I think it's perfectly reasonable. Why rent a house, when you can own one? Because there are pros and cons to both. Same with this. I saw the strong version of this hypothesis a few days ago - that once self-driving cars were the norm, *nobody* would want to own a car - and that I objected to strongly as stupid. People will still want to own cars, but I think there *will* be a lot *more* people who don't feel the need to own one. There are many benefits of having your own car permanently parked where you want it to be, but there are also many benefits of not having to worry about maintaining a car, just having one show up when you call it.
And of course, the single nicest thing about owning a house vs. renting it - that you're paying yourself instead of someone else - isn't really applicable to cars, since houses generally appreciate, but cars become increasingly worthless the more you drive them (in fact, a car instantly becomes worth about half what you paid for it, as soon as you drive it off the lot.)
So, I do think once self-driving cars become more common, many people - but not everyone, maybe 50/50ish - will choose this path once it becomes available.
Huh? I mean, I fully expect to get 0 social security money when I retire; it's just not even part of my planning. If I get any, I'll consider it free bonus money, the same as if I won the lottery or something. But my 401k is money I personally put in, that is in my name and nobody else's, so why would you not expect I would get it when I retire? That makes no sense. Or are you thinking the stock market is going to completely collapse and all our money is going to be totally worthless? If that happened, I think we'd have bigger things to worry about than our 401ks...
I'd argue that a purely "logical" version of "morality" that you describe does apply to corporations exactly in the same way that it applies to individuals: if it's based on being nice to someone so they'll be nice to you, that only describes morality as far as anyone knows about (i.e. the sociopathic version of morality). A corporation doesn't want to get caught stealing any more than an individual does: while the legal punishments might be sadly far less for corporations (generally, a slap on the wrist fine that does little to discourage them from continuing to do it), the real harm comes from the media, which is *exactly* equivalent to what you describe.
You want to be nice because if you're not, you'll have a reputation and people won't want to do business with you; a company might want to be nice because if it isn't, it will also have a reputation, and I won't want to do business with it, either. There are plenty of businesses on that list for me, that because of some shady deal or another, I just won't do any business with them. They didn't specifically harm me, but they've harmed enough other people that they have that reputation for harming people, so why would I want to do business with them?
Of course, the sociopathic version of that is, just don't get *caught* doing anything that would give you that reputation. But the same also technically applies to individuals.
I would mod you up, but I don't have mod points, but I will instead state my agreement:
Ideally, the government wouldn't *have* to get involved in this discussion, because the free market would have fixed it already. Unfortunately for us, the handful of broadband providers have lobbied themselves into the position of somehow-legal almost-monopoly status, so now we need *some* way of fixing it so they can't take that almost-monopoly status and use it to completely screw us over. I mean even more than they already are.
What we really need is more (read: any!) competition, but that's not seeming likely, so this is a stopgap.
The issue is that (state/local) government *is* already in our internet, and the laws they've passed were completely for the benefit of the corporations (and the politicians being paid handsomely by same for their cooperation). So now we need the federal government to come bail us out of the mess the telcos have made. Yes, part of the problem is that broadband is crazy expensive to install, but the bigger problem is that it's way *more* expensive because you have to jump through so many hoops (favoring the giant businesses who wrote the laws requiring those hoops, and who generally got in before those laws were passed, anyway), and in some cases, at the local level, allowing any competition has actually been made *illegal*.
I'm all for the free market fixing issues without having to turn to government, but that's only when there *is* a free market. I have amazingly good, amazingly cheap cell phone service. You know why? Because there's healthy competition. For landline internet, I have a choice between Verizon (extremely awful and getting worse every year) and Comcast (even more worser). Yay capitalism!
That's dumb. I have seen that opinion, but it's dumb. All three movies were great. I agree that Episode 6 was the worst of the three, but that doesn't make it any less of a still great movie. Though honestly, all *three* movies are terrible when you compare them to the Thrawn trilogy (also not a popular opinion, but search yourself, you know it to be true:p.) So whether or not episodes 7-9 will be any good (I'm guessing no, but I'd be happy to be wrong), I'm still pissed at them for retconning all the extended universe (including the masterful Thrawn trilogy) out of existence.
Episodes 1-3 were complete garbage. Episode 1 could have been saveable with a few minor tweaks, so I still enjoyed it for what it was. Episodes 2 and 3 were beyond saving.
Ok, so, then they get fired, what's the problem? If pot smokers (or ingesters, etc.) can't keep their hobby to themselves and it affects their work, they won't last long, no different from people who come to work drunk, or for that matter, people who can't resist gambling or watching porn at work, etc.
Fun fact: not every person who enjoys using pot is a pothead, just like not every person who enjoys drinking is a drunkard.
As for public smoking, well, we already have laws against public smoking, thank god. Personally I actually don't mind pot smoke smell nearly as much as tobacco smoke smell, but I still agree, both are noxious. You can certainly ban things in public for smelling terrible and being health hazards without banning them in private for being drugs. Though in this case, you mostly wouldn't even have to, because a smoking ban is a smoking ban regardless of what substance is being smoked, and we already have plenty of smoking bans.
I haven't met anyone who does. All the conversations I've had about it over the years, there seem to be two major camps:
1. It's awful and I really wish we could abolish it. (I fall into that one.) 2. Meh, whatever, it's not that big a deal.
So if half the population hates it, and the other half doesn't care one way or another... why is it still a thing? (Honestly, I'm asking, I have no idea.)
Reminds me of one of my favorite bits of graffiti:
NOBODY keeps their election promises! NOBODY will listen to your concerns NOBODY will help the poor & unemployed NOBODY cares! If NOBODY is elected, things will be better for everyone NOBODY TELLS THE TRUTH
My favorite is Ticketbastard, which finally started displaying their 10+ buck "fees" alongside ticket prices when you hover over a ticket you're thinking of (which, since you have no choice in the matter, there's really zero reason not to just call that price the price of the ticket, except then they'd have to stop advertising that their supposed prices are so cheap)... which, good for them, right? At least they're displaying the price of the ticket before you go to purchase them, right? Not right. There's that fee, but then when you go to actually pay, there are two *more* fees that were *not* displayed earlier. Because of course there are.
The show is called Doctor Who. This game is an extension of the show. You are being correctly pedantic about the name of The Doctor, but you're overcorrecting. Let's replace "code" with "count", and "Doctor Who" with "Sesame Street": "Sesame Street teaches kids to count". Would you complain because there isn't a character on the show (or associated computer game) named "Sesame Street" teaching kids to count? No, because that would be dumb.
That would be fantastic. Most of my spending goes to food (at fancy restaurants) and housing (mortgage on a million dollar mansion), so yay! No taxes for me!
(The above is not actually a true statement, sadly, just an example.)
Your post was a joke, but my post is not: I would be extremely annoyed, as male, if I were working for one of these companies, that I would be unable to take advantage of that offer. I would love to be a father at some point, that point not being anytime soon, and we both have to work. Would drive me crazy knowing that if I were the female, the problem would be solved, but being male, not so much.
I don't work for either of them anyway, I work for a much smaller company that is rather unlikely to offer any such thing, anyway, so whatever. Just too bad we weren't born a little later - I feel like this technology is going to become commonplace (and therefore affordable) in the reasonably near future, but not probably reasonably near *enough*. Oh well.
I don't think it's just a narrative, but I also don't think anything changed in the culture. Rather, we've just made it waaaay easier for the.1% of men who happen to be crazy and/or psychopaths to be really loud about it, totally drowning out the other 99.9% of the male population who aren't crazy, aren't starting disgusting trouble, and thus aren't noticed. I like to think that most geeky guys are like you, still, young and old. The crazy ones just get all the press.
How is it odd? We have no idea how rare it is. It could be quite rare indeed. Granted, I think it's *likelier* that it's moderately, but not *exceedingly*, rare, that there's probably a lot of life out there, but all millions of light years away from each other, and that ftl travel is likely going to remain forever in the realm of sci-fi, so they've just never been able to interact. But it's certainly not impossible to *imagine* the possibility that there's very little life out there because the properties required are just rarer than we might anticipate, without needing to bring a God in. After all, it's 100% likely that life evolved here, because if it had been somewhere else instead, we would have been talking about it from there.
I do, sometimes, depending on the laws. I certainly do have a problem with people blindly following laws that really should be abolished - one great way to effect that sort of change is to gradually have more and more people think the laws just aren't worth following, then people start to think they also aren't worth enforcing, then after long enough, the law turns into one of those laws that ends up in one of those "10 laws you can't believe are still in the books" lists.
I'm not saying in this particular case that we don't need laws regarding immigration - I think we do. I think the current set is kinda broken and a little bit racist, but we do need some kind laws. I'm just saying in *general*, the fact that a law exists, doesn't mean that it should exist, and for laws that shouldn't exist, not following them is *great*.
It's not a matter of females needing a male's protection. It's more a matter of females needing protection *from* males. It's not the woman's fault that men are a lot more likely to be violent dickbags, nor that men, specifically the violent dickbag ones, are a lot more likely to do awful things to a lone woman in a bad neighborhood than a lone man, given the choice.
I'm as much for the concept of gender-based chivalry dying as anyone, but he has a point with that one (to be fair, it's not fun being a single male at night in a bad neighborhood either, but I imagine it would be even less fun to be a woman.)
If I'm 90 and still with it mentally and physically, as I certainly would *like* to be, please don't kill me.
On the other hand, if I get into a terrible car crash tomorrow on the way to work, despite being quite young, if I'm in severe pain, unlikely to ever not be in severe pain, and basically crippled to the point where I can't do anything, please do kill me.
I don't see where age (*directly*) has anything to do with it. Obviously the chances of your life sucking too badly for one reason or another go up with age, but that's only on average.
I *hope* to live to 100+, taking full advantage of my retirement for as long as possible, and dying without ever suffering from dementia or anything else enjoyment-of-life-ending.
A couple years ago, I got served somebody else's summons. Apparently, there's someone else in the same city with my same first and last name (not the same middle name, though, or even the same middle initial). When that person failed to answer the summons at his residence address, they found *my* workplace address and gave me the summons. The guy they used to give the summons then stated that, no, I was totally the same guy (most likely because he didn't actually go check, because screw that, he had better things to do than his frelling job). So *I* had to get a lawyer to defend myself against the accusation of being a person I wasn't. (Thankfully, my mom knows a lot of people, including at least one lawyer who wanted to help out her son for free, or I would have been spending hundreds of dollars to defend myself in a case I had absolutely nothing to do with. Still tons of fun, though.)
Agreed, other than the "stop thinking about work" part. I find that when I'm stumped on a problem at work, like 75% of the time I think of a solution while relaxing at home. Then I quickly (less than 5 minutes) write down my thoughts about it and email them to myself, and *then* I stop thinking about work. I don't *do* work once I'm out the door, but that's no reason to stop *thinking* about work. If you don't even want to think about your job, you probably don't have the right job. (But if you're being forced to *work* more than what was in your contract, you also don't.)
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's perfectly reasonable. Why rent a house, when you can own one? Because there are pros and cons to both. Same with this. I saw the strong version of this hypothesis a few days ago - that once self-driving cars were the norm, *nobody* would want to own a car - and that I objected to strongly as stupid. People will still want to own cars, but I think there *will* be a lot *more* people who don't feel the need to own one. There are many benefits of having your own car permanently parked where you want it to be, but there are also many benefits of not having to worry about maintaining a car, just having one show up when you call it.
And of course, the single nicest thing about owning a house vs. renting it - that you're paying yourself instead of someone else - isn't really applicable to cars, since houses generally appreciate, but cars become increasingly worthless the more you drive them (in fact, a car instantly becomes worth about half what you paid for it, as soon as you drive it off the lot.)
So, I do think once self-driving cars become more common, many people - but not everyone, maybe 50/50ish - will choose this path once it becomes available.
Huh? I mean, I fully expect to get 0 social security money when I retire; it's just not even part of my planning. If I get any, I'll consider it free bonus money, the same as if I won the lottery or something. But my 401k is money I personally put in, that is in my name and nobody else's, so why would you not expect I would get it when I retire? That makes no sense. Or are you thinking the stock market is going to completely collapse and all our money is going to be totally worthless? If that happened, I think we'd have bigger things to worry about than our 401ks...
I'd argue that a purely "logical" version of "morality" that you describe does apply to corporations exactly in the same way that it applies to individuals: if it's based on being nice to someone so they'll be nice to you, that only describes morality as far as anyone knows about (i.e. the sociopathic version of morality). A corporation doesn't want to get caught stealing any more than an individual does: while the legal punishments might be sadly far less for corporations (generally, a slap on the wrist fine that does little to discourage them from continuing to do it), the real harm comes from the media, which is *exactly* equivalent to what you describe.
You want to be nice because if you're not, you'll have a reputation and people won't want to do business with you; a company might want to be nice because if it isn't, it will also have a reputation, and I won't want to do business with it, either. There are plenty of businesses on that list for me, that because of some shady deal or another, I just won't do any business with them. They didn't specifically harm me, but they've harmed enough other people that they have that reputation for harming people, so why would I want to do business with them?
Of course, the sociopathic version of that is, just don't get *caught* doing anything that would give you that reputation. But the same also technically applies to individuals.
What is a "source seed"? And how do you open them? (I guess they didn't know, that's why they "tried" to open them.)
Or, literally do exactly what this question is asking, release something that autoruns malicious software on your machine when you try to use it...
I would mod you up, but I don't have mod points, but I will instead state my agreement:
Ideally, the government wouldn't *have* to get involved in this discussion, because the free market would have fixed it already. Unfortunately for us, the handful of broadband providers have lobbied themselves into the position of somehow-legal almost-monopoly status, so now we need *some* way of fixing it so they can't take that almost-monopoly status and use it to completely screw us over. I mean even more than they already are.
What we really need is more (read: any!) competition, but that's not seeming likely, so this is a stopgap.
The issue is that (state/local) government *is* already in our internet, and the laws they've passed were completely for the benefit of the corporations (and the politicians being paid handsomely by same for their cooperation). So now we need the federal government to come bail us out of the mess the telcos have made. Yes, part of the problem is that broadband is crazy expensive to install, but the bigger problem is that it's way *more* expensive because you have to jump through so many hoops (favoring the giant businesses who wrote the laws requiring those hoops, and who generally got in before those laws were passed, anyway), and in some cases, at the local level, allowing any competition has actually been made *illegal*.
I'm all for the free market fixing issues without having to turn to government, but that's only when there *is* a free market. I have amazingly good, amazingly cheap cell phone service. You know why? Because there's healthy competition. For landline internet, I have a choice between Verizon (extremely awful and getting worse every year) and Comcast (even more worser). Yay capitalism!
That's dumb. I have seen that opinion, but it's dumb. All three movies were great. I agree that Episode 6 was the worst of the three, but that doesn't make it any less of a still great movie. Though honestly, all *three* movies are terrible when you compare them to the Thrawn trilogy (also not a popular opinion, but search yourself, you know it to be true :p.) So whether or not episodes 7-9 will be any good (I'm guessing no, but I'd be happy to be wrong), I'm still pissed at them for retconning all the extended universe (including the masterful Thrawn trilogy) out of existence.
Episodes 1-3 were complete garbage. Episode 1 could have been saveable with a few minor tweaks, so I still enjoyed it for what it was. Episodes 2 and 3 were beyond saving.
Ok, so, then they get fired, what's the problem? If pot smokers (or ingesters, etc.) can't keep their hobby to themselves and it affects their work, they won't last long, no different from people who come to work drunk, or for that matter, people who can't resist gambling or watching porn at work, etc.
Fun fact: not every person who enjoys using pot is a pothead, just like not every person who enjoys drinking is a drunkard.
As for public smoking, well, we already have laws against public smoking, thank god. Personally I actually don't mind pot smoke smell nearly as much as tobacco smoke smell, but I still agree, both are noxious. You can certainly ban things in public for smelling terrible and being health hazards without banning them in private for being drugs. Though in this case, you mostly wouldn't even have to, because a smoking ban is a smoking ban regardless of what substance is being smoked, and we already have plenty of smoking bans.
I was wondering that as well. Glad I wasn't the only one.
I haven't met anyone who does. All the conversations I've had about it over the years, there seem to be two major camps:
1. It's awful and I really wish we could abolish it. (I fall into that one.)
2. Meh, whatever, it's not that big a deal.
So if half the population hates it, and the other half doesn't care one way or another... why is it still a thing? (Honestly, I'm asking, I have no idea.)
Reminds me of one of my favorite bits of graffiti:
NOBODY keeps their election promises!
NOBODY will listen to your concerns
NOBODY will help the poor & unemployed
NOBODY cares!
If NOBODY is elected, things will be better for everyone
NOBODY TELLS THE TRUTH
My favorite is Ticketbastard, which finally started displaying their 10+ buck "fees" alongside ticket prices when you hover over a ticket you're thinking of (which, since you have no choice in the matter, there's really zero reason not to just call that price the price of the ticket, except then they'd have to stop advertising that their supposed prices are so cheap)... which, good for them, right? At least they're displaying the price of the ticket before you go to purchase them, right? Not right. There's that fee, but then when you go to actually pay, there are two *more* fees that were *not* displayed earlier. Because of course there are.
The show is called Doctor Who. This game is an extension of the show. You are being correctly pedantic about the name of The Doctor, but you're overcorrecting. Let's replace "code" with "count", and "Doctor Who" with "Sesame Street": "Sesame Street teaches kids to count". Would you complain because there isn't a character on the show (or associated computer game) named "Sesame Street" teaching kids to count? No, because that would be dumb.
That would be fantastic. Most of my spending goes to food (at fancy restaurants) and housing (mortgage on a million dollar mansion), so yay! No taxes for me!
(The above is not actually a true statement, sadly, just an example.)
Your post was a joke, but my post is not: I would be extremely annoyed, as male, if I were working for one of these companies, that I would be unable to take advantage of that offer. I would love to be a father at some point, that point not being anytime soon, and we both have to work. Would drive me crazy knowing that if I were the female, the problem would be solved, but being male, not so much.
I don't work for either of them anyway, I work for a much smaller company that is rather unlikely to offer any such thing, anyway, so whatever. Just too bad we weren't born a little later - I feel like this technology is going to become commonplace (and therefore affordable) in the reasonably near future, but not probably reasonably near *enough*. Oh well.
I don't think it's just a narrative, but I also don't think anything changed in the culture. Rather, we've just made it waaaay easier for the .1% of men who happen to be crazy and/or psychopaths to be really loud about it, totally drowning out the other 99.9% of the male population who aren't crazy, aren't starting disgusting trouble, and thus aren't noticed. I like to think that most geeky guys are like you, still, young and old. The crazy ones just get all the press.
I prefer the antihumor version:
My dog has no nose.
How does he smell?
He can't, he doesn't have a nose!
How is it odd? We have no idea how rare it is. It could be quite rare indeed. Granted, I think it's *likelier* that it's moderately, but not *exceedingly*, rare, that there's probably a lot of life out there, but all millions of light years away from each other, and that ftl travel is likely going to remain forever in the realm of sci-fi, so they've just never been able to interact. But it's certainly not impossible to *imagine* the possibility that there's very little life out there because the properties required are just rarer than we might anticipate, without needing to bring a God in. After all, it's 100% likely that life evolved here, because if it had been somewhere else instead, we would have been talking about it from there.
I do, sometimes, depending on the laws. I certainly do have a problem with people blindly following laws that really should be abolished - one great way to effect that sort of change is to gradually have more and more people think the laws just aren't worth following, then people start to think they also aren't worth enforcing, then after long enough, the law turns into one of those laws that ends up in one of those "10 laws you can't believe are still in the books" lists.
I'm not saying in this particular case that we don't need laws regarding immigration - I think we do. I think the current set is kinda broken and a little bit racist, but we do need some kind laws. I'm just saying in *general*, the fact that a law exists, doesn't mean that it should exist, and for laws that shouldn't exist, not following them is *great*.
I was wondering why BitTorrent was teaming up with Coke to offer free rural wifi...
It's not a matter of females needing a male's protection. It's more a matter of females needing protection *from* males. It's not the woman's fault that men are a lot more likely to be violent dickbags, nor that men, specifically the violent dickbag ones, are a lot more likely to do awful things to a lone woman in a bad neighborhood than a lone man, given the choice.
I'm as much for the concept of gender-based chivalry dying as anyone, but he has a point with that one (to be fair, it's not fun being a single male at night in a bad neighborhood either, but I imagine it would be even less fun to be a woman.)
If I'm 90 and still with it mentally and physically, as I certainly would *like* to be, please don't kill me.
On the other hand, if I get into a terrible car crash tomorrow on the way to work, despite being quite young, if I'm in severe pain, unlikely to ever not be in severe pain, and basically crippled to the point where I can't do anything, please do kill me.
I don't see where age (*directly*) has anything to do with it. Obviously the chances of your life sucking too badly for one reason or another go up with age, but that's only on average.
I *hope* to live to 100+, taking full advantage of my retirement for as long as possible, and dying without ever suffering from dementia or anything else enjoyment-of-life-ending.
A couple years ago, I got served somebody else's summons. Apparently, there's someone else in the same city with my same first and last name (not the same middle name, though, or even the same middle initial). When that person failed to answer the summons at his residence address, they found *my* workplace address and gave me the summons. The guy they used to give the summons then stated that, no, I was totally the same guy (most likely because he didn't actually go check, because screw that, he had better things to do than his frelling job). So *I* had to get a lawyer to defend myself against the accusation of being a person I wasn't. (Thankfully, my mom knows a lot of people, including at least one lawyer who wanted to help out her son for free, or I would have been spending hundreds of dollars to defend myself in a case I had absolutely nothing to do with. Still tons of fun, though.)
So, given that, I totally support this.
Agreed, other than the "stop thinking about work" part. I find that when I'm stumped on a problem at work, like 75% of the time I think of a solution while relaxing at home. Then I quickly (less than 5 minutes) write down my thoughts about it and email them to myself, and *then* I stop thinking about work. I don't *do* work once I'm out the door, but that's no reason to stop *thinking* about work. If you don't even want to think about your job, you probably don't have the right job. (But if you're being forced to *work* more than what was in your contract, you also don't.)