Some people just have to have the 'latest and greatest', for whatever reason, and that reason doesn't have to be (and very often is not) anything practical.
I disagree that a smartphone is 'crucial', in fact I think it's anything but 'crucial'. I'm sure it's real handy in some circumstances, but I've yet to find a really truly justifiable reason (and mere 'convenience' is not a justifiable reason my book) to shell out money for one, even a cheap one, especially considering what a security collander (i.e. full of holes) they are, sometimes even compromised right from the factory. So far as this outlier case of a $1000 Apple phone? I've got many, many much more important things to do with $1000 than to spend it on some trendy piece of tech that'll be either obsolete or broken in a couple years. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick with a cheap dumbphone, plain old telephone calls and the occasional text message is all I really need.
Anyone who ever read the Well World novels would be able to reason that if our so-called 'reality' and 'Universe' is all just a simulation, we'd never know it. If true then it would be simple for the 'simulation' to lead us to the conclusion that everything is real.
'U.S. Consumer Groups' apparently have some intelligent people in them that see, as do I and many others, that so-called 'self driving car' technology is not even close to ready-for-prime-time, and that legislators, who notably are technologically ignorant and incompetent, have been taken in by all the hype and actually believe that they're going to have K.I.T.T. to have a delightful conversation, in an English accent, on the way to their destinations. So-called 'self driving cars' are not going to do much of anything to prevent collisions and deaths, they'll probably add to them. Keep them off my roads, don't want them around me.
Yeah sure because people in the finance industry in this country are just so kind and thoughtful and concerned about the average citizen and their well-being, they're never greedy bastards who would steal their grandmothers Social Security checks if they thought it would benefit them. Are you really so blind that you think these people are blameless? Or are you a Trump-supporting Republican and really believe that whatever makes Big Business more money is a good thing? Get real. These people are pieces of crap and need to be punished for their gross negligence. Oh and by the way go read the current news, they're all being investigated for their stock sales, among other things, so I guess I'm not far off at all now am I?
Oh for fuck's sake. Putin is having his people do whatever they can to destabilize NATO and the U.S. and any other country that would stand in the way of him building a new Russian empire because he misses the days of the USSR and the KGB, and I'm far from the only person who sees these things going on. How can you be so goddamned blind?
If they totally de-regulate ISPs and the Internet in America turns into something more like AOL than a free and open Internet, then I'm likely bailing out, getting a library card, and likely having a slightly smaller electric bill every month from not having a computer and networking equipment powered up all the time. Got no interest in what ISPs want to do with the Internet, given their druthers.
So are you saying that we should just let ISPs in this country do whatever the hell they want, and to hell with everyone else? Because if you are then you can get fucked.
Am I the only one that thinks the timing of part of Spain wanting to break away and become a (tiny little) independent country is rather.. susupicious? Especially considering how much chaos Russia has been covertly fomenting pretty much everywhere it can, to try to destabilize NATO countries? They influenced the U.S. election, they influenced the BREXIT vote, who's to say they aren't influencing Catalonians as well?
Hate to tell you dude, but just because you believe something DIDN'T happen, doesn't mean it's NOT true. The son of a bitch needs to have his head cut off and placed on a pole on Wall Street as a warning to not be an incompetent idiot when it comes to the lives of hudreds of millions of people. So STFU, whose side are you on?
1. Linux won't run everything that Windows will run, and is not as dumbed-down as Windows is, so the average person who has little to no technical knowledge of computers can't understand Linux, can't be bothered to learn something new, and doesn't have any reason to even try in the first place. Furthermore they don't really care how much Microsoft is datamining them with Windows, invading their privacy, or the fact that Microsoft becomes the de-facto owner of the computer the consumer bought and paid for with their own money, not so long as they can browse the web, send and receive email, and watch cat videos on YouTube.
2. Microsoft is doing everything it can to either kill Linux as a viable alternative, or more lately, subverting, annexing, and otherwise taking over Linux; they want Microsoft to be the only producer of operating systems for computing devices, and they don't care what they have to do to accomplish that.
Statistically the majority of trips are well within the range of electric cars.
Sure. I drive about 24 miles a day Monday through Friday to get to work and back. My usual shopping errands are within a 25 mile radius of where I live. No problem there. But I also race bikes, and the race venues are up to 120 miles away. My pickup will make that round trip on one tank -- and I can easily buy gas anywhere in a matter of minutes. An electric vehicle that can't make that round trip on one charge is a total non-starter. That's a 'technical' hurdle that's going to have to be addressed. They either have to improve the mileage per charge, or find a fast-charging solution, because no one in my situation is going to be willing to have a 2 hour trip take 4 or 5 hours because you have to wait 2 or 3 hours for the damn car to recharge. Honestly, that's the issue that really stands in the way of EV adoption for everyone.
Precisely. Unless someone is 100 years old or older, or if someone actually pays attention to history, people are spoiled by the way things are now and can't imagine a world where there are things like Debtors Prison, Indentured Servitude, Slavery, Child Labor, and no labor standards or labor laws whatsoever. They also can't imagine a world where companies can claim whatever they want about their products, with impugnity (smoking is healthy and good for you! SMOKE MORE!) or a world where you can't really sue any company for any harm they've caused you.
We're rapidly approaching 1984 levels of dystopia, and having ISPs totally unregulated in what they can do with the Internet in this country is another step in that direction, which is why it needs to be STOPPED.
How about this: use encryption on all TCP and UDP packets, including DNS. Then ISPs can't do deep packet inspection, inject data, or anything of the sort.
Besides which, the way things are going, we probably should have everything encrypted anyway, nothing is safe anymore.
There is NO WAY IN HELL this jackass should be allowed to keep that money, and furthermore he should also have the money from the Equifax stock he dumped confiscated. He clearly waited to tell the public about the breach until after he'd arranged for his 'golden parachute', so I say that should qualify as insider trading. There should also be a criminal investigation. Someone (or many someones) should have their heads on a pike for this. It may be DECADES before the full consequences of the breach are known. The level of negligence involved is practically a crime against humanity.
On the other hand, it might spur the auto industry to step things up, offer more models, promote them more, which will increase sales, causing more production, which will lower prices. Don't we all work more efficiently when we know we have a schedule to keep? Don't we all tend to procrastinate more when we know we're not going to be required to get something done on any sort of schedule? Any way you look at it, mandate or no mandate, in ten years there will be many many more electric vehicles on the roads of California, and there will be more infrastructure to support them.
To summarize a few points:
* This is just CARB 'talking' about this. It's not legislation, no one has introduced a bill. It's really just a 'what if' they're discussing.
* I hardly think they'd suddenly ban all IC engine vehicles. That would be a disaster, so don't even think about it.
* Furthermore it'd likely be a gradual shift away from IC engines to electric.
* Furthermore, I don't think things like motorcycles would be included in the ban, nor fleets of trucks, emergency vehicles, etc.
* Furthermore, I don't think it'd include existing vehicles, just new vehicles. Otherwise it would be an impossible financial burden on everyone.
* Again: It's just above the level of coffee-table conversation the CARB is having about this. It would be at least TEN YEARS before they'd do anything.
* Furthermore, it'd likely have to be legislation. We all know how long that'd take, right?
Basically: No need to get all flustered about it -- YET. But it was worthy of being posted, so you all know what's going on. Also, not like you didn't all think something like this would come up eventually, anyway, we've been slowly moving towards this for a while now.
How about a smartphone that sells for, say, $200 to $300, that's actually secure, instead of the 'security collander' that pretty much any smartphone currently is?
That's the main reason why I don't have or want a smartphone: total lack of security, and for that matter, a total lack of access to the OS at the level needed to make it secure.
Until such an animal exists I'll just stick with the cheap-ass $50 dumbphone, that stays turned off 95% of the day anyway, and which is probably not hackable (or at least not hackable in any significant way).
Slashdot Mirror
if you say so.
Bullshit.
..and TRENDY, and TOY.
Some people just have to have the 'latest and greatest', for whatever reason, and that reason doesn't have to be (and very often is not) anything practical.
I disagree that a smartphone is 'crucial', in fact I think it's anything but 'crucial'. I'm sure it's real handy in some circumstances, but I've yet to find a really truly justifiable reason (and mere 'convenience' is not a justifiable reason my book) to shell out money for one, even a cheap one, especially considering what a security collander (i.e. full of holes) they are, sometimes even compromised right from the factory. So far as this outlier case of a $1000 Apple phone? I've got many, many much more important things to do with $1000 than to spend it on some trendy piece of tech that'll be either obsolete or broken in a couple years. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick with a cheap dumbphone, plain old telephone calls and the occasional text message is all I really need.
Anyone who ever read the Well World novels would be able to reason that if our so-called 'reality' and 'Universe' is all just a simulation, we'd never know it. If true then it would be simple for the 'simulation' to lead us to the conclusion that everything is real.
'U.S. Consumer Groups' apparently have some intelligent people in them that see, as do I and many others, that so-called 'self driving car' technology is not even close to ready-for-prime-time, and that legislators, who notably are technologically ignorant and incompetent, have been taken in by all the hype and actually believe that they're going to have K.I.T.T. to have a delightful conversation, in an English accent, on the way to their destinations. So-called 'self driving cars' are not going to do much of anything to prevent collisions and deaths, they'll probably add to them. Keep them off my roads, don't want them around me.
I don't need some voice-activated surveillance device to turn my gods-be-damned lights on and off, the switch on the wall is more than adequate.
Yeah sure because people in the finance industry in this country are just so kind and thoughtful and concerned about the average citizen and their well-being, they're never greedy bastards who would steal their grandmothers Social Security checks if they thought it would benefit them. Are you really so blind that you think these people are blameless? Or are you a Trump-supporting Republican and really believe that whatever makes Big Business more money is a good thing? Get real. These people are pieces of crap and need to be punished for their gross negligence. Oh and by the way go read the current news, they're all being investigated for their stock sales, among other things, so I guess I'm not far off at all now am I?
Oh for fuck's sake. Putin is having his people do whatever they can to destabilize NATO and the U.S. and any other country that would stand in the way of him building a new Russian empire because he misses the days of the USSR and the KGB, and I'm far from the only person who sees these things going on. How can you be so goddamned blind?
If they totally de-regulate ISPs and the Internet in America turns into something more like AOL than a free and open Internet, then I'm likely bailing out, getting a library card, and likely having a slightly smaller electric bill every month from not having a computer and networking equipment powered up all the time. Got no interest in what ISPs want to do with the Internet, given their druthers.
So are you saying that we should just let ISPs in this country do whatever the hell they want, and to hell with everyone else? Because if you are then you can get fucked.
Am I the only one that thinks the timing of part of Spain wanting to break away and become a (tiny little) independent country is rather.. susupicious? Especially considering how much chaos Russia has been covertly fomenting pretty much everywhere it can, to try to destabilize NATO countries? They influenced the U.S. election, they influenced the BREXIT vote, who's to say they aren't influencing Catalonians as well?
I've lived here my entire life, I already know everything you're saying.
Hate to tell you dude, but just because you believe something DIDN'T happen, doesn't mean it's NOT true. The son of a bitch needs to have his head cut off and placed on a pole on Wall Street as a warning to not be an incompetent idiot when it comes to the lives of hudreds of millions of people. So STFU, whose side are you on?
1. Linux won't run everything that Windows will run, and is not as dumbed-down as Windows is, so the average person who has little to no technical knowledge of computers can't understand Linux, can't be bothered to learn something new, and doesn't have any reason to even try in the first place. Furthermore they don't really care how much Microsoft is datamining them with Windows, invading their privacy, or the fact that Microsoft becomes the de-facto owner of the computer the consumer bought and paid for with their own money, not so long as they can browse the web, send and receive email, and watch cat videos on YouTube.
2. Microsoft is doing everything it can to either kill Linux as a viable alternative, or more lately, subverting, annexing, and otherwise taking over Linux; they want Microsoft to be the only producer of operating systems for computing devices, and they don't care what they have to do to accomplish that.
Statistically the majority of trips are well within the range of electric cars.
Sure. I drive about 24 miles a day Monday through Friday to get to work and back. My usual shopping errands are within a 25 mile radius of where I live. No problem there. But I also race bikes, and the race venues are up to 120 miles away. My pickup will make that round trip on one tank -- and I can easily buy gas anywhere in a matter of minutes. An electric vehicle that can't make that round trip on one charge is a total non-starter. That's a 'technical' hurdle that's going to have to be addressed. They either have to improve the mileage per charge, or find a fast-charging solution, because no one in my situation is going to be willing to have a 2 hour trip take 4 or 5 hours because you have to wait 2 or 3 hours for the damn car to recharge. Honestly, that's the issue that really stands in the way of EV adoption for everyone.
Are you being sarcastic? I need to know before I post a real comment-on-your-comment.
A 'proposal' is still a long ways away from a bill being submitted in the legislature.
Precisely. Unless someone is 100 years old or older, or if someone actually pays attention to history, people are spoiled by the way things are now and can't imagine a world where there are things like Debtors Prison, Indentured Servitude, Slavery, Child Labor, and no labor standards or labor laws whatsoever. They also can't imagine a world where companies can claim whatever they want about their products, with impugnity (smoking is healthy and good for you! SMOKE MORE!) or a world where you can't really sue any company for any harm they've caused you.
We're rapidly approaching 1984 levels of dystopia, and having ISPs totally unregulated in what they can do with the Internet in this country is another step in that direction, which is why it needs to be STOPPED.
How about this: use encryption on all TCP and UDP packets, including DNS. Then ISPs can't do deep packet inspection, inject data, or anything of the sort.
Besides which, the way things are going, we probably should have everything encrypted anyway, nothing is safe anymore.
There is NO WAY IN HELL this jackass should be allowed to keep that money, and furthermore he should also have the money from the Equifax stock he dumped confiscated. He clearly waited to tell the public about the breach until after he'd arranged for his 'golden parachute', so I say that should qualify as insider trading. There should also be a criminal investigation. Someone (or many someones) should have their heads on a pike for this. It may be DECADES before the full consequences of the breach are known. The level of negligence involved is practically a crime against humanity.
He's just trying to get in the headlines. No way this would be practical.
Russian bot, please leave, we don't need your artificial devisiveness, fomenting chaos in our country.
On the other hand, it might spur the auto industry to step things up, offer more models, promote them more, which will increase sales, causing more production, which will lower prices. Don't we all work more efficiently when we know we have a schedule to keep? Don't we all tend to procrastinate more when we know we're not going to be required to get something done on any sort of schedule? Any way you look at it, mandate or no mandate, in ten years there will be many many more electric vehicles on the roads of California, and there will be more infrastructure to support them.
To summarize a few points:
* This is just CARB 'talking' about this. It's not legislation, no one has introduced a bill. It's really just a 'what if' they're discussing.
* I hardly think they'd suddenly ban all IC engine vehicles. That would be a disaster, so don't even think about it.
* Furthermore it'd likely be a gradual shift away from IC engines to electric.
* Furthermore, I don't think things like motorcycles would be included in the ban, nor fleets of trucks, emergency vehicles, etc.
* Furthermore, I don't think it'd include existing vehicles, just new vehicles. Otherwise it would be an impossible financial burden on everyone. * Again: It's just above the level of coffee-table conversation the CARB is having about this. It would be at least TEN YEARS before they'd do anything.
* Furthermore, it'd likely have to be legislation. We all know how long that'd take, right?
Basically: No need to get all flustered about it -- YET. But it was worthy of being posted, so you all know what's going on. Also, not like you didn't all think something like this would come up eventually, anyway, we've been slowly moving towards this for a while now.
How about a smartphone that sells for, say, $200 to $300, that's actually secure, instead of the 'security collander' that pretty much any smartphone currently is?
That's the main reason why I don't have or want a smartphone: total lack of security, and for that matter, a total lack of access to the OS at the level needed to make it secure.
Until such an animal exists I'll just stick with the cheap-ass $50 dumbphone, that stays turned off 95% of the day anyway, and which is probably not hackable (or at least not hackable in any significant way).