"NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. (1) Nothing in this section applies to
30 motor vehicle manufacturers, any product or service of a motor
31 vehicle manufacturer, or motor vehicle dealers."
Cars and tractors are still not included. Still got to go through the dealer for service.
What? Is Adobe the only company making Content Creation software? No they aren't. You just like their software because it has features that no one else even comes close to.
And you complain about paying for it.
If I was selected for a jury the prosecutor had better bring a lot more to the table than that. If that's the best evidence for their case I would acquit.
Though I might consider that slightly better than eye witness testimony.
If 25 Million isn't a big city.... What the heck is? Seriously though, why 25 Million? Is it just because they have already burned past 20 million and are all, "Well, guess we can't kick people out now, so let's just call it at 25"? What "Big City diseases" can they avoid at 25 million that aren't happening at 30? And further, is this just Shanghi proper, or is this going to limit the Shanghi region which is already pushing 35 million people.
You need to check your QED. That's harm from eating junk food not from watching commercials.
And you earlier acknowledged the applicability of the argument that this is a fault of parents buying the junk food, debunking your own QED. Either way, it's not literally the commercials causing the harm as is often believed.
But I'm not asking what "a normal parent can see", I'm asking for empirical evidence of any of this. The title report is about how Netflix only homes watch less commercials, my question is why does that matter? What empirical evidence is there that watching too many commercials causes negative effects over watching commercial-free tv?
Commercials are annoying, but you people talk about them like they cause cancer or something.
And this link (Ads for sugared products leading to obesity) is generally accepted as a ground truth of advertising to children. I fully accept the inevitable counter argument of "parenting", but as a parent I will also say, there are times when you cave just to get the kids to STFU and give you a moment of peace.
So the result is that advertising makes kids want things. No kidding.
That's not harming them.
Can anyone please provide me to a well cited peer-reviewed study that demonstrated that watching ads had any negative effect on a human of any age at all?
There aren't any poor people buying bitcoin. Zero. Period.
If you believe the nonsense about bitcoin being popular in Zimbabwe and North Korea, etc., then you know nothing about how the personal finances of poor people work. They are just trying to get food on the table each night and make rent. They don't have expendable income to buy magic internet money with.
This is 100% just rich people playing games with each other.
Apple's maps were only ever intended to act as an insurance policy if Steve Job's thermonuclear war with Google got Google Maps removed from the App Store. That happened for a short time, but now it's back and things have cooled significantly since 2012 on the patent war. Navigation is as much a minimum expectation of a smartphone now as email is. It was only ever developed at all to ensure there would always be maps available for the iPhone.
In the event that Google removes Maps from the App Store, Apple will immediately make new, immediate, and significant investments in their program. Until then, they don't care.
Housing was just a single example. The same will happen for food, medicine, internet access, and everything else. We live in a market economy and the market sets the prices.
Industry was going to take away all the jobs. The, the tractor was going to take away all the jobs. Mechanization was going to take away all the jobs. Automation was going to take away all the jobs. Outsourcing was going to take away all the jobs. And yet here we are after all of that we have the lowest unemployment rate this country has ever had. Something tells me that with even 3D printing and artificial intelligence Americans will figure out something to do.
There will be a tipping point when enough human jobs are replaced by automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence whereby it'll be in the interest of companies to get behind a Universal Basic Income... otherwise, to whom will they sell their wares?
At that point, people will figure out something else to do for money.
UBI is ultimately pointless because the problem right now isn't that people don't have money. It's that the market adjusts itself to maximize profits which will always price some people out.
Consider this:
A person makes $100 a month and only wants to spend $10 on an apartment. But there is another person willing to spend $15 on that apartment, so that's what the market sets it's price at, which causes a lot of financial strain on the person.
Good news! The government passes a UBI law, and provides everyone with a minimum $15 salary, bringing the persons monthly income to $115. The person can now easily afford the apartment, right?
Well no. You see, that person gets the salary, but so does the other person competing for the same apartment. The second person is now willing to pay $20 for that apartment. So that's where the market says the price.
So ultimately, all the UBI does is raise the prices on everything for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
You were always allowed to do that work yourself. This is regarding the sales of parts and technical specs. If you break your pacemaker it's on you.
"NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. (1) Nothing in this section applies to 30 motor vehicle manufacturers, any product or service of a motor 31 vehicle manufacturer, or motor vehicle dealers." Cars and tractors are still not included. Still got to go through the dealer for service.
What? Is Adobe the only company making Content Creation software? No they aren't. You just like their software because it has features that no one else even comes close to. And you complain about paying for it.
It certainly isn't rich people racing to cash out and stop from losing more money then they already have. Because that wasn't foreseeable.
If I was selected for a jury the prosecutor had better bring a lot more to the table than that. If that's the best evidence for their case I would acquit. Though I might consider that slightly better than eye witness testimony.
If 25 Million isn't a big city.... What the heck is? Seriously though, why 25 Million? Is it just because they have already burned past 20 million and are all, "Well, guess we can't kick people out now, so let's just call it at 25"? What "Big City diseases" can they avoid at 25 million that aren't happening at 30? And further, is this just Shanghi proper, or is this going to limit the Shanghi region which is already pushing 35 million people.
You need to check your QED. That's harm from eating junk food not from watching commercials. And you earlier acknowledged the applicability of the argument that this is a fault of parents buying the junk food, debunking your own QED. Either way, it's not literally the commercials causing the harm as is often believed.
But I'm not asking what "a normal parent can see", I'm asking for empirical evidence of any of this. The title report is about how Netflix only homes watch less commercials, my question is why does that matter? What empirical evidence is there that watching too many commercials causes negative effects over watching commercial-free tv? Commercials are annoying, but you people talk about them like they cause cancer or something.
It's somewhat tangential to what I believe the intent of your question is but: https://www.omicsonline.org/op... http://healthland.time.com/201...
And this link (Ads for sugared products leading to obesity) is generally accepted as a ground truth of advertising to children. I fully accept the inevitable counter argument of "parenting", but as a parent I will also say, there are times when you cave just to get the kids to STFU and give you a moment of peace.
So the result is that advertising makes kids want things. No kidding. That's not harming them.
Yup. Read every one of those too. Not a one says what you think it says.
Or you could, you know, read your own google results. None of those results actually say anything about negative effects of advertising.
Can anyone please provide me to a well cited peer-reviewed study that demonstrated that watching ads had any negative effect on a human of any age at all?
There aren't any poor people buying bitcoin. Zero. Period. If you believe the nonsense about bitcoin being popular in Zimbabwe and North Korea, etc., then you know nothing about how the personal finances of poor people work. They are just trying to get food on the table each night and make rent. They don't have expendable income to buy magic internet money with. This is 100% just rich people playing games with each other.
More likely it's stupid rich people fighting amoung themselves to figure out who can lose the most money the fastest.
Apple's maps were only ever intended to act as an insurance policy if Steve Job's thermonuclear war with Google got Google Maps removed from the App Store. That happened for a short time, but now it's back and things have cooled significantly since 2012 on the patent war. Navigation is as much a minimum expectation of a smartphone now as email is. It was only ever developed at all to ensure there would always be maps available for the iPhone. In the event that Google removes Maps from the App Store, Apple will immediately make new, immediate, and significant investments in their program. Until then, they don't care.
I hope someone actually tries to cash out their bitcoin. Then we can see if he can actually find $85m worth of buyers.
Because kids don't know how to smuggle things that are "banned" into schools.
Further, it drops in the summer when hundreds of thousands of school employees and teachers go on summer break.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with UBI.
But no one is stopping anyone from doing that now? Yet we still have a world wide affordable housing problem now anyway.
Housing was just a single example. The same will happen for food, medicine, internet access, and everything else. We live in a market economy and the market sets the prices.
UBI could replace Social Security since they would largely be redundant.
Industry was going to take away all the jobs. The, the tractor was going to take away all the jobs. Mechanization was going to take away all the jobs. Automation was going to take away all the jobs. Outsourcing was going to take away all the jobs. And yet here we are after all of that we have the lowest unemployment rate this country has ever had. Something tells me that with even 3D printing and artificial intelligence Americans will figure out something to do.
There will be a tipping point when enough human jobs are replaced by automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence whereby it'll be in the interest of companies to get behind a Universal Basic Income... otherwise, to whom will they sell their wares?
At that point, people will figure out something else to do for money.
UBI is ultimately pointless because the problem right now isn't that people don't have money. It's that the market adjusts itself to maximize profits which will always price some people out. Consider this: A person makes $100 a month and only wants to spend $10 on an apartment. But there is another person willing to spend $15 on that apartment, so that's what the market sets it's price at, which causes a lot of financial strain on the person. Good news! The government passes a UBI law, and provides everyone with a minimum $15 salary, bringing the persons monthly income to $115. The person can now easily afford the apartment, right? Well no. You see, that person gets the salary, but so does the other person competing for the same apartment. The second person is now willing to pay $20 for that apartment. So that's where the market says the price. So ultimately, all the UBI does is raise the prices on everything for everyone.