Take it a step further. We're all up into genetically engineering things now, right? Genetically engineer a dense plant for maximum conversion of CO2 into O2. Build huge greenhouses right next to the power plants, pump all the CO2 into that. Extract the O2 back into the atmosphere. If it's succesful enough, build gigantic greenhouses like this all over the planet, in places where nobody wants to live anyway; repair the atmospheric damage we've caused because of CO2. Workable idea?
See, you're touching on one of the myriad reasons why this UBI nonsense is nonsense: rich people will manage to find a way around having to give up ANY of their money. They'll hide it, or they'll just get their pet politicians to make sure the implementation has enough loopholes in it that rich people can get away with keeping their money. In the end we'll have 99% living in poverty with no way out, a bankrupt government, and the 1% owning just about everything; it'll be a DISASTER. Not happening! Only a fool would actually try to make this happen. Even the most liberal of liberal Presidents or Congresses would never entertain such a rediculous idea.
UBI only works on a SMALL SCALE. it will NOT WORK with 300,000,000 people! Believing otherwise just proves you're bad at basic four-banger math. Zuckerberg should probably get himself checked for lead contamination, his brain obvioulsy isn't working correctly. Of course when you're the one responsible for a cancerous thing like Facebook then that's a blindingly obvious fact anyway. Zuckerberg needs to keep his mouth closed about things he obviously doesn't fathom.
Do you realize that what you've had to say here is pretty much what others have had to say through every cycle of this-and-that web browser, since there's been such a thing as web browsers?
Lately my 'online behaviors' have consisted of "Tor" and "<null>", because I'm tired of snoopers. Let's see them monetize THAT.
But Rick, Tor exit nodes are all bugged and hacked!
So's your VPN. Or do you really think they're telling you the truth?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm prepared to abandon the Internet if it becomes necessary. We survived and thrived just fine before it, and we can all do so once again. When there's no one of value using the Internet anymore, it'll either die off, or there will be reforms.
I've got 4 of those. They only sync once every 24 hours, my other clock can be set to sync every minute if I want. Oh and by the way what genius decided to use a harmonic of AC line frequency for the carrier wave (60kHz) for WWVB? I know it's the 1000th harmonic, but still..
Pffft.
For cryin' out loud, you could at least say 'excuse me!' when you do that, and by the way what the hell have you been eating, 3-day-old roadkill?
I'm really glad I don't live in your imaginary totally dystopian future, if I did I'd've slit my wrists by now.
Really honestly I don't even care much about this subject. I have OTA broadcast TV that costs me nothing and that's all I care about. OTA broadcast isn't going away anytime soon, probably never, or at least for as long as I live. Even if it did I wouldn't be too broke up over it, I'd find other things to do with my time.
Surprise! I have an analog-face clock at home that's WiFi enabled and gets it's time-sync from the NTP server daemon on my desktop computer, which has a GPS receiver connected to it, so it's basically a Stratum-2 source. Between that and the TCXO that's single-digit PPM accurate, it stays accurate within 1 second all year 'round. Where is your digital-clock God now? xD
FYI for everyone: You don't need an 'app' from some Slashdotter, you can get a list of stations in your area, by zipcode, direct from the FCC's website: https://www.fcc.gov/media/engi...
I tried Netflix for a while. TiVo even supports it directly. There wasn't enough I wanted to watch on Netflix to justify the monthly cost of that, either.
Aside from the cost of cable, there's a dirty little secret that few people seem to know about with cable TV: They recompress the living daylights out of everything, so it ends up looking blocky as hell when there's any sort of motion on the screen. They do this so they can fit all those shitty channels you're paying for (but never watch) into the available bandwidth of the wire, yet still be able to claim '1080' resolution. You don't get that with OTA broadcast TV. I'd never go back even if cable was FREE. Don't know if this is true with satellite TV, I never fell for that particular meme. I do know the downsides of 'streaming', though, and I don't care for them much, either.
Do you live in a house and not an apartment? Get an antenna on your roof, get TV for free. You'd be surprised at how little it hurts in the long run to not bother with 'streaming' anything or useless cable channels. You get over it quickly enough. It's like sugar addiction: for a while you crave, then you get past it to a healthier place.
They can try that. They can also lose the business of people like me, who will not tolerate having things forced on me that I do not want and will not use.
There's only ONE device in my house that needs Internet to operate, and that's my DVR, which receives it's Program Guide updates and software updates that way. Of course it's got a modem built into it, and if necessary I'd ditch my cellphone in favor of a landline so the DVR would keep working. Or just stop watching TV entirely. There's plenty of other things I could be doing with those few hours a week.
Of course they won't try shit like that, they know if they piss people off bad enough, they'll look for alternatives. ISPs would pop up that don't force anything on you, and use that as a selling point.
Oh, about 10 years ago now, I think. Glad to see that people are getting the clue, finally. Now, if we can get them to understand that paying for 'streaming' is just a different kind of 'cable', and get them to put antennas on their roofs, they'll enjoy not having to pay anyone for anything.
The technology is fine. It's our so-called civilization that's broken, and it's brokenness is what breaks the Internet. Between some nations and their draconic censorship, ISPs mucking about with the flow of information, and criminals using it as a vehicle to attack it and it's users, I'm surprised it works as well as it does. As usual a good thing has been ruined by getting too many PEOPLE involved with it.
In five minutes with Google search I learned that drone control signals are digitally encrypted, so how are you coming to the conclusion that my opinion is in error when I say that they might want a 'backdoor' into the encryption used to control them? It's just as plausible as anything else, and quite frankly: if I can think of it, then what makes you think that someone else didn't already think of it? If I wanted to do an end-run around the denials of companies like Apple, who have already flatly refused to backdoor their own encryption, setting a legal precedent by getting a smaller company to do as I say would be a great and powerful first step towards geting a Judge to force a larger company (like Apple) to do as I say. Don't think for a minute that politicians and law enforcement in this country have given up on wanting to ruin encryption for everyone with their desire to break it with a 'backdoor', despite all their technical advisers telling them what a bad idea it would be.
The irony for me in this discussion is that I hate drones, especially hobby drones, and I'd just as soon they were banned outright, or better yet had never been invented in the first place. Yet I end up defending them in cases like this because it ends up being about something larger and much more important than insensitive selfish jerks flying their annoying toys into places they don't belong.
Emphasis on the word estimate. I don't know how many people I've talked to over the years who try to play the numbers game with their intake and calories burned, only to get frustrated that they're not losing any weight, because they thought it was absolute.
What the UK government, like pretty much every government, apparently, doesn't understand is that 'cracking down on the Internet' (i.e. censorship) is an endless, pointless, no-win game of Whack-a-Mole. Just ask anyone who ever operated a discussion forum site and tried to prevent people from posting certain words; they'll come up with endless permutations of that word to get around word filters. So it will go with 'cracking down on the Internet' in the UK: They think they're going to prevent radicalization via the Internet, they think they're going to prevent radicals from communicating with each other, but they're so, so wrong; criminals and terrorists will just change up their strategies, change up their language, always staying at least one step ahead of the government, who will never know if someone talking about 'milk delivery being on time' is talking about dairy products arriving on their doorstep, or a dirty bomb being detonated at the appointed time. The only way they can effectively 'crack down on the Internet' would be to shut it down completely and rip it out by the roots.
See, now, applying what I said above to what you just said: "Most people" == 'statistical average' to one extent or another. Are you talking about other avid runners? Or are you talking about average people who just jog occasionally? The degree to which their bodies use calories efficiently is going to vary depending on how well conditioned they are.
That being said, the tables that you find everywhere online that let you figure out about how many calories you're burning for running at 'X' pace for 'Y' time is good enough for most people, assuming they've got past the point where they're trying to account for it down to the single-digits.
Don't you think at this stage of the game the number of people who have smartphones and can livestream video from anywhere at any time (thus not capable of being confiscated) is hundreds of thousands of (millions? tens of millions?) times more than the number of people who have drones?
I stand by what I said before: this is actually an attack on encryption in general. Get drone manufacturers to put backdoors in their drone control signal encryption, and you have legal precedent to make everyone else do the same.
Over 900 environmental causes have been identified as potential causes of obesity (and researchers are working through the list)
One of the more alarming ones I've heard of is pesticide residues in common foods. For instance: glyphosate (active ingredient in Monstantos' Roundup) in wheat, peas, corn, and beans. They literally drench crops in it just before harvest to increase yield. It's a metabolic inhibitor. I'm starting to think that many people who think they have a problem with 'gluten sensitivity' actually have a problem with chronic exposure to glyphosate residue in wheat. Most 'gluten free' products tend to include 'organically raised' ingredients -- which means Roundup and other herbicides/pesticides aren't used on them at all.
Obesity has, apparently, nothing to do with the amount or type of food you eat(*), and neither the amount of exercise you do(*).
If it's really 'environmental' factors (including but not limited to what I mentioned above about glyphosate) then the damage being done is more than just biological; there's the whole 'healthy at every size' movement, which of course is nonsense, but those people have given up and are resorting to deep denial.
Oh okay we'll just do NOTHING and let your 'rogue drone operators' do whatever they want. Then when it gets so out of hand that everyone is complaining to their Congresspeople, they'll BAN drones outright in the United States, and you and drop your expensive toy into the e-waste bin. That sound like a better idea?
Slashdot Mirror
Take it a step further. We're all up into genetically engineering things now, right? Genetically engineer a dense plant for maximum conversion of CO2 into O2. Build huge greenhouses right next to the power plants, pump all the CO2 into that. Extract the O2 back into the atmosphere. If it's succesful enough, build gigantic greenhouses like this all over the planet, in places where nobody wants to live anyway; repair the atmospheric damage we've caused because of CO2. Workable idea?
See, you're touching on one of the myriad reasons why this UBI nonsense is nonsense: rich people will manage to find a way around having to give up ANY of their money. They'll hide it, or they'll just get their pet politicians to make sure the implementation has enough loopholes in it that rich people can get away with keeping their money. In the end we'll have 99% living in poverty with no way out, a bankrupt government, and the 1% owning just about everything; it'll be a DISASTER. Not happening! Only a fool would actually try to make this happen. Even the most liberal of liberal Presidents or Congresses would never entertain such a rediculous idea.
UBI only works on a SMALL SCALE. it will NOT WORK with 300,000,000 people! Believing otherwise just proves you're bad at basic four-banger math. Zuckerberg should probably get himself checked for lead contamination, his brain obvioulsy isn't working correctly. Of course when you're the one responsible for a cancerous thing like Facebook then that's a blindingly obvious fact anyway. Zuckerberg needs to keep his mouth closed about things he obviously doesn't fathom.
Do you realize that what you've had to say here is pretty much what others have had to say through every cycle of this-and-that web browser, since there's been such a thing as web browsers?
exacting a royal sum for our online behaviors
Lately my 'online behaviors' have consisted of "Tor" and "<null>", because I'm tired of snoopers. Let's see them monetize THAT.
But Rick, Tor exit nodes are all bugged and hacked!
So's your VPN. Or do you really think they're telling you the truth?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm prepared to abandon the Internet if it becomes necessary. We survived and thrived just fine before it, and we can all do so once again. When there's no one of value using the Internet anymore, it'll either die off, or there will be reforms.
Yep, And I can read it. You can't. xD
Pffft.
For cryin' out loud, you could at least say 'excuse me!' when you do that, and by the way what the hell have you been eating, 3-day-old roadkill?
I'm really glad I don't live in your imaginary totally dystopian future, if I did I'd've slit my wrists by now.
Really honestly I don't even care much about this subject. I have OTA broadcast TV that costs me nothing and that's all I care about. OTA broadcast isn't going away anytime soon, probably never, or at least for as long as I live. Even if it did I wouldn't be too broke up over it, I'd find other things to do with my time.
Surprise! I have an analog-face clock at home that's WiFi enabled and gets it's time-sync from the NTP server daemon on my desktop computer, which has a GPS receiver connected to it, so it's basically a Stratum-2 source. Between that and the TCXO that's single-digit PPM accurate, it stays accurate within 1 second all year 'round. Where is your digital-clock God now? xD
FYI for everyone: You don't need an 'app' from some Slashdotter, you can get a list of stations in your area, by zipcode, direct from the FCC's website: https://www.fcc.gov/media/engi...
I tried Netflix for a while. TiVo even supports it directly. There wasn't enough I wanted to watch on Netflix to justify the monthly cost of that, either.
Aside from the cost of cable, there's a dirty little secret that few people seem to know about with cable TV: They recompress the living daylights out of everything, so it ends up looking blocky as hell when there's any sort of motion on the screen. They do this so they can fit all those shitty channels you're paying for (but never watch) into the available bandwidth of the wire, yet still be able to claim '1080' resolution. You don't get that with OTA broadcast TV. I'd never go back even if cable was FREE. Don't know if this is true with satellite TV, I never fell for that particular meme. I do know the downsides of 'streaming', though, and I don't care for them much, either.
Do you live in a house and not an apartment? Get an antenna on your roof, get TV for free. You'd be surprised at how little it hurts in the long run to not bother with 'streaming' anything or useless cable channels. You get over it quickly enough. It's like sugar addiction: for a while you crave, then you get past it to a healthier place.
They can try that. They can also lose the business of people like me, who will not tolerate having things forced on me that I do not want and will not use.
There's only ONE device in my house that needs Internet to operate, and that's my DVR, which receives it's Program Guide updates and software updates that way. Of course it's got a modem built into it, and if necessary I'd ditch my cellphone in favor of a landline so the DVR would keep working. Or just stop watching TV entirely. There's plenty of other things I could be doing with those few hours a week.
Of course they won't try shit like that, they know if they piss people off bad enough, they'll look for alternatives. ISPs would pop up that don't force anything on you, and use that as a selling point.
Apparently you Millennials don't know what an 'antenna' is, just like you can't read a clock that has hands instead of just numbers.
Oh, about 10 years ago now, I think. Glad to see that people are getting the clue, finally. Now, if we can get them to understand that paying for 'streaming' is just a different kind of 'cable', and get them to put antennas on their roofs, they'll enjoy not having to pay anyone for anything.
The technology is fine. It's our so-called civilization that's broken, and it's brokenness is what breaks the Internet. Between some nations and their draconic censorship, ISPs mucking about with the flow of information, and criminals using it as a vehicle to attack it and it's users, I'm surprised it works as well as it does. As usual a good thing has been ruined by getting too many PEOPLE involved with it.
In five minutes with Google search I learned that drone control signals are digitally encrypted, so how are you coming to the conclusion that my opinion is in error when I say that they might want a 'backdoor' into the encryption used to control them? It's just as plausible as anything else, and quite frankly: if I can think of it, then what makes you think that someone else didn't already think of it? If I wanted to do an end-run around the denials of companies like Apple, who have already flatly refused to backdoor their own encryption, setting a legal precedent by getting a smaller company to do as I say would be a great and powerful first step towards geting a Judge to force a larger company (like Apple) to do as I say. Don't think for a minute that politicians and law enforcement in this country have given up on wanting to ruin encryption for everyone with their desire to break it with a 'backdoor', despite all their technical advisers telling them what a bad idea it would be.
The irony for me in this discussion is that I hate drones, especially hobby drones, and I'd just as soon they were banned outright, or better yet had never been invented in the first place. Yet I end up defending them in cases like this because it ends up being about something larger and much more important than insensitive selfish jerks flying their annoying toys into places they don't belong.
Emphasis on the word estimate . I don't know how many people I've talked to over the years who try to play the numbers game with their intake and calories burned, only to get frustrated that they're not losing any weight, because they thought it was absolute.
What the UK government, like pretty much every government, apparently, doesn't understand is that 'cracking down on the Internet' (i.e. censorship) is an endless, pointless, no-win game of Whack-a-Mole. Just ask anyone who ever operated a discussion forum site and tried to prevent people from posting certain words; they'll come up with endless permutations of that word to get around word filters. So it will go with 'cracking down on the Internet' in the UK: They think they're going to prevent radicalization via the Internet, they think they're going to prevent radicals from communicating with each other, but they're so, so wrong; criminals and terrorists will just change up their strategies, change up their language, always staying at least one step ahead of the government, who will never know if someone talking about 'milk delivery being on time' is talking about dairy products arriving on their doorstep, or a dirty bomb being detonated at the appointed time. The only way they can effectively 'crack down on the Internet' would be to shut it down completely and rip it out by the roots.
The people you're thinking of are not 'less educated', they're 'wilfully ignorant', which is vastly different.
See, now, applying what I said above to what you just said: "Most people" == 'statistical average' to one extent or another. Are you talking about other avid runners? Or are you talking about average people who just jog occasionally? The degree to which their bodies use calories efficiently is going to vary depending on how well conditioned they are.
That being said, the tables that you find everywhere online that let you figure out about how many calories you're burning for running at 'X' pace for 'Y' time is good enough for most people, assuming they've got past the point where they're trying to account for it down to the single-digits.
Don't you think at this stage of the game the number of people who have smartphones and can livestream video from anywhere at any time (thus not capable of being confiscated) is hundreds of thousands of (millions? tens of millions?) times more than the number of people who have drones?
I stand by what I said before: this is actually an attack on encryption in general. Get drone manufacturers to put backdoors in their drone control signal encryption, and you have legal precedent to make everyone else do the same.
Please don't be pedantic.
All it takes is one Congresscritter deciding that he's alarmed by what he's hearing, and *BAM*, you've got a bill being discussed in Congress.
"Variability in the caloric content of foods"
That's completely correct, too.
Over 900 environmental causes have been identified as potential causes of obesity (and researchers are working through the list)
One of the more alarming ones I've heard of is pesticide residues in common foods. For instance: glyphosate (active ingredient in Monstantos' Roundup) in wheat, peas, corn, and beans. They literally drench crops in it just before harvest to increase yield. It's a metabolic inhibitor. I'm starting to think that many people who think they have a problem with 'gluten sensitivity' actually have a problem with chronic exposure to glyphosate residue in wheat. Most 'gluten free' products tend to include 'organically raised' ingredients -- which means Roundup and other herbicides/pesticides aren't used on them at all.
Obesity has, apparently, nothing to do with the amount or type of food you eat(*), and neither the amount of exercise you do(*).
If it's really 'environmental' factors (including but not limited to what I mentioned above about glyphosate) then the damage being done is more than just biological; there's the whole 'healthy at every size' movement, which of course is nonsense, but those people have given up and are resorting to deep denial.
Oh okay we'll just do NOTHING and let your 'rogue drone operators' do whatever they want. Then when it gets so out of hand that everyone is complaining to their Congresspeople, they'll BAN drones outright in the United States, and you and drop your expensive toy into the e-waste bin. That sound like a better idea?