If this kind of regulation is to be expected as a result of public funding like 'obamacare', i don't want it. I find it hilarious that liberals piss on conservatives when they complain that public funding goes to things like abortion, but then have no problem demanding controls when obese people choose to drink too much soda and end up costing the public system they demanded in the first place more money. Hey liberals, reap what ye sow!
Actually, it kinda is. just because some people make dumb choices doesn't mean everyone else should be corralled by default. However, this is the kind of thinking we have in politics today.
However, public health policy is not about solving every fringe case - it's about changing behavior in the general population.
It is not the job of government to 'change behavior in the general population' in free countries. This public service mandate -> public healthcare -> draconian control over diet 'unreasoning' is the kind of thinking that leads to tyrannical socialism. to hell with that.
yeah and if we didn't have the state enforcing public care in your example, these taxes wouldn't be needed. Leave it to government to punish its citizens for problems it created in the first place.
There are plenty of recent and current examples of what communism produces. I think that's a decent judge of it, and no understanding of marx is required.
What I meant by risk is that any form of travel comes with it. I do not want the extra bit of theoretical safety if it means I have to give up gobs of freedom and control over my equipment to have it. Our system is fairly safe today, and a good balance between safety and freedom of movement. It could be better if it was based on reality and not the coffers of insurance companies, law enforcement budgets, and institutionalized control freakery.
1. Todays cars are whisper quiet inside compared to what they were even 20 years ago. It's common sense that hearing plays a large part in awareness.
4. Ask anyone who drives professionally. They'll tell you that feedback is important. I'm not saying let all of it through.. I'm saying let a bit more of it through. today's trends in car design are to minimize the effects the outside world has on the driver.. I think this is a mistake and ultimately less safe. I understand this would make it harder to have phone conversations or idle chat with passengers, but if you're driving, drive. Talk later. Interactive distractions that compete with your attention on the road should not be encouraged (contrast with non interactive distractions like a radio, but for those who find it distracting, turn it off).
6. the solution the state uses for every trouble spot is to drop speed limits. they're financially motivated to do this, and from a human behavior standpoint, people in power positions love to wag the finger and stick it to you for violating their principles. I suggest we remove those incentives and fix the problem technically, whereever possible. lowering the limit should be the last choice, not the first. low limits for a given area cause frustration and frustration leads to impulsive decision making.
Depends who has control, doesn't it? currently, we have control over our vehicles.. Sure, there are laws, but laws aren't control necessarily and they can't dictate reality. Having the ability to remote stop or disable a car that does not belong to you is another thing entirely. I guarantee this power will come with your shiny automatic car, and the list for the usage of this feature will explode as insurance companies, law enforcement, and the IRS clamor for access.
In the end it's not the technology or the convenience, it's the state and corporate middlemen who will demand that it come with some heavy strings attached.
I can't comment on your statistics, but generally, when 'studies' are published, they are insanely biased to push particular political agendas, so I take them with huge grains of salt.
Whether you trust the drivers of today, or the cut-rate programmers who direct the auto-cars of tomorrow, you still have to assume failure. Centralized systems sound great except when they fail, because when they do, it's catastrophic. A computer will happily cause the deaths of 1000 drivers if it misreads a situation since, unlike a human whose in control of one car, the computer controls of all of them. We can't even automate our trains completely without catastrophic failures, so as far as safety goes, I still trust my situational awareness over that of a computer.
Risk is a fact of life. If we attempt the ultimate safety utopia, it will be antithetical to human psychology and crumble from within. Taking risk has rewards and drawbacks, but life without any risk isn't worth living. This entire culture has become so risk adverse that I think it's becoming maladaptive to its environment. This is similar to being 'too clean' such that children's immune systems never mature properly. If you want to cut down on accidents, then here's what I suggest:
1. remove some of the sound insulation from the vehicles so that more road noise is let in. this will cause people to pay more attention to what's going on around them. 2. remove the cell towers along major highways. if cellphone performance is spotty enough, people just won't bother until they get where they're going. this is for the best. 3. have a license system that actually requires people to master basic driving skills and not just memorize a bunch of rules. 4. design the cars so that more feedback is given through the steering column and suspension. currently, the trend is the opposite.. 5. have speed limits that actually reflect the conditions of the road instead of the local municipalities' budget shortfalls. 6. actually fix the parts of the roads where the most accidents occur instead of reducing the speed limit. limiting speed only masks the issue.
the problem with these analogies is that they don't address the issue. Do you lock your doors even though it is illegal to trespass/steal? do you out of your way to avoid police even when you are fairly sure (as sure as our fucked up legal code allows us to be) you haven't done anything? Do you want to test it and find out? No? Why not? There's a dirty line that only gets crossed when the power balance is severely lopsided. Sure, in theory, you could hand over all control to the state, live a legally (as opposed to objectively) idealic life and not get into trouble, but reality is far from that. It would also have to be the most boring existence imaginable, and even this would not guarantee anything. This state also assumes there's no encroachment. This of course is not true. The encroachment by the authorities is continuous and accelerating. The only way to create a natural barrier to this is to retain power and control over the tools and property you use to live your life. If you let the authorities (state/corporate) take control, it's just a matter of time before you live for them instead of for yourself. I do not want this. Life just isn't worth it at that point.
wait what? voting IS the way to fix things from within, right? why is voting for third, fourth, fifth, or sixth parties not fixing from within? You know, the solutions to the problems we face cannot be flattened into democrat and/or republican ideology.
yeah really, and not only that, but they're putting up roadblocks to doing what we absolutely must do at some point if we want to retain our lifestyle. fucking hippies..
Do not want. It's obvious at this point that the real deal with all these innovations is to retain more and more control over what people do and where they go. They entice us with convenience as they remove the control. I realize this article is about technical minutiae, but I have no desire to help this project along.. Until society matures such that those in charge don't have insatiable desires to micromanage individual choice as much as possible, I'd rather deal with driving my own vehicles around, thanks. Besides, with the right fit, driving a car is enjoyable.
The distro you use should be the ones compiling things. All you need to do is hit update. If that breaks, it's the distro's fault, not the gpl's or the kernel devs'. If you prefer to do this yourself, well, it's a lot easier when the driver source is already included right? All it takes is a make all; make modules_install, with no horsing around with out of tree shims..
The firmware is a little different. In the Stallman mentality, it's also verboten if it's closed. I think it's a requirement for a multiplatform open source kernel to be fully open as it's the only way to retain enough control to progress. The firmware, in contrast, only runs on the silicon of the device and would be there regardless of what system the chip is used on. I suppose this is an arbitrary barrier as well, but I think it's the reasonable expectation to have. In contrast, having vendors like nvidia pollute an already open environment that doesn't belong to them with blobs that make it impossible for the owners to retain their imperatives for it is not.
..and why the hell would you want this? so you can have a trashbin to dump all your little secrets in because you're too lazy to work at keeping them where they belong? keep it in your silicon, or just admit you're a software company and produce userland binaries.. now you have your stable ABI.
Slashdot Mirror
Some things are so painful that words cannot describe it. I believe the 7th grade euphemism for stuff like this is "That's fuckin' gay"
yeah because the only way to have a healthy society is to load it with passive aggressive tax structures that piss everyone off.
Europeans should get it through their thick skulls that americans don't want to live as they do, under senselessly restrictive nanny states.
when it comes to city republicans, there's hardly much difference.
If this kind of regulation is to be expected as a result of public funding like 'obamacare', i don't want it. I find it hilarious that liberals piss on conservatives when they complain that public funding goes to things like abortion, but then have no problem demanding controls when obese people choose to drink too much soda and end up costing the public system they demanded in the first place more money. Hey liberals, reap what ye sow!
Actually, it kinda is. just because some people make dumb choices doesn't mean everyone else should be corralled by default. However, this is the kind of thinking we have in politics today.
However, public health policy is not about solving every fringe case - it's about changing behavior in the general population.
It is not the job of government to 'change behavior in the general population' in free countries. This public service mandate -> public healthcare -> draconian control over diet 'unreasoning' is the kind of thinking that leads to tyrannical socialism. to hell with that.
These kinds of regulations are always expanded under the guise of 'war against X'. Enough is never enough for these kinds of control freaks.
so the answer to coporate tyranny is what? government tyranny on top of/next to it?
yeah and if we didn't have the state enforcing public care in your example, these taxes wouldn't be needed. Leave it to government to punish its citizens for problems it created in the first place.
There are plenty of recent and current examples of what communism produces. I think that's a decent judge of it, and no understanding of marx is required.
typical arrogance from tyrants who want to blame people for the restrictive bullshit they enforce on them.
What I meant by risk is that any form of travel comes with it. I do not want the extra bit of theoretical safety if it means I have to give up gobs of freedom and control over my equipment to have it. Our system is fairly safe today, and a good balance between safety and freedom of movement. It could be better if it was based on reality and not the coffers of insurance companies, law enforcement budgets, and institutionalized control freakery.
1. Todays cars are whisper quiet inside compared to what they were even 20 years ago. It's common sense that hearing plays a large part in awareness.
4. Ask anyone who drives professionally. They'll tell you that feedback is important. I'm not saying let all of it through.. I'm saying let a bit more of it through. today's trends in car design are to minimize the effects the outside world has on the driver.. I think this is a mistake and ultimately less safe. I understand this would make it harder to have phone conversations or idle chat with passengers, but if you're driving, drive. Talk later. Interactive distractions that compete with your attention on the road should not be encouraged (contrast with non interactive distractions like a radio, but for those who find it distracting, turn it off).
6. the solution the state uses for every trouble spot is to drop speed limits. they're financially motivated to do this, and from a human behavior standpoint, people in power positions love to wag the finger and stick it to you for violating their principles. I suggest we remove those incentives and fix the problem technically, whereever possible. lowering the limit should be the last choice, not the first. low limits for a given area cause frustration and frustration leads to impulsive decision making.
Depends who has control, doesn't it? currently, we have control over our vehicles.. Sure, there are laws, but laws aren't control necessarily and they can't dictate reality. Having the ability to remote stop or disable a car that does not belong to you is another thing entirely. I guarantee this power will come with your shiny automatic car, and the list for the usage of this feature will explode as insurance companies, law enforcement, and the IRS clamor for access.
In the end it's not the technology or the convenience, it's the state and corporate middlemen who will demand that it come with some heavy strings attached.
sure, I acknowledged the convenience.. but it will come at a heavy price.
well yeah, a government that punishes power seeking and respects civil liberties IS a seige..
I can't comment on your statistics, but generally, when 'studies' are published, they are insanely biased to push particular political agendas, so I take them with huge grains of salt.
Whether you trust the drivers of today, or the cut-rate programmers who direct the auto-cars of tomorrow, you still have to assume failure. Centralized systems sound great except when they fail, because when they do, it's catastrophic. A computer will happily cause the deaths of 1000 drivers if it misreads a situation since, unlike a human whose in control of one car, the computer controls of all of them. We can't even automate our trains completely without catastrophic failures, so as far as safety goes, I still trust my situational awareness over that of a computer.
Risk is a fact of life. If we attempt the ultimate safety utopia, it will be antithetical to human psychology and crumble from within. Taking risk has rewards and drawbacks, but life without any risk isn't worth living. This entire culture has become so risk adverse that I think it's becoming maladaptive to its environment. This is similar to being 'too clean' such that children's immune systems never mature properly. If you want to cut down on accidents, then here's what I suggest:
1. remove some of the sound insulation from the vehicles so that more road noise is let in. this will cause people to pay more attention to what's going on around them.
2. remove the cell towers along major highways. if cellphone performance is spotty enough, people just won't bother until they get where they're going. this is for the best.
3. have a license system that actually requires people to master basic driving skills and not just memorize a bunch of rules.
4. design the cars so that more feedback is given through the steering column and suspension. currently, the trend is the opposite..
5. have speed limits that actually reflect the conditions of the road instead of the local municipalities' budget shortfalls.
6. actually fix the parts of the roads where the most accidents occur instead of reducing the speed limit. limiting speed only masks the issue.
the problem with these analogies is that they don't address the issue. Do you lock your doors even though it is illegal to trespass/steal? do you out of your way to avoid police even when you are fairly sure (as sure as our fucked up legal code allows us to be) you haven't done anything? Do you want to test it and find out? No? Why not? There's a dirty line that only gets crossed when the power balance is severely lopsided. Sure, in theory, you could hand over all control to the state, live a legally (as opposed to objectively) idealic life and not get into trouble, but reality is far from that. It would also have to be the most boring existence imaginable, and even this would not guarantee anything. This state also assumes there's no encroachment. This of course is not true. The encroachment by the authorities is continuous and accelerating. The only way to create a natural barrier to this is to retain power and control over the tools and property you use to live your life. If you let the authorities (state/corporate) take control, it's just a matter of time before you live for them instead of for yourself. I do not want this. Life just isn't worth it at that point.
wait what? voting IS the way to fix things from within, right? why is voting for third, fourth, fifth, or sixth parties not fixing from within? You know, the solutions to the problems we face cannot be flattened into democrat and/or republican ideology.
why? how can you really support the first two at this point?
yeah really, and not only that, but they're putting up roadblocks to doing what we absolutely must do at some point if we want to retain our lifestyle. fucking hippies..
Do not want. It's obvious at this point that the real deal with all these innovations is to retain more and more control over what people do and where they go. They entice us with convenience as they remove the control. I realize this article is about technical minutiae, but I have no desire to help this project along.. Until society matures such that those in charge don't have insatiable desires to micromanage individual choice as much as possible, I'd rather deal with driving my own vehicles around, thanks. Besides, with the right fit, driving a car is enjoyable.
The distro you use should be the ones compiling things. All you need to do is hit update. If that breaks, it's the distro's fault, not the gpl's or the kernel devs'. If you prefer to do this yourself, well, it's a lot easier when the driver source is already included right? All it takes is a make all; make modules_install, with no horsing around with out of tree shims..
The firmware is a little different. In the Stallman mentality, it's also verboten if it's closed. I think it's a requirement for a multiplatform open source kernel to be fully open as it's the only way to retain enough control to progress. The firmware, in contrast, only runs on the silicon of the device and would be there regardless of what system the chip is used on. I suppose this is an arbitrary barrier as well, but I think it's the reasonable expectation to have. In contrast, having vendors like nvidia pollute an already open environment that doesn't belong to them with blobs that make it impossible for the owners to retain their imperatives for it is not.
..and why the hell would you want this? so you can have a trashbin to dump all your little secrets in because you're too lazy to work at keeping them where they belong? keep it in your silicon, or just admit you're a software company and produce userland binaries.. now you have your stable ABI.