck with that too. I can definitely see politically motivated millenials getting this sort of thing into place. However, the current high school seniors do not even know a world where privacy is valued. So if its going to happen, it'll need to happen in the next 15 years.
I like where you are headed with that idea. Put in a more succinct way, companies that choose to "go public" should be required to operate in the best interest of the public rather than investors.
Investors should be investing in companies where they feel comfortable putting their money at risk. Requiring companies to operate in a way to mitigate that risk or to operate in a way that intends to apply the maximum benefit to these investors has always seemed silly to me. Companies should be operating in a way to apply the maximum benefit to their long term business plan and investors should be investing in that business plan, rather than as a blind siphon with their interest in the company extending only as far as their bank account.
It's not necessarily about electing the "right" president. It's about Trump paying favors to lobbyists who have a strong interest in creating larger barriers to people obtaining renewable energy and other "green" technologies.
These assholes absolutely know fossil fuels have a guaranteed end of life where prices are going to inflate massively at some point when they start to become much more scarce. This results in massive profits to these people and their shareholders as they hold the fossil fuel dependent countries hostage.
Make no mistake, the "free market" hasn't existed for much more than a century and never will again. Its all about the big companies stamping out innovation that threatens their bottom line. Unless their business is specifically to "help the world", their bottom line will never be parallel to what is best for society.
What I want to know is what happens when someone gets into this high speed tunnel, rolls their window down, and jumps out?
What about people throwing their trash out of their window?
What about pickup trucks, do those fit in this sled? What about the stupid fuckers that have shit in their bed that flies out at speed, potentially impacting the vehicle in the sled behind?
The only way I see this working is if a car that has wirelessly controllable features where they can lock your windows and only allow approved vehicles to travel. Even after all of those potential conflict points, you still have the inevitable problem of traffic at the end of this tunnel. Did anything think about how that was supposed to be handled?
What a joke of a comment. Why wasn't this labeled funny? We are already beholden to our government, at least we're supposed to be. Beholden is the same as suggesting you owe a duty to something. We all owe a duty to uphold the ideas on which our country and government were intended to be.
What is this fear mongering about anyway? What is it that you think your boogeyman government intends to do once you are beholden to it? Whats your alternative plan to this anyway?
I also want to leave you with the fact that you are already beholden to private interests that you have absolutely no control over. A company can and will fire you for any reason should they find a need for that to happen. You are beholden to them to show up, do your work and be as productive as possible or they will mess with your life. UBI takes that away and give you a lot more power because now you have some control over it.
Work you are forced to do but don't receive a direct income from, is called slavery. That's a stupid idea to push. The small percentage of the population that will happily sit idly, wasting away in their homes while receiving this credit, are the same people that make any work place a misery. Why should we care if that is what these people plan to do? They will make enough to pay for rent and utilize a small dwelling, enough to feed themselves, enough to buy a few clothes throughout the year and maybe just enough to enjoy a a couple low cost entertainment options a few times in the year. If they want to pay for more things, they'll likely try to get a job in the new labor driven market where people work just a few hours per day for this extra income. Others will be happy to work, will be more efficient, productive, knowledgeable and skilled and will receive a much larger compensation for it on top of their UBI.
If anything, UBI really encourages the age-old American Dream to flourish in its fullest form.
The problem will be when able bodied people decide to live only on UBI and nothing else. That's detrimental to society and a mechanism should be put in place to prevent that.
Why? These are the same people that make any place they work a misery. If they would be willing to take that option, they already do not want to work. Also please take in to consideration that most people living on financial assistance money, aren't living large by any means. They get enough to pay for the basic necessities and maybe just slightly more for some entertainment if they spend wisely.
With UBI, many people fail to understand that its a universal pool of money that nearly everyone typically gets, not at all unlike the Child Tax Credit. Unless you make an exorbitant amount of money, you will probably qualify to get UBI. If you have a job, you get to earn money on top of that. UBI is just there to ensure you have the money to cover your basic needs. This gives tremendous power to the labor pool as they can leave whenever they dislike a job and still be able to keep a roof over their head and their stomachs full without resorting to more nefarious activities to do so. Crime will likely go down and we can save a lot of money on the bloated police budgets since robberies from desperation almost entirely disappear.
Now, back to your complaint that able bodied people will possibly stay at home. Are you forgetting why this topic has gained significant relevance lately? Its because of labor automation and the expected large disappearance of available jobs in a growing number of markets. There simply won't be jobs for many of these people to take. That doesn't mean that they will sit idly, wasting away in their home. I highly expect that this will encourage more people to become inventors, innovators and artists. Given enough intelligent people with free time, a whole lot of good could come from it. Don't blind yourself with a problem that already exists as an insignificant factor.
Yeah, for the folks saying this was ultimately a good thing, have no clear vision of what occurred in this scenario. Our government, regardless of intent, was distributing material we as a society, have decided is outside the bounds of acceptability and legality. This is no different than our government performing any other illegal actions.
The ends do not ever justify the means when we discuss our law enforcement agencies performing illegal acts. We as a society, should expect our law enforcement agencies to never have to stoop to breaking the law they swear to uphold, to capture assailants, regardless of what they have been accused of doing. The slippery slope of this has already been mentioned several times but we have already slipped off that cliff. Just look at how often local police have murdered people only to get away with a lesser charge than a "commoner" or "citizen" at the worst end and more typically paid leave with no action.
Its also worth scrutinizing their software. I can believe that the software worked as intended but what if it didn't? Are we sure they didn't have a list of people they wanted to arrest already and just claimed their software worked? Scrutiny unfortunately disappears when people stand accused of child pornography. This being a tech site, I'm a little shocked people are focused a little more on that aspect.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
-Martin Niemöller
You can either stand to defend even the worst offenders in society until proven guilty, or you can wait until your own guilt is manufactured.
The point is, if you're a good parent, and have taught your kids well, you shouldn't have to listen to their conversations of surveil them. This poll is a reflection at how weak parents have become. Parents didn't used to have any of these tools and yet society has brought us to this point. Pretty damn sad really.
I'd bet most of the parents for millenials and older weren't so damn intrusive on the lives of their children. Hell, when I was a kid, most parents seemed to want you to come back or check in maybe every 4 hours at best. And now, parents want their kids in the home and heavily monitored with what they are doing. What gives?
If you're a quality parent, then you should be able to trust your kid until they give a significant reason not to trust you. Monitoring them only encourages learning better sleuthing to get around it. Teach your damn kids what you expect of them up front, enforce it and them trust them to stick to it until they don't. Not being able to trust your kid to do anything without being able to surveil their every move, is a pretty strong reflection on how weak your parenting skills really are.
And just like oil, we need to put a stop in its use. Just like its unethical and illegal to have people unknowingly join as part of an experiment, it should be recognized as unethical and illegal to have people unknowingly offering up the entire contents of their lives, especially when they essentially get absolutely nothing in return.
Sure, you could argue that a site like WasteBook offers a valuable service to people who pay nothing to use it. However, the core function of the site, is to connect people who want to post messages and pictures. Guess what, people have been doing that for several generations now from BBSes to modern forums. Sure, they cost money to run and sometimes they aren't free to use. A forum the size of FB would certainly cost a fair bit more than the typical forum as well. But it absolutely wouldn't be prohibitively expensive by using their current market, ad space that prohibits annoying and intrusive ads and other techniques that most certainly don't require FB to actively know anything about you. Site bloat is what makes FB truly expensive, as does their data analyzing and mining systems.
The sites that bitch the most about having to use these methods to stay open, are also the largest sites on the web, who have killed or bought the competition to be in the position they're currently in. Maybe they should go fuck themselves so we can get some newer sites to take the place of these no-longer-affordable conglomerates.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as the google link spaghetti goes, this is honestly part of why I choose bing. I can search for something and bookmark the actual URL from the search heading to look at later if its something I don't feel like opening at that time. Personally, I think this "feature" is pretty much crap. How reliable is this going to be? Is google going to guarantee that whatever it trims from a URL is going to keep the link functional? I don't use Chrome with exception to testing web code. Decisions like this will certainly keep me away from a good number of their products.
dumping agricultural waste into the sewer rather than recycling it into the soil.
I didn't see where it said what type of farming they were intending to do but there are very successful aquaponic systems that recycle nearly everything and don't even use soil. Also, you mitigate the need for pesticides, which greatly benefits the bee population, and heavy fertilizers which runoff into the watershed and enormously pollute downstream systems. I encourage you to read about how far from the Mississippi delta, fishermen have to travel to continue their operations (hint: a long damn way).
you could have avoided 65 round-trip commutes from the suburbs
So you're going to ignore the concept that this system is intended to be localized in grocery stores? Last I checked, suburbs, while vacant of most businesses, do often have nearby banks, convenience stores and grocery stores. Maybe I travel to different cities than you. Nonetheless, even if there were "65 round trip commutes", a good portion of your produce travels all the way from places like Florida, California, and even South America, which are far from large swathes of the country. These people are going to the grocery store already, so there is a net-zero impact on fuel consumption for consumers and a negative fuel impact for delivery of produce.
And, while not vertical farms, this concept is already tried and true for large parts of Europe, which gets a lot of their produce from an enormous group of greenhouses in Spain, rather than the typical farm. Locating these closer to their distribution points, makes a lot of sense if the technology allows.
http://www.amusingplanet.com/2...
Walmart has these too and unless the self-checkout is nearly empty, its almost always faster going to a checker. People fuck up self-checkout all the time, scan slowly, read prompts slowly, its an all around disaster for efficiency most of the time. Now take a restaurant and reduce its entire front-line to the same self-checkout where people arrive at the counter, often not even knowing what the fuck they want... Yeah, its gonna be great.
but if you added even a tiny service fee for a human to do it, I think you'd see 95% self-service orders.
And you'd likely see a similar uptick in the length of time it takes to place an order. If Walmart is any indication for how well most people are accustomed to self-checkout, get ready for much longer lines while people constantly fuck up their own orders.
It is interesting to think about the parallel histories of playing games on consoles and personal computers. There have been multiple times where console games have been able to outpace desktop graphics on a dollar for dollar comparison, and they just made sense to purchase if you wanted to best visual experience. However at this point, GPU and CPU cycles are so cheap these days for desktop machines, especially if you include the used market, that there almost isn't even room for games consoles to exist anymore. Its only going to be companies that will take huge risks in trying to be innovative like Nintendo, that will survive in the coming game market. I think I scoffed at the Switch when I first saw what Nintendo was bringing to market. I was sure that this wouldn't be their WiiU replacement but honestly, they see the tides ahead and are making proper adjustments to sty relevant.
/s
The only question that will remain in the post-console market is, where are they going to port games from?
University courses in my experience, do not function to properly to impart knowledge upon the students taking the course. They are mostly teach for the test type classes where your goal isn't to learn and fluently understand the material in a dynamic way, its to understand how to pass a roadblock test with the ultimate goal of receiving an expensive piece of paper that allows you to show that you'll be a terrific whipping-boy type employee.
If someone wanted to start their own business, you are much better off saving your money by going to your local library and using the internet to learn and understand the information that is important to your field. You are much more likely to get a solid understanding of the information when using it to design a model for your business.
Employing people with strong critical thinking skills can be a hazard to certain fields. Better to just employ drones that show up regularly to collect their paycheck and shut the hell up.
Honestly I've been mostly disappointed in the quality of large flat panel displays. Large LCDs are great because because they are thin but CRTs have a certain quality to them that is unparalleled in any other display tech right now. CRTs are both soft and sharp at the same time because the phosphor element density on a CRT screen can be insanely dense and independent of the input or output resolution for the display. Now, when considering the electronics in aging CRTs, especially cheap television varieties, yeah, just like any other cheap crap, they look like cheap crap. But the higher end CRT units found in computer monitors, are still mostly unsurpassed in numerous aspects of image quality and it makes me a bit sad that the technology was pretty much entirely abandoned. Basically like going from well cut vinyl records to often poorly processed cassette tapes, maybe more convenient but generally inferior.
Red Cross to Charge More for Blood
Also: What many donors don't know: Their blood is sold
On its tax form, OBI describes one of its key programs as managing the blood donations from more than 209,000 people each year. The blood is tested and processed by OBI, then distributed “to patients across the states we serve,” a task that cost $65 million but generated $75 million in the 2012 tax year.
They actually can compel you to reveal the location of the murder weapon used, but first they have to give you immunity to any repercussions that may result in you revealing the location of the murder weapon. Now, this doesn't require that the defendent recall or even have any recent knowledge of where the weapon is. This sort of tactic is used against people facing accessory to a crime to catch the bigger fish in the case, supposing there is one.
Thats $100B a year collectively among the signed members and it doesn't even have to entirely come from tax revenue! The goal is to get private and public interests aligned by providing hard money and in-kind contributions to that goal.
There is nearly 200 countries signed to this agreement but if we just take the top 20 countries that emit >1% of the greenhouse gases globally, that's $5B per country. If we were to suggest each country contribute a nearly equal amount, that's about $500M. Obviously thats not going to be possible for the smallest and most struggling of countries, but it can clearly be seen that its not nearly as striking as you are suggesting it to be.
You also conveniently neglected to acknowledge that even though the agreement mentions $100B, its strictly mentioned as a goal and not an absolute requirement. In fact, the lack of any enforcement was one of the most controversial aspects to the agreement to begin with.
Have you read the agreement?
Don't be an asshat.
The is absolutely laughable! She ran a money laundering operation to drive funds into her campaign while starving the the state-run Democratic parties. Millions of dollars went into the coffers of the DNC office and Hillary Clinton's victory fund and she has the gall to say it was "bankrupted"?
DNC sought to hide details of Clinton funding deal
The DNC was an entity wholly within the umbrella of the Clinton machine for the 2016 election. To say it was bankrupted suggests her own inability to manage her operation. Its as if Hillary Clinton and the DNC spent millions on research to find out why people hate the smell of turds and millions more on trying to find a way for people to enjoy the smell of turds, and left with the conclusion it must just be everyone else's problem for why they don't enjoy the smell of turds. And to top it off, then she whines about being short on money. If every room you walk into smells like shit, check your pants.
Yeah, lets take someone with an unknown allergic reaction to hallucinogenic mushrooms to "some place safe" instead of the ER. I seriously doubt that 0.2% of folks were going to the ER because they were having a bad trip.
I've never even heard of this site and I have been looking for a reddit alternative that isn't Voat. I've been around /. for a long-long-long time and nothing will likely ever replace its format adequately and I'm fine with that. Reddit has a much broader scope in usage and I really liked that about the site from the mid 2000s to about 2012. But its appeal to that broader scope is what truly made the site absolute trash. It wasn't even necessarily the mass-appeal that reddit finally achieved. It was the realization from marketing companies that it had reached a mass-appeal and started using the site as a new marketing platform for everything from hawking new movies and products to attempting to sway public opinion on certain topics with paid political astroturfers.
I used to spend entire days on reddit reading often insightful comments and learning things from people who do things you aren't always exposed to. It was a wonderful platform for that. Once they sold out, I can't even stand to be on the site more than an hour before I'm offensively bored.
As for imzy, the front page isn't very welcoming. If I didn't know what I had just stumbled onto, I might just move on to another website. Seriously guys, I can't even tell what the hell the site is supposed to be from the front page. Theres a scrolling ticker that keep iterating new items that appeal to the concept of "community". What if I don't want to belong to a "community" and just want to read shit other people post? Too bad I guess. Forcing people to sign up to view the content is a pretty antiquated style for a forum that is supposed to sponsor discussion. Also, that video doesn't even need to exist. It says nothing about what the site is about. Hell, I might be more inclined to think I'm watching some trailer for a terribly disjointed game or something. Its no shock these folks are closing shop. They decided "community" meant walled off from the trolls and forgot that they still needed to exist outside of that wall if they wanted to grow.
If you want to beat reddit, make a website that looks exactly like reddit and use a scoring and modding system like slashdot. Then, don't sell out like a bitch.
They get around this by not really needing a warrant (technically). A lot of the internet traffic goes through computers they control, meaning its technically a publicly owned intersection. They're argument in this will be that they aren't performing anything beyond what a beat cop does on a walk-through patrol of a neighborhood in observing the ongoings in the public space.
Does that mean this shit is ok? Hell no. However, it isn't as cut and dry as people want it to be.
The main issue isn't the lack of a warrant, its the lack of observed privacy. Where do you define your private space to be in the digital domain? Your own personal computer files stored locally, sure. But once you get onto the internet, now you are utilizing a lot of publicly funded infrastructure. How do we clearly define this differently than if we are traveling in a car on a public road, visible to all? Your car is maintained as a semi-private space. However, the privacy ends if something illegal is observable through a window. One could argue that unencrypted packets running on a public network through a packet sniffer operated by a policing agency isn't a whole lot different.
The only way to truly mitigate this sort of issue is to have privacy clearly spelled out in our constitution. And good luck with that too. I can definitely see politically motivated millenials getting this sort of thing into place. However, the current high school seniors do not even know a world where privacy is valued. So if its going to happen, it'll need to happen in the next 15 years.
I like where you are headed with that idea. Put in a more succinct way, companies that choose to "go public" should be required to operate in the best interest of the public rather than investors.
Investors should be investing in companies where they feel comfortable putting their money at risk. Requiring companies to operate in a way to mitigate that risk or to operate in a way that intends to apply the maximum benefit to these investors has always seemed silly to me. Companies should be operating in a way to apply the maximum benefit to their long term business plan and investors should be investing in that business plan, rather than as a blind siphon with their interest in the company extending only as far as their bank account.
It's not necessarily about electing the "right" president. It's about Trump paying favors to lobbyists who have a strong interest in creating larger barriers to people obtaining renewable energy and other "green" technologies.
These assholes absolutely know fossil fuels have a guaranteed end of life where prices are going to inflate massively at some point when they start to become much more scarce. This results in massive profits to these people and their shareholders as they hold the fossil fuel dependent countries hostage.
Make no mistake, the "free market" hasn't existed for much more than a century and never will again. Its all about the big companies stamping out innovation that threatens their bottom line. Unless their business is specifically to "help the world", their bottom line will never be parallel to what is best for society.
What I want to know is what happens when someone gets into this high speed tunnel, rolls their window down, and jumps out?
What about people throwing their trash out of their window?
What about pickup trucks, do those fit in this sled? What about the stupid fuckers that have shit in their bed that flies out at speed, potentially impacting the vehicle in the sled behind?
The only way I see this working is if a car that has wirelessly controllable features where they can lock your windows and only allow approved vehicles to travel. Even after all of those potential conflict points, you still have the inevitable problem of traffic at the end of this tunnel. Did anything think about how that was supposed to be handled?
Voting dumb on this idea.
What a joke of a comment. Why wasn't this labeled funny? We are already beholden to our government, at least we're supposed to be. Beholden is the same as suggesting you owe a duty to something. We all owe a duty to uphold the ideas on which our country and government were intended to be.
What is this fear mongering about anyway? What is it that you think your boogeyman government intends to do once you are beholden to it? Whats your alternative plan to this anyway?
I also want to leave you with the fact that you are already beholden to private interests that you have absolutely no control over. A company can and will fire you for any reason should they find a need for that to happen. You are beholden to them to show up, do your work and be as productive as possible or they will mess with your life. UBI takes that away and give you a lot more power because now you have some control over it.
minimal volunteer requirement
Work you are forced to do but don't receive a direct income from, is called slavery. That's a stupid idea to push. The small percentage of the population that will happily sit idly, wasting away in their homes while receiving this credit, are the same people that make any work place a misery. Why should we care if that is what these people plan to do? They will make enough to pay for rent and utilize a small dwelling, enough to feed themselves, enough to buy a few clothes throughout the year and maybe just enough to enjoy a a couple low cost entertainment options a few times in the year. If they want to pay for more things, they'll likely try to get a job in the new labor driven market where people work just a few hours per day for this extra income. Others will be happy to work, will be more efficient, productive, knowledgeable and skilled and will receive a much larger compensation for it on top of their UBI.
If anything, UBI really encourages the age-old American Dream to flourish in its fullest form.
The problem will be when able bodied people decide to live only on UBI and nothing else. That's detrimental to society and a mechanism should be put in place to prevent that.
Why? These are the same people that make any place they work a misery. If they would be willing to take that option, they already do not want to work. Also please take in to consideration that most people living on financial assistance money, aren't living large by any means. They get enough to pay for the basic necessities and maybe just slightly more for some entertainment if they spend wisely.
With UBI, many people fail to understand that its a universal pool of money that nearly everyone typically gets, not at all unlike the Child Tax Credit. Unless you make an exorbitant amount of money, you will probably qualify to get UBI. If you have a job, you get to earn money on top of that. UBI is just there to ensure you have the money to cover your basic needs. This gives tremendous power to the labor pool as they can leave whenever they dislike a job and still be able to keep a roof over their head and their stomachs full without resorting to more nefarious activities to do so. Crime will likely go down and we can save a lot of money on the bloated police budgets since robberies from desperation almost entirely disappear.
Now, back to your complaint that able bodied people will possibly stay at home. Are you forgetting why this topic has gained significant relevance lately? Its because of labor automation and the expected large disappearance of available jobs in a growing number of markets. There simply won't be jobs for many of these people to take. That doesn't mean that they will sit idly, wasting away in their home. I highly expect that this will encourage more people to become inventors, innovators and artists. Given enough intelligent people with free time, a whole lot of good could come from it. Don't blind yourself with a problem that already exists as an insignificant factor.
With a gun. Fuck you and your interruption. I'm reading slashdot and I don't need to hear your bullshit.
The ends do not ever justify the means when we discuss our law enforcement agencies performing illegal acts. We as a society, should expect our law enforcement agencies to never have to stoop to breaking the law they swear to uphold, to capture assailants, regardless of what they have been accused of doing. The slippery slope of this has already been mentioned several times but we have already slipped off that cliff. Just look at how often local police have murdered people only to get away with a lesser charge than a "commoner" or "citizen" at the worst end and more typically paid leave with no action.
Its also worth scrutinizing their software. I can believe that the software worked as intended but what if it didn't? Are we sure they didn't have a list of people they wanted to arrest already and just claimed their software worked? Scrutiny unfortunately disappears when people stand accused of child pornography. This being a tech site, I'm a little shocked people are focused a little more on that aspect.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
-Martin Niemöller
You can either stand to defend even the worst offenders in society until proven guilty, or you can wait until your own guilt is manufactured.
The point is, if you're a good parent, and have taught your kids well, you shouldn't have to listen to their conversations of surveil them. This poll is a reflection at how weak parents have become. Parents didn't used to have any of these tools and yet society has brought us to this point. Pretty damn sad really.
I'd bet most of the parents for millenials and older weren't so damn intrusive on the lives of their children. Hell, when I was a kid, most parents seemed to want you to come back or check in maybe every 4 hours at best. And now, parents want their kids in the home and heavily monitored with what they are doing. What gives?
If you're a quality parent, then you should be able to trust your kid until they give a significant reason not to trust you. Monitoring them only encourages learning better sleuthing to get around it. Teach your damn kids what you expect of them up front, enforce it and them trust them to stick to it until they don't. Not being able to trust your kid to do anything without being able to surveil their every move, is a pretty strong reflection on how weak your parenting skills really are.
And just like oil, we need to put a stop in its use. Just like its unethical and illegal to have people unknowingly join as part of an experiment, it should be recognized as unethical and illegal to have people unknowingly offering up the entire contents of their lives, especially when they essentially get absolutely nothing in return.
Sure, you could argue that a site like WasteBook offers a valuable service to people who pay nothing to use it. However, the core function of the site, is to connect people who want to post messages and pictures. Guess what, people have been doing that for several generations now from BBSes to modern forums. Sure, they cost money to run and sometimes they aren't free to use. A forum the size of FB would certainly cost a fair bit more than the typical forum as well. But it absolutely wouldn't be prohibitively expensive by using their current market, ad space that prohibits annoying and intrusive ads and other techniques that most certainly don't require FB to actively know anything about you. Site bloat is what makes FB truly expensive, as does their data analyzing and mining systems.
The sites that bitch the most about having to use these methods to stay open, are also the largest sites on the web, who have killed or bought the competition to be in the position they're currently in. Maybe they should go fuck themselves so we can get some newer sites to take the place of these no-longer-affordable conglomerates.