Ha! I came here to say something similar.
I use my phone a fair bit and never go over my 1.5GB quota. As much as the marketers would like us to be streaming HDTV to our phones, I've never ever seen anyone do it. A phone is good for calls and a few casual apps, but most people most of the time won't be using them as PC replacements.
Obamacare just dumped 15 million people into the medical system who were not there before 2010.
So you're saying had these 15 million people not been given access to medical services, more of them would still be alive now? ie Better medical services killed them?
Because that sounds like what your saying, and it sounds a whole lot of crazy.
I'll let you guess which outcome capitalism would favor more. Hint: It's probably the one that generates a higher death rate.
So the "socialist" system is killing people, but a "capitalist" system also prefers to kill people too?
Under a managed system, either socialist or capitalist, a living person generates more income to the state than a dead one. So this all sounds a bit whacko...
Being poor, or merely slipping from really rich into only slightly less rich?
On a global scale, even "poor" Americans are rich. #First World Problems...
That's what I did years ago when I had a Samsung TV. I never connected it to my network and just played torrented content.
I have a Samsung Smart TV but don't use the Smart part because it's such a piece of shit.
Get yourself any of the numerous streaming media boxes and a computer with Bittorrent and no more problems.
I've tried DDG a few times and found it rather useless, in fact I've tried a few alternatives to Google and found them all wanting.
I thought since I have to use Google search, instead of trying to hide my search history and tracking etc, wouldn't it be a better strategy to run some script that simply lose my real searching and web use among tons of noise? If millions of people had a built-in browser script that mimicked search requests and a few clicks on a page Google's tracking data would be effectively useless.
Not really, seeing as nk has access to actual nuclear weapons and materials and Iran has the knowledge. If one was so inclined to try and access one to try and initiate some kind of nuclear leak or contamination somewhere the there's a lot better ways they could spend their money to get more bang for their buck so to speak.
Says you. Good thing the people in charge of national security aren't so lax with their attitudes.
People tell me that I am the last human on earth who is not signed up.
Among my group there is not that many users. Some have accounts, but rarely use them, mostly it's the wives and GFs who simply love gossip and all those "share this or an orphan dies" type posts.
So relax, it probably just means you could do with some more intelligent friends.
That's like saying there's no competitor for TV, Geocities or Myspace. The FB model seems irrelevant to me, so there'll never be a replacement, because people will just communicate in other ways. Twitter, Insta, Snapchat etc have emerged and are filling gaps FB doesn't do. Over time, FB will continue to become a haven for irrelevant noise, and will eventually dissolve into the soup.
I also don't use Facebook, but an increasing number of companies use it as their primary online presence (not surprising, as its primary purpose is a marketing platform, with a social network along the side). I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes the sole contact mechanism for various companies over the next couple of years, which will make remaining off the system harder.
FWIW, my teenage kids don't use FB, it's for the old fogeys apparently, so I think the FB think is probably past its peak usefulness. The signal/noise ratio is far too low these days, and it seems to a magnet for stupid people/companies/products, so let them enjoy each other while it lasts.
So you worried about people sinking a nuclear powered ship on purpose? To what? Irradiate the ocean or something? How is it a security issue?
Really? You can't work it out?
A Chernobyl at sea would be a issue for most people, whether you choose to believe that or not.
Why is a diesel powered ship not just as vulnerable with just as big a potential impact with the release of god knows how many gallons of bunker fuel. Why is that ok but a nuclear powered vessel is not?
Really? You really just said that?
If that is your opinion I can't help you.
That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of here with you, and you don't seem to have an actual answer.
Or, for less than the cost of an engineer you could hire a security guard or even full-blown cop to babysit.
Which is what most automated trains have now. The driver doesn't actually drive, they observe and act should an unexpected scenario occur.
An automated train is a far, far easier problem than an automated car.
My point exactly. If an automated train is easy, yet still needs a human safety observer, what make you think the same risk assessors will allow a robot car onto a public street unrestricted?
Well, you certainly win the argument I wasn't making! I never said cars were capable of the same throughput as mass transit.
The topic is "Will Self-Driving Cars Clog Our Highways?" and your comments were based around how much more convenient robot cars will be. I think they are related as the convenience is dependent on congestion, which robot card will contribute a net gain towards.
I was simply defending the invention of automated cars as being more efficient than non-automated cars. That's better, no matter how you try to imagine that it will make your life worse.
No it isn't. Because if making it "better", means more people use it, therefore cause congestion growth, so makes it less better overall, it is a net loss.
That's an example of a shitty product, not an example of where a technology made an overall system worse.
So who's to say if robot cars are great or shitty? The only true test to predicting the future is time. Simply saying it's technology therefore it will be great is inaccurate.
But it is the answer to almost every problem that humans have in dealing with limited resources.
Yes applied correctly, not just to your pet gadget.
More efficient cars can only help.
More efficient transport can only help.
That is subtle but important difference.
I completely disagree. This is such a complex system that you cannot hope to model the effects in your head.
Of course you can, just like this:
A car is roughly 5m in length
For every 1 km of lane, you can only fit a maximum of 200 cars (200x5). That is a hard upper limit that no amount of automation changes.
The only variable is speed, which works out to 1 additional car per second at 5 m/s, 2 at 10m/s, 5 at 25m/s etc.
So on you local suburban street, even at twice the current speed limit (say 100km/h ie 28m/s), 5 cars every second, or say 18000 cars per hour.
That is a theoretical upper limit that no amount of automation can improve on.
Now back to reality, 100km/h is completely unrealistic, and in my city, the average speed of major arterial roads is somewhere closer to 20km/h (5.6m/s).
So 3600 cars per hour maximum (assuming there is zero space between vehicles). And guess what? The actual average car per lane is somewhere around 2000.
So even in your perfect universe, you are nowhere near the 80000 people per hour the best subway trains are moving.
If you want scale, Trains are the only solution that works.
Most importantly, population is increasing. Urbanization is increasing. The number of cars on the road is increasing. Housing developments are being built in the 'burbs. Thus traffic is going to be worse one way or another.
Only if your town planners don't understand the value of trains.
Let's put this another way - where is there an example of computers applied to a problem which made the overall system worse? Why would transportation be such an exception?
There's plenty of examples where people tried to throw technology at a problem just because technology!
One that comes to mind right now is my Smart TV, which is absolutely shit and works worse then my regular TV because it's always trying to do updates, or contact a server which it can't find and popping up a note on screen while I'm trying to watch TV.
So sure technology can help, but it's not the automatic answer for every problem in the universe.
I'm pretty sure it's just an age thing. I remember they were concerned about safety, but in the end the newer trains ended up being automated. The lines from the 80s are not.
It's a risk thing. Newer lines can be built to avoid higher risk incidents by building in all the things you need to mitigate the risks, but since most train systems were established over 100 years ago, it's not feasible to implement the same measures everywhere.
Trains don't exactly stop on a dime, so if someone jumps on the tracks or a car blocks a crossing, there's not much to be done by an engineer anyway. Most (as in the vast majority) of the deaths by train now are trespassing/suicides and grade-level crossings despite having a human at the controls.
Yes and the train stops, everyone gets off, and the clean up crew is brought in. Under your system the splayed remains of a victim will remain all over the train and just continue service as normal? I can't see any public official signing off on that possible scenario.
Where is the ground-level track in Singapore? I haven't been there in probably 10 years, but I don't remember seeing anything except subways and elevated tracks.
I was only offering that as a example of why some trains get automated while others don't. The reasons are risk based rather than age.
Yeah ok fine. We'll take these known massive polluters over...what is it you're scared of? Terrorists attacking a nuclear powered ship, some how deconstructing the core and building a dirty bomb or something? Grow up.
They are not American ships They are ships registered in other countries and don't serve as immigrant boats. THey are not operated by liberals or religious people trying to sneak illegal or legal immigrants into the United States, because most if not all of them are not part of rthe United States
I never said they were. I'm not American either so I'm not sure what this has to do with the USA?
I'll telll you what. Find me the records of immigrant employees who jump ship or whatever from cruise boats. They have contracts with the cruise lines, and none of those contracts say that they are on the cruise ship to become an immigrant. And not everyone is wishing to come to the USA, despite what you and the Don might think.
Never said they were, so you have clearly have misunderstood the point here. Immigrants are actually a thing you know. Any other inference is all yours.
Peace out, I have no time to argue with people who would do their reputations a favor by posting as AC. Have the last word, and strut around like you won. I''m merely taking pity because my mamma taught me not to pick on stupid people.
Um ok... what?
None of your gibberish makes any sense. Are you sure you sure replying to the right comment?
I've seen this comment a few times. It's almost a wonder that nuclear power stations aren't being attacked everyday. I guess they all have military staff and highly trained armies on guard rather whatever for profit security firm they use.....oh wait.
I know you are trying to funny, but the security on territorial US soil, is lot higher than in the middle of international waters.
But feel feel to dismiss this fact if it makes you feel better.
They are not there to emigrate, they are working as employees of the cruise line.
Doesn't mean they're not immigrants.
Immigrants generally make up the lower end of the employment market (dues to language/education differences). Just like how 7eleven is mostly immigrants because the work and pay is shit, so too is a lot of the cruise ship jobs.
Sure the captain and cruise director aren't, but a lot of the monkey work is done is immigration type labour. You never get to see them because they spend the whole cruise below deck.
As a proper slashdotter, I spend a big chunk of my time in front of a screen, so I'm no way non-digital. Still I don't see any benefits in a "smart" home.
Me neither. I bought a Samsung SmartThings, played with it for an hour and couldn't even be bothered installing the sensors anywhere.
I can see some value in an outdoor camera facing the gate so that any unwanted visitors might at least get caught on camera should I need it, but even then I don't care that much to go out and get one.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha! I came here to say something similar.
I use my phone a fair bit and never go over my 1.5GB quota. As much as the marketers would like us to be streaming HDTV to our phones, I've never ever seen anyone do it. A phone is good for calls and a few casual apps, but most people most of the time won't be using them as PC replacements.
Obamacare just dumped 15 million people into the medical system who were not there before 2010.
So you're saying had these 15 million people not been given access to medical services, more of them would still be alive now? ie Better medical services killed them?
Because that sounds like what your saying, and it sounds a whole lot of crazy.
I'll let you guess which outcome capitalism would favor more. Hint: It's probably the one that generates a higher death rate.
So the "socialist" system is killing people, but a "capitalist" system also prefers to kill people too? Under a managed system, either socialist or capitalist, a living person generates more income to the state than a dead one. So this all sounds a bit whacko...
The stresses related to being poor.
Being poor, or merely slipping from really rich into only slightly less rich?
On a global scale, even "poor" Americans are rich. #First World Problems...
That's what I did years ago when I had a Samsung TV. I never connected it to my network and just played torrented content.
I have a Samsung Smart TV but don't use the Smart part because it's such a piece of shit.
Get yourself any of the numerous streaming media boxes and a computer with Bittorrent and no more problems.
In 5 years you may not be able to buy a dumb TV anymore,
You mean like a computer monitor?
I've tried DDG a few times and found it rather useless, in fact I've tried a few alternatives to Google and found them all wanting.
I thought since I have to use Google search, instead of trying to hide my search history and tracking etc, wouldn't it be a better strategy to run some script that simply lose my real searching and web use among tons of noise? If millions of people had a built-in browser script that mimicked search requests and a few clicks on a page Google's tracking data would be effectively useless.
Not really, seeing as nk has access to actual nuclear weapons and materials and Iran has the knowledge. If one was so inclined to try and access one to try and initiate some kind of nuclear leak or contamination somewhere the there's a lot better ways they could spend their money to get more bang for their buck so to speak.
Says you. Good thing the people in charge of national security aren't so lax with their attitudes.
People tell me that I am the last human on earth who is not signed up.
Among my group there is not that many users. Some have accounts, but rarely use them, mostly it's the wives and GFs who simply love gossip and all those "share this or an orphan dies" type posts.
So relax, it probably just means you could do with some more intelligent friends.
No effective competitor has emerged in a decade.
That's like saying there's no competitor for TV, Geocities or Myspace. The FB model seems irrelevant to me, so there'll never be a replacement, because people will just communicate in other ways. Twitter, Insta, Snapchat etc have emerged and are filling gaps FB doesn't do. Over time, FB will continue to become a haven for irrelevant noise, and will eventually dissolve into the soup.
I also don't use Facebook, but an increasing number of companies use it as their primary online presence (not surprising, as its primary purpose is a marketing platform, with a social network along the side). I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes the sole contact mechanism for various companies over the next couple of years, which will make remaining off the system harder.
FWIW, my teenage kids don't use FB, it's for the old fogeys apparently, so I think the FB think is probably past its peak usefulness. The signal/noise ratio is far too low these days, and it seems to a magnet for stupid people/companies/products, so let them enjoy each other while it lasts.
Chernobyl at sea just isn't going to happen. The type of reactors used here can't melt down or blow up. I'm not going to bother explain why
Riiight.... there's no risk at all, even if Iran or North Korea buy one...
We're not looking for planes - we're looking for bodies.
FTFY
This is why I keep coming back
So you worried about people sinking a nuclear powered ship on purpose? To what? Irradiate the ocean or something? How is it a security issue?
Really? You can't work it out? A Chernobyl at sea would be a issue for most people, whether you choose to believe that or not.
Why is a diesel powered ship not just as vulnerable with just as big a potential impact with the release of god knows how many gallons of bunker fuel. Why is that ok but a nuclear powered vessel is not?
Really? You really just said that?
If that is your opinion I can't help you.
That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of here with you, and you don't seem to have an actual answer.
The answer is obvious, so maybe it's you.
Or, for less than the cost of an engineer you could hire a security guard or even full-blown cop to babysit.
Which is what most automated trains have now. The driver doesn't actually drive, they observe and act should an unexpected scenario occur.
An automated train is a far, far easier problem than an automated car.
My point exactly. If an automated train is easy, yet still needs a human safety observer, what make you think the same risk assessors will allow a robot car onto a public street unrestricted?
Well, you certainly win the argument I wasn't making! I never said cars were capable of the same throughput as mass transit.
The topic is "Will Self-Driving Cars Clog Our Highways?" and your comments were based around how much more convenient robot cars will be. I think they are related as the convenience is dependent on congestion, which robot card will contribute a net gain towards.
I was simply defending the invention of automated cars as being more efficient than non-automated cars. That's better, no matter how you try to imagine that it will make your life worse.
No it isn't. Because if making it "better", means more people use it, therefore cause congestion growth, so makes it less better overall, it is a net loss.
That's an example of a shitty product, not an example of where a technology made an overall system worse.
So who's to say if robot cars are great or shitty? The only true test to predicting the future is time. Simply saying it's technology therefore it will be great is inaccurate.
But it is the answer to almost every problem that humans have in dealing with limited resources.
Yes applied correctly, not just to your pet gadget.
More efficient cars can only help.
More efficient transport can only help.
That is subtle but important difference.
Ok, goal post moved, no longer about security? Ships sink.
Ships sinking is a security issue on many levels. Just give up.
I completely disagree. This is such a complex system that you cannot hope to model the effects in your head.
Of course you can, just like this:
A car is roughly 5m in length
For every 1 km of lane, you can only fit a maximum of 200 cars (200x5). That is a hard upper limit that no amount of automation changes.
The only variable is speed, which works out to 1 additional car per second at 5 m/s, 2 at 10m/s, 5 at 25m/s etc.
So on you local suburban street, even at twice the current speed limit (say 100km/h ie 28m/s), 5 cars every second, or say 18000 cars per hour.
That is a theoretical upper limit that no amount of automation can improve on.
Now back to reality, 100km/h is completely unrealistic, and in my city, the average speed of major arterial roads is somewhere closer to 20km/h (5.6m/s).
So 3600 cars per hour maximum (assuming there is zero space between vehicles). And guess what? The actual average car per lane is somewhere around 2000.
So even in your perfect universe, you are nowhere near the 80000 people per hour the best subway trains are moving.
If you want scale, Trains are the only solution that works.
Most importantly, population is increasing. Urbanization is increasing. The number of cars on the road is increasing. Housing developments are being built in the 'burbs. Thus traffic is going to be worse one way or another.
Only if your town planners don't understand the value of trains.
Let's put this another way - where is there an example of computers applied to a problem which made the overall system worse? Why would transportation be such an exception?
There's plenty of examples where people tried to throw technology at a problem just because technology!
One that comes to mind right now is my Smart TV, which is absolutely shit and works worse then my regular TV because it's always trying to do updates, or contact a server which it can't find and popping up a note on screen while I'm trying to watch TV.
So sure technology can help, but it's not the automatic answer for every problem in the universe.
I'm pretty sure it's just an age thing. I remember they were concerned about safety, but in the end the newer trains ended up being automated. The lines from the 80s are not.
It's a risk thing. Newer lines can be built to avoid higher risk incidents by building in all the things you need to mitigate the risks, but since most train systems were established over 100 years ago, it's not feasible to implement the same measures everywhere.
Trains don't exactly stop on a dime, so if someone jumps on the tracks or a car blocks a crossing, there's not much to be done by an engineer anyway. Most (as in the vast majority) of the deaths by train now are trespassing/suicides and grade-level crossings despite having a human at the controls.
Yes and the train stops, everyone gets off, and the clean up crew is brought in. Under your system the splayed remains of a victim will remain all over the train and just continue service as normal? I can't see any public official signing off on that possible scenario.
Where is the ground-level track in Singapore? I haven't been there in probably 10 years, but I don't remember seeing anything except subways and elevated tracks.
I was only offering that as a example of why some trains get automated while others don't. The reasons are risk based rather than age.
Yeah ok fine. We'll take these known massive polluters over...what is it you're scared of? Terrorists attacking a nuclear powered ship, some how deconstructing the core and building a dirty bomb or something? Grow up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Retard.
Dude!
They are not American ships They are ships registered in other countries and don't serve as immigrant boats. THey are not operated by liberals or religious people trying to sneak illegal or legal immigrants into the United States, because most if not all of them are not part of rthe United States
I never said they were. I'm not American either so I'm not sure what this has to do with the USA?
I'll telll you what. Find me the records of immigrant employees who jump ship or whatever from cruise boats. They have contracts with the cruise lines, and none of those contracts say that they are on the cruise ship to become an immigrant. And not everyone is wishing to come to the USA, despite what you and the Don might think.
Never said they were, so you have clearly have misunderstood the point here. Immigrants are actually a thing you know. Any other inference is all yours.
Peace out, I have no time to argue with people who would do their reputations a favor by posting as AC. Have the last word, and strut around like you won. I''m merely taking pity because my mamma taught me not to pick on stupid people.
Um ok... what?
None of your gibberish makes any sense. Are you sure you sure replying to the right comment?
I've seen this comment a few times. It's almost a wonder that nuclear power stations aren't being attacked everyday. I guess they all have military staff and highly trained armies on guard rather whatever for profit security firm they use.....oh wait.
I know you are trying to funny, but the security on territorial US soil, is lot higher than in the middle of international waters.
But feel feel to dismiss this fact if it makes you feel better.
They are not there to emigrate, they are working as employees of the cruise line.
Doesn't mean they're not immigrants.
Immigrants generally make up the lower end of the employment market (dues to language/education differences). Just like how 7eleven is mostly immigrants because the work and pay is shit, so too is a lot of the cruise ship jobs.
Sure the captain and cruise director aren't, but a lot of the monkey work is done is immigration type labour. You never get to see them because they spend the whole cruise below deck.
You do realize that cruise ship employees are not immigrants don't you?
Not one single immigrant in the entire cruise ship industry? That's a bold claim...
As a proper slashdotter, I spend a big chunk of my time in front of a screen, so I'm no way non-digital. Still I don't see any benefits in a "smart" home.
Me neither. I bought a Samsung SmartThings, played with it for an hour and couldn't even be bothered installing the sensors anywhere.
I can see some value in an outdoor camera facing the gate so that any unwanted visitors might at least get caught on camera should I need it, but even then I don't care that much to go out and get one.