Well my solution is that I only answer if I recognise the incoming number (family, friends, co-workers and the office)
I am the opposite. I only answer the phone if I don't recognize the number because it could be an emergency of some kind. For me that is what voice comms have become: a form of urgent/emergency communication. That loud ringer is like an alarm bell indicating that something is very wrong. Otherwise they would have just texted me. I get very annoyed with friends and family who habitually call me. It is like constantly shouting in my ear. It just makes me want to ignore them. When I pick up I ask, "What happened? What's the emergency? Did someone die? Is someone in the hospital?"
Before mobiles became ubiquitous and I only had a landline I tried using a cool service my telco had that let me make a whitelist of 10 phone numbers. The phone would only ring if it was from one of those numbers. I thought that was so cool at the time, but it caused problems when I missed important outside calls.
I don't understand why receiving voice calls is so much more annoying to me now than it was 20 years ago. Now it seems like they are inherently annoying and must have always been so. Maybe it's Pavlovian. Before we were all conditioned that when we hear a phone ringing we pick it up without question. Stimulus-Response. Now that has changed. When I hear my phone ringing I just get steaming mad and wonder what a-hole thinks his time is so valuable that he can't be bothered to send a short text. I only call people after I have texted them. I wouldn't disturb them with a phone call any more than I would just show up at their door unannounced. It seems impolite to me.
Well yeah it is only rich people that generally have money for investments. The whole bitcoin thing was an exception though. In the beginning even a poor person (by first world standards at least) could have mined and/or purchased it when it was cheap and now would be very very very rich. It is money that just came out of nowhere. I think most of us who can remember the very first slashdot stories about bitcoin are kicking ourselves for doubting and ignoring it. It turned out to be more of a speculative bubble investment than a real currency though. I wonder how many people really guessed this would happen. Limited supply yes, but why is it so highly valued? It's not even completely anonymous. It reminds me of the real estate market before the most recent bubble. It just seems like you can't lose investing money in a cryptocurrency. Even if it crashes in a week or a month it is back up again.
Any time he sells a bitcoin and doesn't declare the gain on his quarterly taxes, it is called tax fraud.
Good point. People are wondering why the NSA would bother with this but it's easy to see why they might. Currently no country can tax him because they have no idea who he is. If his real life identity is connected to his wallet identity then whatever government he lives under can tax the billions he made from his pyramid scheme currency. The problem is it must be definitive and this method doesn't sound like it is. Although there probably aren't many billionaires without any obvious source of hundreds of millions of dollars or pounds or whatever who also got caught in their net. They could also rule out a lot of rich businessmen because they are rarely the type to do something like this. Although they may fund it. Of course it could be a group of people.
Not being coerced or told what to do by your government. Not being a slave. Being left alone unless you are actually harming other people. Obviously freedom doesn't mean freedom to murder people. It means freedom to be left alone to do what you want as long as you don't cause others harm. The US clearly does not qualify. At least not anymore. In the 18th century it did more or less qualify as free at least by my definition as long as you weren't an African slave.
I have yet to see a libertarian who has passed a macroeconomics or microeconomics class.
Well let me be the first then. I had some fundamental disagreements with the macroeconomics professor though and due to those disagreements certainly did not get an A but I did pass the course. You are correct in thinking that most Libertarians are not Keynesians though and most macroeconomic courses are based on Keynesian ideas. So it is difficult if you think those ideas are just silly and stupid and certainly unproven. Microeconomics though is only slightly controversial for a Libertarian. I found there were too many unproven assumptions which they forgot to drop before making their conclusions.
Should the US get rid of its army, China would be invading from the west, and likely Russia or Middle Eastern nations will be claiming eastern territories
Oh bullshit. You don't know that. And anyway most Libertarians are limited government libertarians and not anarcho-libertarians. So a libertarian society could still have an army. As well as police and courts and maybe even public roads, at least secondary ones. Obviously we have shown that highways can easily be paid for privately with e-tolls. That used to be just a Libertarian dream but now it is a proven reality. I wonder what other Libertarian privatization dreams could be realized with the help of new tech. Anyway the real world is indeed about compromises. It's about optimization and constraints. And the fact that most people are fucking assholes who barely deserve to live at all does make any utopian society highly questionable.
Human beings are very very bad and maybe should be exterminated, but I think some form of Libertarianism is still ideal no matter how evil and terrible and stupid most of our species is. It's based on a very simple idea that as far as I am concerned is hard to disagree with: Voluntarism. Coercion is bad. And the idea of non-coercion is based on the idea of equality. That no human being has any more rights than another and has no right to dominate or enslave another no matter how important they think their reasons are. It all derives from that and the implementation details are actually not that important to me. Some compromises have to be made but they can be minimized. The important thing is that evil mobs (and mobs are almost always evil) should not be allowed to dominate minorities and individuals. Again people are evil and selfish and will definitely hurt or kill or enslave to get what they want. Sometimes they organize enough to become a government and legalize this domination of individuals for their own selfish ends. Slavery is slavery whatever the justification. I don't see how anyone can think that is ok, but whatever.
We are humans. So we will never agree with each other and never get along peacefully. I think you are wrong. You think I am wrong. Ideally you would have your ideal society to live in and I would have my ideal society to live in and our societies could trade with each other peacefully. That would certainly be nice. Everyone should be able to live in a society they prefer. You'd prefer something more like what the US has now. I'd prefer something more like the US in the 18th century.
I've sometimes wondered if a Libertarian society could be started somewhere in Antarctica. Like a commune but with heavy weaponry to defend its territory from nations that may object. Yes an army is *definitely* necessary. That is one of the first things any society needs. I think this is a much better option than the Free State Project. There probably are enough Libertarians to start and to even defend a small Antarctic Libertarian community. Probably Marie Byrd Land would be a good location to start with because it is the only area with no territorial claims, but Queen Maud Land is another option since I'm not sure how hard Norwegians would fight to defend their territory down there. Norwegians seem less warlike than the other territory claim holders down there and are less likely to just bomb the small town out of existence like the US or UK might do.
and enjoy living in a free country the freedom of which is paid for by tax money.
The US is not a free country. It is just good at brainwashing its minions to think so. Pay your taxes and it enjoy it, slave-man. You are only free do what your government allows you to do and there is a lot it doesn't allow you to do, but it's ok because you are happy to be a slave as long as that is not what you think you are. And no it is not more free than other countries either. Go live in some of those other countries and you will see what I mean. BTW your taxes pay for a lot more than just basic government services like roads. Some of those 'services' not everyone wants. That's what I object to. Why should people have to pay for services they don't want? Usually it's just one group of people stealing from another group of people anyway. Whatever. Life isn't perfect. Most people are assholes and we have to try to live together. Just don't pretend you are free. You aren't.
At least for residential construction. I've done house wiring and I've tried to do masonry work and doing house wiring (yes code compliant) is much much easier.
Still a bit of a bitter taste in my mouth as today I could buy a car with that money.
Not just a car. A brand new BMW. Bitcoin seems a lot more like gold than like a currency. It's like a highly volatile commodity that so far has mostly gone up. But really it's a pyramid scheme. Makes me want to invest in some of the newer crypto-currencies to get in earlier in the pyramid. If I were holding bitcoins I would probably start selling around now. How much higher could it really go? I would definitely be afraid it was going to crash down again. I would probably sell and reinvest some of the money into some of the newer e-pyramid schemes that have more potential to increase in value by orders of magnitude.
I think it's those mostly unnecessary barriers to entry that you mention that are more responsible for any perceived shortage than the wages. The wages are quite good precisely because the tradesmen currently working keep the barriers to entry so high. Although bricklaying is probably one of the most difficult of the trades. It is really tricky to do well. But in general I think the main reason construction labor costs are so high in the US is how difficult we make it for people to actually do that work.
More to the point bricklaying and masonry work is more than just a 'skilled trade'. It is actually hard. Getting everything lined up and straight is really tricky in a way that most construction work is not. It would be great if someone could make a robot that could do that work. I am skeptical but it's a perfect use case because of the difficulty humans have in getting things perfectly lined up like that.
In the country where I live now you can hire a mason for like $10 for a full day's work but don't expect those bricks/blocks to be straight or true. The wall will stay up perfectly well but it won't look nearly as good and of course won't be as strong. In the building where I live right now none of the walls or floors or ceilings are even close to straight/true/plumb, but the building has survived earthquakes without even any new cracks in the masonry. So I guess it's good enough and it is of course much much cheaper. There is something to be said for being able to build houses that non-rich people can actually afford to buy.
While they are a lot good workers, there are a bunch of Drop outs, more interested in getting drunk and/or taking drugs.
As you say there are 'a mountain' of people asking for the jobs. Not all of them are drunks or drug users. Just hire them. Then there is no shortage. I suspect that like most of the businesses in the US they tend to have very specific requirements for their new hires with specific experience requirements etc much of which is not really necessary. It's only because of arbitrary requirements that there might seem to be a shortage. They might even (gasp) train some people especially for the easier sort of construction work which is most of it.
Being skilled is not the same as being intelligent. So no general intelligence is not a fallacy. I agree that paying a higher price does not guarantee better work. Actually a lot of residential construction is pretty easy. Easy enough that most people could learn to do it well enough pretty quickly even without formal training. Higher skilled, more experienced construction workers are generally just faster at doing the same thing. So it becomes a question of whether they are faster enough to justify their higher prices. Sometimes they are. Sometimes they aren't.
>I eat at a lot of restaurants and have yet to see a correlation between "good" and "popular"
Well it is unfortunate that in the US good food is not so highly valued and it is rare enough that people often don't even expect to find it or it is so expensive that most people can't afford it. This is especially true outside of major cities.
However if you travel internationally you will find very quickly that trying the busiest restaurants first is a better strategy than random selection at finding restaurants with good food.
If you see one restaurant without a single customer on a friday night and another one nearby completely full with people waiting out the door you are really going to guess that the empty restaurant has better food?
The effectiveness of the strategy depends on the country and if you are in a city with a zagats or chowhound has commented on that that is probably a better method, but compared to random selection choosing the busiest restaurant is more likely to find better food than random selection.
And what kind of experience would you look for in a candidate to manage a $180M telescope? Some who just graduated high school?
I'd look for a PhD holders with any radio telescope experience and choose the best candidate from those. Or better yet actively recruit candidates. If there are only like 40 people in the world who might fit the requirements you may as well just contact all of them and ask if they want the job. More realistically don't require 20 years of experience because that is ridiculous. After the first 2 or 3 years you aren't going to be learning much. You just need a highly intelligent person with appropriate education who knows how to use radio telescopes.
Well France is not talking about moving away from nuclear power are they? Because they are the only nuclear powered country in the world they would be the logical first choice for something like this. From the point of view of atmospheric warming which is what everyone seems to be so worried about moving away from nuclear power would be extremely stupid.
If France actually passes this as law and does not repeal it in the next two decades it will be interesting to see what happens. Although I probably won't be around to see it. I would imagine that used cars will become much more valuable and old junky cars will became a great investment there. I don't think it will immediately have a major effect, but by 2050 most rich French people will probably either be driving old Ferraris or new Teslas. Poor people will just keep fixing their old cars for decades.
I've never heard anyone say, "Gee, I'd love to drive over there but the fuel is too expensive."
Well maybe they did not say it out loud but were thinking it. Fuel cost was the main reason I did not eat at my favorite city restaurants more often when I lived in a US suburb. I had wished for some cheaper form of transportation to get into the city and back. Public transportation certainly was not it. That cost more than driving. I was looking around for a motorcycle with a small efficient engine even though it was in the northeast where it is cold most of the year. Where I am living now there are relatively cheap 100/125cc motorcycles that can get over 100 mpg, but they are pretty much unavailable in the US for some reason.
Not completely meaningless - it establishes momentum, and serves notice to industry that they should get more serious about focusing investment in the relevant technologies.
It only gives them notice if they truly believe it is actually going to happen. It is unclear whether that is the case here.
The thing I don't understand is that they aren't really carpool lanes. They are party car lanes. If you bring extra bodies you go faster. So you get people trying to convince their friends and family to go with them instead of going alone. The additional weight in the vehicle burns more gas but you get where you want to go faster so it's probably worth it even to poor Indonesians. Still it must waste and burn a lot of extra fuel.
The whole idea of carpooling is kind of ridiculous. Most neighbors don't have the same travel destination at the same time. That is not our world. Carpooling is not a solution to anything and certainly won't help solve traffic problems. An easy fix to traffic problems in places like Indonesia is just to ban cars at peak times. Only allow motorcycles and buses. Actually turning some lanes into motorcycle only lanes could be a middle ground.
This is so obviously just that one angry ugly lesbo chick getting publicity for her bullshit case. I certainly hope she is not a reflection of most women in tech. She's just trying to game the system for her own advantage. Probably someone at the company pissed her off and this is the result.
What I find sad is not so much how women seem to circle the wagons despite a complete lack of evidence but that there are so many male turncoat white knight types who will no doubt automatically side with them despite not even being wanted over there. Women like this stoke the flames and encourage the inherent animosity between the sexes. I'm all for Make Love Not War but if women want to fight against the other 50% of the population that's fine. I know which side I'm on.
But why is the guy's name newsworthy? You really care if his name is Jake Smith or Fred Simpson or whatever? Does anyone really care about that? The only people who would care are the crazies who would try to track him down and injure or kill him or something like that. Either naming him or threatening to do so if he doesn't STFU seems to be a kind of punishment for his unpopular views and punishing people for unpopular beliefs is an odd thing for a news organization to be doing.
I work in tech in canada, and there is a shortage of skilled labor, in many areas. I wish i would get more resumes from Canada, but i don't.
So you want to import PhDs from Western Europe and Japan? From places with equal or better education than Canada? Or are we talking places where people shit in the street and drink their own urine and where you really can't tell whether those degrees they have mean anything at all? If you want to import highly educated foreigners with advanced degrees and pay more than the local market wage for them I don't think you will get many complaints, but I highly doubt that is what this is. This isn't about importing highly intelligent German or Swiss or Japanese labor with reputations and advanced degrees at well known universities. Maybe you are the exception, but the point remains. This is mostly about trying to put a downward pressure on the local price of labor and not so much about Canadians being dumber or less educated than Indians or Pakistanis or whatever poor third world country this is mostly about in Canada.
Slashdot Mirror
Well my solution is that I only answer if I recognise the incoming number (family, friends, co-workers and the office)
I am the opposite. I only answer the phone if I don't recognize the number because it could be an emergency of some kind. For me that is what voice comms have become: a form of urgent/emergency communication. That loud ringer is like an alarm bell indicating that something is very wrong. Otherwise they would have just texted me. I get very annoyed with friends and family who habitually call me. It is like constantly shouting in my ear. It just makes me want to ignore them. When I pick up I ask, "What happened? What's the emergency? Did someone die? Is someone in the hospital?"
Before mobiles became ubiquitous and I only had a landline I tried using a cool service my telco had that let me make a whitelist of 10 phone numbers. The phone would only ring if it was from one of those numbers. I thought that was so cool at the time, but it caused problems when I missed important outside calls.
I don't understand why receiving voice calls is so much more annoying to me now than it was 20 years ago. Now it seems like they are inherently annoying and must have always been so. Maybe it's Pavlovian. Before we were all conditioned that when we hear a phone ringing we pick it up without question. Stimulus-Response. Now that has changed. When I hear my phone ringing I just get steaming mad and wonder what a-hole thinks his time is so valuable that he can't be bothered to send a short text. I only call people after I have texted them. I wouldn't disturb them with a phone call any more than I would just show up at their door unannounced. It seems impolite to me.
Well yeah it is only rich people that generally have money for investments. The whole bitcoin thing was an exception though. In the beginning even a poor person (by first world standards at least) could have mined and/or purchased it when it was cheap and now would be very very very rich. It is money that just came out of nowhere. I think most of us who can remember the very first slashdot stories about bitcoin are kicking ourselves for doubting and ignoring it. It turned out to be more of a speculative bubble investment than a real currency though. I wonder how many people really guessed this would happen. Limited supply yes, but why is it so highly valued? It's not even completely anonymous. It reminds me of the real estate market before the most recent bubble. It just seems like you can't lose investing money in a cryptocurrency. Even if it crashes in a week or a month it is back up again.
Any time he sells a bitcoin and doesn't declare the gain on his quarterly taxes, it is called tax fraud.
Good point. People are wondering why the NSA would bother with this but it's easy to see why they might. Currently no country can tax him because they have no idea who he is. If his real life identity is connected to his wallet identity then whatever government he lives under can tax the billions he made from his pyramid scheme currency. The problem is it must be definitive and this method doesn't sound like it is. Although there probably aren't many billionaires without any obvious source of hundreds of millions of dollars or pounds or whatever who also got caught in their net. They could also rule out a lot of rich businessmen because they are rarely the type to do something like this. Although they may fund it. Of course it could be a group of people.
Not being coerced or told what to do by your government. Not being a slave. Being left alone unless you are actually harming other people. Obviously freedom doesn't mean freedom to murder people. It means freedom to be left alone to do what you want as long as you don't cause others harm. The US clearly does not qualify. At least not anymore. In the 18th century it did more or less qualify as free at least by my definition as long as you weren't an African slave.
I have yet to see a libertarian who has passed a macroeconomics or microeconomics class.
Well let me be the first then. I had some fundamental disagreements with the macroeconomics professor though and due to those disagreements certainly did not get an A but I did pass the course. You are correct in thinking that most Libertarians are not Keynesians though and most macroeconomic courses are based on Keynesian ideas. So it is difficult if you think those ideas are just silly and stupid and certainly unproven. Microeconomics though is only slightly controversial for a Libertarian. I found there were too many unproven assumptions which they forgot to drop before making their conclusions.
Should the US get rid of its army, China would be invading from the west, and likely Russia or Middle Eastern nations will be claiming eastern territories
Oh bullshit. You don't know that. And anyway most Libertarians are limited government libertarians and not anarcho-libertarians. So a libertarian society could still have an army. As well as police and courts and maybe even public roads, at least secondary ones. Obviously we have shown that highways can easily be paid for privately with e-tolls. That used to be just a Libertarian dream but now it is a proven reality. I wonder what other Libertarian privatization dreams could be realized with the help of new tech. Anyway the real world is indeed about compromises. It's about optimization and constraints. And the fact that most people are fucking assholes who barely deserve to live at all does make any utopian society highly questionable.
Human beings are very very bad and maybe should be exterminated, but I think some form of Libertarianism is still ideal no matter how evil and terrible and stupid most of our species is. It's based on a very simple idea that as far as I am concerned is hard to disagree with: Voluntarism. Coercion is bad. And the idea of non-coercion is based on the idea of equality. That no human being has any more rights than another and has no right to dominate or enslave another no matter how important they think their reasons are. It all derives from that and the implementation details are actually not that important to me. Some compromises have to be made but they can be minimized. The important thing is that evil mobs (and mobs are almost always evil) should not be allowed to dominate minorities and individuals. Again people are evil and selfish and will definitely hurt or kill or enslave to get what they want. Sometimes they organize enough to become a government and legalize this domination of individuals for their own selfish ends. Slavery is slavery whatever the justification. I don't see how anyone can think that is ok, but whatever.
We are humans. So we will never agree with each other and never get along peacefully. I think you are wrong. You think I am wrong. Ideally you would have your ideal society to live in and I would have my ideal society to live in and our societies could trade with each other peacefully. That would certainly be nice. Everyone should be able to live in a society they prefer. You'd prefer something more like what the US has now. I'd prefer something more like the US in the 18th century.
I've sometimes wondered if a Libertarian society could be started somewhere in Antarctica. Like a commune but with heavy weaponry to defend its territory from nations that may object. Yes an army is *definitely* necessary. That is one of the first things any society needs. I think this is a much better option than the Free State Project. There probably are enough Libertarians to start and to even defend a small Antarctic Libertarian community. Probably Marie Byrd Land would be a good location to start with because it is the only area with no territorial claims, but Queen Maud Land is another option since I'm not sure how hard Norwegians would fight to defend their territory down there. Norwegians seem less warlike than the other territory claim holders down there and are less likely to just bomb the small town out of existence like the US or UK might do.
and enjoy living in a free country the freedom of which is paid for by tax money.
The US is not a free country. It is just good at brainwashing its minions to think so. Pay your taxes and it enjoy it, slave-man. You are only free do what your government allows you to do and there is a lot it doesn't allow you to do, but it's ok because you are happy to be a slave as long as that is not what you think you are. And no it is not more free than other countries either. Go live in some of those other countries and you will see what I mean. BTW your taxes pay for a lot more than just basic government services like roads. Some of those 'services' not everyone wants. That's what I object to. Why should people have to pay for services they don't want? Usually it's just one group of people stealing from another group of people anyway. Whatever. Life isn't perfect. Most people are assholes and we have to try to live together. Just don't pretend you are free. You aren't.
At least for residential construction. I've done house wiring and I've tried to do masonry work and doing house wiring (yes code compliant) is much much easier.
Still a bit of a bitter taste in my mouth as today I could buy a car with that money.
Not just a car. A brand new BMW. Bitcoin seems a lot more like gold than like a currency. It's like a highly volatile commodity that so far has mostly gone up. But really it's a pyramid scheme. Makes me want to invest in some of the newer crypto-currencies to get in earlier in the pyramid. If I were holding bitcoins I would probably start selling around now. How much higher could it really go? I would definitely be afraid it was going to crash down again. I would probably sell and reinvest some of the money into some of the newer e-pyramid schemes that have more potential to increase in value by orders of magnitude.
I live in a reinforced concrete building that just survived an earthquake recently without any apparent damage.
I think it's those mostly unnecessary barriers to entry that you mention that are more responsible for any perceived shortage than the wages. The wages are quite good precisely because the tradesmen currently working keep the barriers to entry so high. Although bricklaying is probably one of the most difficult of the trades. It is really tricky to do well. But in general I think the main reason construction labor costs are so high in the US is how difficult we make it for people to actually do that work.
More to the point bricklaying and masonry work is more than just a 'skilled trade'. It is actually hard. Getting everything lined up and straight is really tricky in a way that most construction work is not. It would be great if someone could make a robot that could do that work. I am skeptical but it's a perfect use case because of the difficulty humans have in getting things perfectly lined up like that.
In the country where I live now you can hire a mason for like $10 for a full day's work but don't expect those bricks/blocks to be straight or true. The wall will stay up perfectly well but it won't look nearly as good and of course won't be as strong. In the building where I live right now none of the walls or floors or ceilings are even close to straight/true/plumb, but the building has survived earthquakes without even any new cracks in the masonry. So I guess it's good enough and it is of course much much cheaper. There is something to be said for being able to build houses that non-rich people can actually afford to buy.
While they are a lot good workers, there are a bunch of Drop outs, more interested in getting drunk and/or taking drugs.
As you say there are 'a mountain' of people asking for the jobs. Not all of them are drunks or drug users. Just hire them. Then there is no shortage. I suspect that like most of the businesses in the US they tend to have very specific requirements for their new hires with specific experience requirements etc much of which is not really necessary. It's only because of arbitrary requirements that there might seem to be a shortage. They might even (gasp) train some people especially for the easier sort of construction work which is most of it.
Houses are already cheap to build. It is land that costs money
Not really. In some places you can buy lots for $10,000. You going to build a house for less than that?
Being skilled is not the same as being intelligent. So no general intelligence is not a fallacy. I agree that paying a higher price does not guarantee better work. Actually a lot of residential construction is pretty easy. Easy enough that most people could learn to do it well enough pretty quickly even without formal training. Higher skilled, more experienced construction workers are generally just faster at doing the same thing. So it becomes a question of whether they are faster enough to justify their higher prices. Sometimes they are. Sometimes they aren't.
BBQ and chili huh? I would like to think you live in Texas.
>I eat at a lot of restaurants and have yet to see a correlation between "good" and "popular"
Well it is unfortunate that in the US good food is not so highly valued and it is rare enough that people often don't even expect to find it or it is so expensive that most people can't afford it. This is especially true outside of major cities.
However if you travel internationally you will find very quickly that trying the busiest restaurants first is a better strategy than random selection at finding restaurants with good food.
If you see one restaurant without a single customer on a friday night and another one nearby completely full with people waiting out the door you are really going to guess that the empty restaurant has better food?
The effectiveness of the strategy depends on the country and if you are in a city with a zagats or chowhound has commented on that that is probably a better method, but compared to random selection choosing the busiest restaurant is more likely to find better food than random selection.
And what kind of experience would you look for in a candidate to manage a $180M telescope? Some who just graduated high school?
I'd look for a PhD holders with any radio telescope experience and choose the best candidate from those. Or better yet actively recruit candidates. If there are only like 40 people in the world who might fit the requirements you may as well just contact all of them and ask if they want the job. More realistically don't require 20 years of experience because that is ridiculous. After the first 2 or 3 years you aren't going to be learning much. You just need a highly intelligent person with appropriate education who knows how to use radio telescopes.
Well France is not talking about moving away from nuclear power are they? Because they are the only nuclear powered country in the world they would be the logical first choice for something like this. From the point of view of atmospheric warming which is what everyone seems to be so worried about moving away from nuclear power would be extremely stupid.
If France actually passes this as law and does not repeal it in the next two decades it will be interesting to see what happens. Although I probably won't be around to see it. I would imagine that used cars will become much more valuable and old junky cars will became a great investment there. I don't think it will immediately have a major effect, but by 2050 most rich French people will probably either be driving old Ferraris or new Teslas. Poor people will just keep fixing their old cars for decades.
I've never heard anyone say, "Gee, I'd love to drive over there but the fuel is too expensive."
Well maybe they did not say it out loud but were thinking it. Fuel cost was the main reason I did not eat at my favorite city restaurants more often when I lived in a US suburb. I had wished for some cheaper form of transportation to get into the city and back. Public transportation certainly was not it. That cost more than driving. I was looking around for a motorcycle with a small efficient engine even though it was in the northeast where it is cold most of the year. Where I am living now there are relatively cheap 100/125cc motorcycles that can get over 100 mpg, but they are pretty much unavailable in the US for some reason.
Not completely meaningless - it establishes momentum, and serves notice to industry that they should get more serious about focusing investment in the relevant technologies.
It only gives them notice if they truly believe it is actually going to happen. It is unclear whether that is the case here.
The thing I don't understand is that they aren't really carpool lanes. They are party car lanes. If you bring extra bodies you go faster. So you get people trying to convince their friends and family to go with them instead of going alone. The additional weight in the vehicle burns more gas but you get where you want to go faster so it's probably worth it even to poor Indonesians. Still it must waste and burn a lot of extra fuel.
The whole idea of carpooling is kind of ridiculous. Most neighbors don't have the same travel destination at the same time. That is not our world. Carpooling is not a solution to anything and certainly won't help solve traffic problems. An easy fix to traffic problems in places like Indonesia is just to ban cars at peak times. Only allow motorcycles and buses. Actually turning some lanes into motorcycle only lanes could be a middle ground.
This is so obviously just that one angry ugly lesbo chick getting publicity for her bullshit case. I certainly hope she is not a reflection of most women in tech. She's just trying to game the system for her own advantage. Probably someone at the company pissed her off and this is the result.
What I find sad is not so much how women seem to circle the wagons despite a complete lack of evidence but that there are so many male turncoat white knight types who will no doubt automatically side with them despite not even being wanted over there. Women like this stoke the flames and encourage the inherent animosity between the sexes. I'm all for Make Love Not War but if women want to fight against the other 50% of the population that's fine. I know which side I'm on.
ArchlinuxARM doesn't list it under supported platforms but does that matter?
But why is the guy's name newsworthy? You really care if his name is Jake Smith or Fred Simpson or whatever? Does anyone really care about that? The only people who would care are the crazies who would try to track him down and injure or kill him or something like that. Either naming him or threatening to do so if he doesn't STFU seems to be a kind of punishment for his unpopular views and punishing people for unpopular beliefs is an odd thing for a news organization to be doing.
I work in tech in canada, and there is a shortage of skilled labor, in many areas. I wish i would get more resumes from Canada, but i don't.
So you want to import PhDs from Western Europe and Japan? From places with equal or better education than Canada? Or are we talking places where people shit in the street and drink their own urine and where you really can't tell whether those degrees they have mean anything at all? If you want to import highly educated foreigners with advanced degrees and pay more than the local market wage for them I don't think you will get many complaints, but I highly doubt that is what this is. This isn't about importing highly intelligent German or Swiss or Japanese labor with reputations and advanced degrees at well known universities. Maybe you are the exception, but the point remains. This is mostly about trying to put a downward pressure on the local price of labor and not so much about Canadians being dumber or less educated than Indians or Pakistanis or whatever poor third world country this is mostly about in Canada.