This doesn't mean that every idea for progress will be reasonably safe. Most of what Musk has done has only limited downsides. If his rockets explode, he's out of business. If his cars are crap (and they aren't), there will be some more crap cars on the roads for a while. Other automakers have produced and sold crap cars. If his solar panels or batteries are bad, it's just another business failure.
If a long vacuum chamber under a city has issues, what happens? I don't know, and I don't think you know. We need to figure those sorts of things out first.
There's other problems involved with going 500 feet down for a long horizontal stretch. Doing something we haven't done before should take a great deal of study.
It's not so much that the freight trains aren't as concerned with a schedule, as that the financial loss for delaying an Amtrak train is very frequently much less than the financial loss for delaying a freight train. If we want good passenger service, we need to either provide separated track or charge a lot more for train travel so it's worth delaying the grain train for the passenger train.
Regulators could have specific, written requirements and definite timetables.
This works well when the project is something we know about and have experience in. Want to build a power plant? We know more or less what effect that will have, what the risks are, etc. In that case, having specifics is a good thing. Want to build a hyperloop? Not only do we not have specific written requirements, but we don't know what they should be. We're not going to take the "everything not specifically forbidden is presumed OK" attitude, because of the consequences should things go wrong.
A friend of mine was in a sailing class. The instructor unscrewed the depth gauge and let the inch-wide hole let water into the boat, while he continued on. After a while, he showed the class the level of water in the bilge, which wasn't really impressive, replaced the gauge, and turned the bilge pump on, and the bilge was mostly dry almost immediately.
This sounds like another one of those scale things.
The environmental damage is now known, and regulations seek to compensate for indirect external costs. That improves the efficiency of the economy. Labor costs did not rise because of regulation. Labor standards may have, but typically the regulations do permit people to do things.
Deliberately poisoning you would be unprofitable. Making sure the groceries you buy are devoid of poison is also unprofitable. Making TVs deliberately dangerous is unprofitable (unless you're in cahoots with repair shops, who will get more business that way), but making them deliberately safe is also unprofitable.
Establishing a reputation for quality can be profitable, but coming into a market with a new company advertising low prices and providing low quality, looting the company, and then leaving the empty husk can also be profitable.
Unfortunately, if something is possible there's usually a paper (often behind a paywall) that says how to do it, but if something is impossible that information is likely to be scattered.
Competition. When I was young, we had two newspapers in our city, and perhaps half a dozen good news magazines available (I stuck to three). My parents could afford to pay for as many of these as they liked, and so we got both newspapers and Time magazine for news. Nowadays, there's a lot more than eight sources of written in-depth news readily available, and I tend to skip from source to source. Which three news sources should I follow, to the exclusion of others?
Programmers and publishers need to be liable for the quality of their products where money is exchanged. There needs to be minimum standards and review.
Right after you write about how software should need to involve money.
If programmers are going to be responsible for the quality of their products, who'd be a programmer? I'm not paid anywhere near enough to provide personal legal responsibility.
If you're comparing it to more traditional engineering, consider this. A professional engineer signs off on a bridge design. The bridge is built according to spec, and carries traffic without any problems. Then some bad guys show up and use bombs to bring the bridge down. What happens to the PE? Now, consider communications software. The professional software engineer signs off on it, and it works just fine for a long time. Then some bad guys show up and use bugs to destroy the security. What should happen to the PSE? Most communications software failures have been just that, the result of deliberate attacks.
Minimum standards and review will do no good. They will hold up innovation, they will fail to provide secure software, and they will raise the price, if they're reasonably possible to follow. If not, we get a software developer being personally ruined because an attacker was smarter than he or she was.
Give 'em a chance and see. Or rewind Christianity a few centuries. Heck, rewind Islam enough centuries Islam is the biggest problem religion now, but that's just for now.
The actual exchange rate is what you can get on a large scale. Official exchange rates are those that a government is committed to propping up, and they only have effect when the government is indeed providing sufficient support that people will trade dollars and bolivars at the official exchange rate.
Can we go with the version of socialism the USSR did against the Ukraine then?
Why would we want to do that? The USSR was a totalitarian country that eventually collapsed. If we're tossing around worst-case insults, how about the capitalism that Germany did against Poland?
Note that Nazi Germany was right-wing and capitalist, and I am prepared to meet any factual arguments against that claim. Please do not claim that propaganda was necessarily characteristic of how the National Socialists operated, or that Hitler's speech had more than a tactical relation to the truth. Please have some idea of what capitalism and socialism mean before starting any argument. Please observe what happened to the socialist wing of the NSDAP in the 1930s.
Unfortunately, concentrating power in private hands generally works worse. Playing government and business off against each other seems to work better.
I know that, but that's not the story socialist politicians and pundits tell. They point to these countries' success and claim it justifies any and every giveaway or scheme they can dream up.
While right-wing politicians and pundits tell stories about how Communism failed, and therefore any government attempt to help people should be avoided.
Venezuela, Cuba, Eastern Europe before 1990, the USSR, North Korea, China's Great Leap Forward, Cambodia, National Socialists in Germany, etc.
In the first place, Nazi Germany was neither leftist nor socialist. That particular historical lie seems to have become prevalent among idiot right-wing ideologues. I suggest that you ditch it (do your own research if you like) so you don't sound ideologically blinded from the start.
In the second place, you're not in general talking about countries with a history of democracy. I'm not so sure about Venezuela, but Cuba was not a democracy, nor the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe was under Soviet domination, North Korea and Cambodia were never democracies, China gave it a very little try-out.
Approaches to socialism work a lot better in established, stable, democracies. Pretty much everything is better with democracies than with dictatorial rule.
As for standards of living, they're hard to compare across countries, and it's possible to slant them. Your cite just gives figures without a source, and so is worthless. It may be something like per capita GDP, which doesn't mean standard of living. In Scandinavia, there's a lot more security than there is here, and that's worth something. Health care is a lot cheaper on a per capita basis anywhere outside the US. Scandinavian countries have higher taxes, but those go to things people use, so it's not the total loss a right-winger would consider it.
Do you have another idea as to how to deal with a company that uses questionably legal means to screw a large number of people out of relatively small amounts of money?
Imagine if Microsoft prohibited any other browser but Edge in Windows 11, or forced us to go to the Microsoft store to get software because we couldn't install it from any other source... We'd nail MS to the wall, well if there were anything left to nail to the wall after their partners and major clients were finished with them... So why do we accept this behaviour from Apple?
Simple answer: we don't, because Apple doesn't and isn't going to, There is a version of Windows 10 that does that, though. Got a picket sign ready?
In other words, Linux is just fine, because those who don't want Gnome 3 don't have to have Gnome 3. How does it hurt things if a new user runs Mint rather than Ubuntu?
There's no evidence that Grsecurity's lawyer thought the lawsuit a good idea, and therefore this might not be fixed with another lawyer.
Opinions of factual matters can be true or false. In the US, it isn't libel or defamation if the speaker (Perens in this case) had good reason to believe his opinions were valid. Given that Slashdot hasn't clearly debunked his claim, Perens' opinion would appear to be a reasonable one to hold, and that, in the US is a defense.
Slashdot Mirror
This doesn't mean that every idea for progress will be reasonably safe. Most of what Musk has done has only limited downsides. If his rockets explode, he's out of business. If his cars are crap (and they aren't), there will be some more crap cars on the roads for a while. Other automakers have produced and sold crap cars. If his solar panels or batteries are bad, it's just another business failure.
If a long vacuum chamber under a city has issues, what happens? I don't know, and I don't think you know. We need to figure those sorts of things out first.
There's other problems involved with going 500 feet down for a long horizontal stretch. Doing something we haven't done before should take a great deal of study.
It's not so much that the freight trains aren't as concerned with a schedule, as that the financial loss for delaying an Amtrak train is very frequently much less than the financial loss for delaying a freight train. If we want good passenger service, we need to either provide separated track or charge a lot more for train travel so it's worth delaying the grain train for the passenger train.
This works well when the project is something we know about and have experience in. Want to build a power plant? We know more or less what effect that will have, what the risks are, etc. In that case, having specifics is a good thing. Want to build a hyperloop? Not only do we not have specific written requirements, but we don't know what they should be. We're not going to take the "everything not specifically forbidden is presumed OK" attitude, because of the consequences should things go wrong.
That's mostly the case with highways in built-up areas, not so much for highways in the countryside.
A friend of mine was in a sailing class. The instructor unscrewed the depth gauge and let the inch-wide hole let water into the boat, while he continued on. After a while, he showed the class the level of water in the bilge, which wasn't really impressive, replaced the gauge, and turned the bilge pump on, and the bilge was mostly dry almost immediately.
This sounds like another one of those scale things.
The environmental damage is now known, and regulations seek to compensate for indirect external costs. That improves the efficiency of the economy. Labor costs did not rise because of regulation. Labor standards may have, but typically the regulations do permit people to do things.
Deliberately poisoning you would be unprofitable. Making sure the groceries you buy are devoid of poison is also unprofitable. Making TVs deliberately dangerous is unprofitable (unless you're in cahoots with repair shops, who will get more business that way), but making them deliberately safe is also unprofitable.
Establishing a reputation for quality can be profitable, but coming into a market with a new company advertising low prices and providing low quality, looting the company, and then leaving the empty husk can also be profitable.
The thing all of the conservatives seem to ignore is that overgeneralization is stupid and suppresses intelligent argument.
Unfortunately, if something is possible there's usually a paper (often behind a paywall) that says how to do it, but if something is impossible that information is likely to be scattered.
Competition. When I was young, we had two newspapers in our city, and perhaps half a dozen good news magazines available (I stuck to three). My parents could afford to pay for as many of these as they liked, and so we got both newspapers and Time magazine for news. Nowadays, there's a lot more than eight sources of written in-depth news readily available, and I tend to skip from source to source. Which three news sources should I follow, to the exclusion of others?
And the problem with not using a password vault sort of thing is trying to use multiple strong passwords on different devices. Life isn't simple.
Right after you write about how software should need to involve money.
If programmers are going to be responsible for the quality of their products, who'd be a programmer? I'm not paid anywhere near enough to provide personal legal responsibility.
If you're comparing it to more traditional engineering, consider this. A professional engineer signs off on a bridge design. The bridge is built according to spec, and carries traffic without any problems. Then some bad guys show up and use bombs to bring the bridge down. What happens to the PE? Now, consider communications software. The professional software engineer signs off on it, and it works just fine for a long time. Then some bad guys show up and use bugs to destroy the security. What should happen to the PSE? Most communications software failures have been just that, the result of deliberate attacks.
Minimum standards and review will do no good. They will hold up innovation, they will fail to provide secure software, and they will raise the price, if they're reasonably possible to follow. If not, we get a software developer being personally ruined because an attacker was smarter than he or she was.
Back then, encryption would also have burdened the systems considerably. Modern systems make light of encryption.
Sure, and modern C++ prevents certain types of bugs, while allowing raw speed when needed. We also know that C++ isn't a passing fad.
Give 'em a chance and see. Or rewind Christianity a few centuries. Heck, rewind Islam enough centuries Islam is the biggest problem religion now, but that's just for now.
The actual exchange rate is what you can get on a large scale. Official exchange rates are those that a government is committed to propping up, and they only have effect when the government is indeed providing sufficient support that people will trade dollars and bolivars at the official exchange rate.
Why would we want to do that? The USSR was a totalitarian country that eventually collapsed. If we're tossing around worst-case insults, how about the capitalism that Germany did against Poland?
Note that Nazi Germany was right-wing and capitalist, and I am prepared to meet any factual arguments against that claim. Please do not claim that propaganda was necessarily characteristic of how the National Socialists operated, or that Hitler's speech had more than a tactical relation to the truth. Please have some idea of what capitalism and socialism mean before starting any argument. Please observe what happened to the socialist wing of the NSDAP in the 1930s.
Unfortunately, concentrating power in private hands generally works worse. Playing government and business off against each other seems to work better.
While right-wing politicians and pundits tell stories about how Communism failed, and therefore any government attempt to help people should be avoided.
That's about the same level of reasoning, anyway.
In the first place, Nazi Germany was neither leftist nor socialist. That particular historical lie seems to have become prevalent among idiot right-wing ideologues. I suggest that you ditch it (do your own research if you like) so you don't sound ideologically blinded from the start.
In the second place, you're not in general talking about countries with a history of democracy. I'm not so sure about Venezuela, but Cuba was not a democracy, nor the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe was under Soviet domination, North Korea and Cambodia were never democracies, China gave it a very little try-out.
Approaches to socialism work a lot better in established, stable, democracies. Pretty much everything is better with democracies than with dictatorial rule.
As for standards of living, they're hard to compare across countries, and it's possible to slant them. Your cite just gives figures without a source, and so is worthless. It may be something like per capita GDP, which doesn't mean standard of living. In Scandinavia, there's a lot more security than there is here, and that's worth something. Health care is a lot cheaper on a per capita basis anywhere outside the US. Scandinavian countries have higher taxes, but those go to things people use, so it's not the total loss a right-winger would consider it.
Do you have another idea as to how to deal with a company that uses questionably legal means to screw a large number of people out of relatively small amounts of money?
Simple answer: we don't, because Apple doesn't and isn't going to, There is a version of Windows 10 that does that, though. Got a picket sign ready?
In other words, Linux is just fine, because those who don't want Gnome 3 don't have to have Gnome 3. How does it hurt things if a new user runs Mint rather than Ubuntu?
There's no evidence that Grsecurity's lawyer thought the lawsuit a good idea, and therefore this might not be fixed with another lawyer.
Opinions of factual matters can be true or false. In the US, it isn't libel or defamation if the speaker (Perens in this case) had good reason to believe his opinions were valid. Given that Slashdot hasn't clearly debunked his claim, Perens' opinion would appear to be a reasonable one to hold, and that, in the US is a defense.