What we today call liberalism, and used to call fascism,
Fascism is now called Authoritarianism on the political spectrum, which is the opposite of Liberalism. Here's a diagram that might help: http://www.politicalcompass.or...
You want to at least ensure you know the basics before making stupid comments like that in public forum.
has destroyed all these societies.
Yes that's it, destroyed. The highest quality of life in history of humanity is right now, yet it's still not good enough for you....
Social and financial pressure to agree (or at least pretend to agree). Everyone is now too concerned about "getting Eich'ed" to take a stand against any of the typical left-liberal talking points.
Of course the easiest way to argue science is with better science. Or you could try the crying baby routine/conspiracy theory routine and see where that takes you.
Whenever I scan down the comments section, the stupidest ones are always by AC. I suggest you ignore them so they don't get any more attention than they deserve, and let the mods do their thing...
and we've got an open dialogue about the scientific community's consensus about fat, salt, and heart disease being totally backwards.
Er, what? I thought this thread was about climate change, but oh well let's go here. Who has what backwards, can you be specific? I mean that because most of the time when people claim 'science got it wrong', what they really mean in 'the media got it wrong', or 'someone trying to sound like a scientist got it wrong'. Especially with nutrition, there are a whole world of 'experts' out there with no formal training who claim all sorts of crap. So I'd be interested to hear more of this scientific consensus that you speak of.
Massive, highly-publicized scientific consensus has been shown wrong plenty of times--
When exactly? And since you demand evidence and models, I'm expecting the same standard here.
It's probably also worth noting that science routinely gets stuff wrong, that is the whole point of experiments, to validate/invalidate theories. And when it is wrong, it gets proven wrong by more rigorous science, not by politics or religion. That's the beauty of science, it has its own error-correcting mechanisms built-in.
You seem to imply that because science has gotten stuff wrong we should abandon the whole process and try something else instead?
Really? Would you say that Michelangelo's David does not have butt, backside, genitals, or a face? After all a statue is a statue. Ah but its a deliberate depiction of man, something made in our image you say. Well if you build and android, a robot with a human appearance, is that not the same?
But why would your robot need a bum? We have a robot at work, it's called an elevator. The designers saw no need to put a bum on it, so I can't see why any robot would, unless it's entire purpose was to evoke a response about a robot having a bum.
The thing is that you don't really need to go through a cloud service to accomplish that. They could implement it like the internal configuration page of a broadband router or a printer, operating only within your own LAN. That's how I would want such a device to operate.
The gimmick with home automation is that it ties into security. So your controller not only controls the AC, but door sensors, lights, alarms, cameras etc too. And it all works from your smartphone anywhere. It's a good pitch, but can only be done with some sort of cloud server that bridges your phone to your home. A technical person could run their own server, but the market is not for nerds who already know how to do stuff, it's regular folk who want toasters and kettles, and stuff that works out of the box.
Seriously, I've never had a light switch or door key get bricked by the manufacturer. The more I go through life the more I want less electronics in places where the value is dubious.
+1
The trick is to identify things that could become a chore to maintain. eg If it has a battery can I simply plug into a wall to charge it? Does it require input from me to maintain?
This is why IoT is a bit of a joke, because you know it's going to mean maintenance or it will stop working more often. It'll mean more phone calls to Indian call centres, and more costs for no tangible benefit.
Home automation is still relatively new (I know not new, new, but newish), and is probably on the verge of mainstream. Samsung have invested heavily, and another company Vera seem to have some cool stuff too. So I expect in the next year or two, once there is a critical mass, someone will hack an Open Source firmware to rid us of vendor lock-in.
I wonder if the high level of technological obsolescence (whether planned or just practical) makes the notion of "lifetime support" kind of wink-and-a-nod sort of thing where most people think that lifetime only matters for the next three years and that nobody really expects support for the next 10 years.
By 'nobody' you mean the stupid people?
I have an expensive frying pan that came with a lifetime warranty. I keep that warranty handy because I've had to replace it about 5 times in the last 20 years. I keep sending them back, and they keep sending me new ones, and if they didn't they'd find themselves in court pretty quick.
So I'm sure the lazy people continually get ripped off by such gimmicks, but people who know their rights tend to get shat on a little less.
In Australia, members of parliament are required to maintain details of financial investments in a public register. Private citizens are not so required.
Now I didn't say public servants should have no privacy rights, but they should certainly have fewer.
I did a spell in the Australian Government. Most agencies with any real power will require security clearance for all staff, and mine required disclosing my financial interests, every job I had in the last 10 years, every country I'd visited, what I spend on my groceries each week, even the history of my immediate family etc etc. And if anything changed during my time I was required to report it. So yeah, this already happens.
Oh bullshit. This is about the tit not liking the tat. The reason the PM of Iceland (and now it seems the PM of Britain) wanted to keep things secret wasn't for our liberty in good government, it's because they didn't want their electorates finding out that while these people are making the average person suffer, and suffer mind you,
I don't even think you have to argue whether his policies are good, bad or otherwise. A national leader should present a image of respect and integrity, this is now gone so he should resign for the sake of the country. Better men have fallen for less, he deserves no special treatment.
So maybe people could just learn to not get freaked out by other humans and the problem will go away?
Hasn't happened in the past million years. Biology is a harsh mistress
Not completely true. It is a normal initial reaction, just like violence and rape, but most of us have developed the cognitive power to over-ride those natural irrational thoughts.
Racism is a good example, while still a problem, it's nowhere near the level it was 50 years ago. And working in IT I've spent a career with mostly different races, so find the whole concept ludicrous now. Tranny is the new black.
No, it's easy.... when I'm providing a system to provide electricity for 120 million homes vs 2 million homes...... the materials required, cost, labor, maintenance, in terms of economies of scale are very, very different... In addition, more physical space doesn't make it easier,
Yes exactly, large infrastructure gets easier with scale, especially if you have spare land to put everything. Eg Hong Kong is hard because they have nowhere to put a new power station. Australia is hard because they have no water, and vast distances between population centres. It would be quite easy for a state in the US to implement the same policies as Scotland, and get the same result. Then just times by 50.
more space means more distance to haul the electricity across.
Transmission wires are already there. And even if they weren't, this is the cheapest part of the system.
It's like suggesting that laws regarding health coverage or laws regarding gun control that work somewhere like scotland could ever work in the US in the same way...... you just can't compare any experiment that works in a single US city sized population with something that works across an entire country the size of ours that has more diversity than the whole of europe within it's borders.
Yet Europe has still has better health care and lower gun violence than the US. As I said, the hardest part is to stop making excuses...
Your wife is fine with men walking into the ladies room, then being asked to leave, and refusing?
She is an idiot if that is true.
No, she is fine with trannies sharing her bathroom, in fact most people here are because they already so it and there are no issues that I've heard. So yeah maybe it's just you.
Just like the Muslims right?
Nice strawman... try again...
Not a strawman, it's called an analogy, and quite appropriate to demonstrate your backward attitude...
Big bad guy gonna let his gun do the talking.
No, bad girl, my wife is a better shot than me.
If you are a man and walk into the ladies room behind her, she is likely to ask you to leave, unless she is able to safely leave herself, which is always the best course of action, it avoids a fight.
But if he is between her and the door and she says "please leave, this is the ladies room", and he responds with some wisecrack about "I can do whatever the hell I want", then yea, she may well shoot him.
He is behaving in a threatening manner and shouldn't be at all shocked if he gets shot.
Wibble, wibble. Yes, in that highly unlikely scenario, that unlikely result could occur, I guess. But that has nothing to do with the original discussion...
In terms of total human comfort given our irrational prejudices that give rise to the discomfort in the first place it clearly minimizes discomfort to require people use the sex-restricted bathroom that conforms to their physical body and dress, not their XX/XY status per se. One can argue that humans shouldn't feel any more discomfort sharing a bathroom with strangers of different sex or gender identity than they do sharing it with strangers of the same sex or gender identity, and you might be right, but that won't stop people who do from feeling the discomfort.
There was a time, not too long along when people with darker skin weren't allowed to use the same toilets as the lighter folk. If the Internet was around then, I wonder if the same argument would've been used to defend that too?
so they should be perfectly comfortable in the appropriate same sex bathroom even dressed in contemporary opposite sex clothing.
Part of the issue for transgender is acceptance, by writing a law (one that never existed previously), you are saying that you we (society) don't accept you as you are, and you must act how we think you should act.
The funny part is that I'll bet it's the same "don;t tread on me' Republican types that that scream for small govt, stay out of our lives that are behind this. Don't tread on me seems to work as long as you are white hetero and male..
.
This is really cool and I don't want to diminish the significance of this in general but this is a much simpler endeavor when you're talking about the entire country being the equivalent of a single mid-sized US major city.
And Scotland is also smaller than most US states, so what?
Scotland has 67 people per square km, the US has 35. It's only difficult if you keep making excuses...
Slashdot Mirror
Why would they be? How would they even be able to tell, post-transition?
I can only assume you have never seen one in real life. A dude wearing a dress and makeup is quite obvious to most people.
Modern Liberalism, at least as "claimed" in the US, is actually quite authoritarian.
True, but the Modern Liberals still represent the least authoritarian of all the candidates on offer right?
Unless you think banning Gays, Abortions, Muslims and Mexicans is "liberal"?
Let's see, in the US we can't use coal, gas, or oil for making electricity in the near future. Gee, have fun sitting in the dark.
Yes we can. Do you just make stuff up to try and win an argument? Maybe should run along back to Reddit...
It only looks that way if your version of truth is sourced solely from media headlines.
What we today call liberalism, and used to call fascism,
Fascism is now called Authoritarianism on the political spectrum, which is the opposite of Liberalism. Here's a diagram that might help: http://www.politicalcompass.or...
You want to at least ensure you know the basics before making stupid comments like that in public forum.
has destroyed all these societies.
Yes that's it, destroyed. The highest quality of life in history of humanity is right now, yet it's still not good enough for you....
Social and financial pressure to agree (or at least pretend to agree). Everyone is now too concerned about "getting Eich'ed" to take a stand against any of the typical left-liberal talking points.
Of course the easiest way to argue science is with better science. Or you could try the crying baby routine/conspiracy theory routine and see where that takes you.
Whenever I scan down the comments section, the stupidest ones are always by AC. I suggest you ignore them so they don't get any more attention than they deserve, and let the mods do their thing...
At which time they will act like people who are 30 years older than they are now.
Young people like to get behind causes to save the world, but burn out after a few decades of reality. News at 11.
Which is why the world today is still exactly like it was in the 18th century. Oh wait...
and we've got an open dialogue about the scientific community's consensus about fat, salt, and heart disease being totally backwards.
Er, what? I thought this thread was about climate change, but oh well let's go here. Who has what backwards, can you be specific? I mean that because most of the time when people claim 'science got it wrong', what they really mean in 'the media got it wrong', or 'someone trying to sound like a scientist got it wrong'. Especially with nutrition, there are a whole world of 'experts' out there with no formal training who claim all sorts of crap. So I'd be interested to hear more of this scientific consensus that you speak of.
Massive, highly-publicized scientific consensus has been shown wrong plenty of times--
When exactly? And since you demand evidence and models, I'm expecting the same standard here.
It's probably also worth noting that science routinely gets stuff wrong, that is the whole point of experiments, to validate/invalidate theories. And when it is wrong, it gets proven wrong by more rigorous science, not by politics or religion. That's the beauty of science, it has its own error-correcting mechanisms built-in.
You seem to imply that because science has gotten stuff wrong we should abandon the whole process and try something else instead?
Really? Would you say that Michelangelo's David does not have butt, backside, genitals, or a face? After all a statue is a statue. Ah but its a deliberate depiction of man, something made in our image you say. Well if you build and android, a robot with a human appearance, is that not the same?
But why would your robot need a bum? We have a robot at work, it's called an elevator. The designers saw no need to put a bum on it, so I can't see why any robot would, unless it's entire purpose was to evoke a response about a robot having a bum.
The thing is that you don't really need to go through a cloud service to accomplish that. They could implement it like the internal configuration page of a broadband router or a printer, operating only within your own LAN. That's how I would want such a device to operate.
The gimmick with home automation is that it ties into security. So your controller not only controls the AC, but door sensors, lights, alarms, cameras etc too. And it all works from your smartphone anywhere. It's a good pitch, but can only be done with some sort of cloud server that bridges your phone to your home. A technical person could run their own server, but the market is not for nerds who already know how to do stuff, it's regular folk who want toasters and kettles, and stuff that works out of the box.
Seriously, I've never had a light switch or door key get bricked by the manufacturer. The more I go through life the more I want less electronics in places where the value is dubious.
+1
The trick is to identify things that could become a chore to maintain. eg If it has a battery can I simply plug into a wall to charge it? Does it require input from me to maintain?
This is why IoT is a bit of a joke, because you know it's going to mean maintenance or it will stop working more often. It'll mean more phone calls to Indian call centres, and more costs for no tangible benefit.
Home automation is still relatively new (I know not new, new, but newish), and is probably on the verge of mainstream. Samsung have invested heavily, and another company Vera seem to have some cool stuff too. So I expect in the next year or two, once there is a critical mass, someone will hack an Open Source firmware to rid us of vendor lock-in.
I wonder if the high level of technological obsolescence (whether planned or just practical) makes the notion of "lifetime support" kind of wink-and-a-nod sort of thing where most people think that lifetime only matters for the next three years and that nobody really expects support for the next 10 years.
By 'nobody' you mean the stupid people?
I have an expensive frying pan that came with a lifetime warranty. I keep that warranty handy because I've had to replace it about 5 times in the last 20 years. I keep sending them back, and they keep sending me new ones, and if they didn't they'd find themselves in court pretty quick.
So I'm sure the lazy people continually get ripped off by such gimmicks, but people who know their rights tend to get shat on a little less.
In Australia, members of parliament are required to maintain details of financial investments in a public register. Private citizens are not so required.
Now I didn't say public servants should have no privacy rights, but they should certainly have fewer.
I did a spell in the Australian Government. Most agencies with any real power will require security clearance for all staff, and mine required disclosing my financial interests, every job I had in the last 10 years, every country I'd visited, what I spend on my groceries each week, even the history of my immediate family etc etc. And if anything changed during my time I was required to report it. So yeah, this already happens.
Oh bullshit. This is about the tit not liking the tat. The reason the PM of Iceland (and now it seems the PM of Britain) wanted to keep things secret wasn't for our liberty in good government, it's because they didn't want their electorates finding out that while these people are making the average person suffer, and suffer mind you,
I don't even think you have to argue whether his policies are good, bad or otherwise. A national leader should present a image of respect and integrity, this is now gone so he should resign for the sake of the country. Better men have fallen for less, he deserves no special treatment.
or euthanize all the bigots...
Like with black and white, those 'blends' are called grey...
So maybe people could just learn to not get freaked out by other humans and the problem will go away?
Hasn't happened in the past million years. Biology is a harsh mistress
Not completely true. It is a normal initial reaction, just like violence and rape, but most of us have developed the cognitive power to over-ride those natural irrational thoughts.
Racism is a good example, while still a problem, it's nowhere near the level it was 50 years ago. And working in IT I've spent a career with mostly different races, so find the whole concept ludicrous now. Tranny is the new black.
Even if they stick on a hi-res print of a grill it would make a big difference to the appearance.
No, it's easy .... when I'm providing a system to provide electricity for 120 million homes vs 2 million homes ...... the materials required, cost, labor, maintenance, in terms of economies of scale are very, very different ... In addition, more physical space doesn't make it easier,
Yes exactly, large infrastructure gets easier with scale, especially if you have spare land to put everything. Eg Hong Kong is hard because they have nowhere to put a new power station. Australia is hard because they have no water, and vast distances between population centres. It would be quite easy for a state in the US to implement the same policies as Scotland, and get the same result. Then just times by 50.
more space means more distance to haul the electricity across.
Transmission wires are already there. And even if they weren't, this is the cheapest part of the system.
It's like suggesting that laws regarding health coverage or laws regarding gun control that work somewhere like scotland could ever work in the US in the same way ...... you just can't compare any experiment that works in a single US city sized population with something that works across an entire country the size of ours that has more diversity than the whole of europe within it's borders.
Yet Europe has still has better health care and lower gun violence than the US. As I said, the hardest part is to stop making excuses...
I asked my wife and she's fine with it.
Your wife is fine with men walking into the ladies room, then being asked to leave, and refusing?
She is an idiot if that is true.
No, she is fine with trannies sharing her bathroom, in fact most people here are because they already so it and there are no issues that I've heard. So yeah maybe it's just you.
Just like the Muslims right?
Nice strawman... try again...
Not a strawman, it's called an analogy, and quite appropriate to demonstrate your backward attitude...
Big bad guy gonna let his gun do the talking.
No, bad girl, my wife is a better shot than me.
If you are a man and walk into the ladies room behind her, she is likely to ask you to leave, unless she is able to safely leave herself, which is always the best course of action, it avoids a fight.
But if he is between her and the door and she says "please leave, this is the ladies room", and he responds with some wisecrack about "I can do whatever the hell I want", then yea, she may well shoot him.
He is behaving in a threatening manner and shouldn't be at all shocked if he gets shot.
Wibble, wibble. Yes, in that highly unlikely scenario, that unlikely result could occur, I guess. But that has nothing to do with the original discussion...
In terms of total human comfort given our irrational prejudices that give rise to the discomfort in the first place it clearly minimizes discomfort to require people use the sex-restricted bathroom that conforms to their physical body and dress, not their XX/XY status per se. One can argue that humans shouldn't feel any more discomfort sharing a bathroom with strangers of different sex or gender identity than they do sharing it with strangers of the same sex or gender identity, and you might be right, but that won't stop people who do from feeling the discomfort.
There was a time, not too long along when people with darker skin weren't allowed to use the same toilets as the lighter folk. If the Internet was around then, I wonder if the same argument would've been used to defend that too?
so they should be perfectly comfortable in the appropriate same sex bathroom even dressed in contemporary opposite sex clothing.
Part of the issue for transgender is acceptance, by writing a law (one that never existed previously), you are saying that you we (society) don't accept you as you are, and you must act how we think you should act.
The funny part is that I'll bet it's the same "don;t tread on me' Republican types that that scream for small govt, stay out of our lives that are behind this. Don't tread on me seems to work as long as you are white hetero and male.. .
This is really cool and I don't want to diminish the significance of this in general but this is a much simpler endeavor when you're talking about the entire country being the equivalent of a single mid-sized US major city.
And Scotland is also smaller than most US states, so what?
Scotland has 67 people per square km, the US has 35. It's only difficult if you keep making excuses...