or perhaps quality could be pushed as a means of limiting pollution..ie make the product once instead of 3 times per customer, and encourage a repair rather than replace culture.
I'm not a chemist, but this sounds like one of those substances that'll degrade before it should, causing premature failure. plastic has gotten cheap and unreliable enough these days that I wonder if any increased recyclability is being offset by more products being thrown away due to premature breakage. perhaps it's anecdotal, but around the early 1990s, I noticed plastics getting lighter and more brittle, and larger products made with them had structural problems compared with their predecessors. examples coming to mind include kids toys, household appliances, automotive components, and personal electronics.
1...and if they defined it, they have no right to whine about others following said definition. like ford developing cars with four wheels and then suing a competitor because his car has four as well.
2. what does apple profitability have to do with this issue?
3. perception is not reality, though it is one of the subjective feelgoodisms that've taken over in the last decade or so at least. the others include, consensus, feelings, and 'equality.'
..or maybe they want a new car because the old one is falling apart? same deal with clothing.. sorry but all three items (apple products, cars, and clothes) are fashion items first and foremost because that's the only way to drive demand beyond what is needed. apple is the computing equivalent of bose. it's a lifestyle brand which basically means the cost is high to create exclusivity, which only matters socially. in a lot of ways, these two brands are not unlike scientology.
no, he is not not their bitch. he is their employee. there is supposed to be a difference, though in today's world things like individual liberty and life balance are dying out in favor of unhealthy social dynamics. I think the bigger point is that employers should not have the right to expect or have such control.. it blurs the line between employee and slave. agreeing to stuff in a contract under duress (which this is since the choice is work or don't eat) is morally questionable at least, and probably against the law.
they also lose their privacy once it does become required. despite what all the wannabe socialist and conservative 'personal responsibility = bend over and take it' despots think here on slashdot, privacy has great value to a healthy human psyche and a free society.
the primary reason speed is a factor is because people aren't paying attention when they drive. if they were paying attention they'd know when it's safe to go 80 and when they should slow to 50. they'd know that someone wants to pass, and let them. they'd also know to stay in the right lane if they intend to drive more slowly than avg. they would also be aware of what the cars around them are doing, maybe even why and thus be prepared to preempt stupidity.
reducing speed only masks the problem. of course speed limits aren't about safety, they're about revenue. it's a nice easy thing to make an issue about because 'speed is scary'. imagine what these politicians would do if they realized that right now they're spinning on a gyroscopic top at about 1000 angular mi/h that's also orbiting the sun at roughly 60000mi/hr. zomg! we're all gonna die!
as time goes on, the probability that those extrapolations will increase and cause more damage to more people is very high. this information will be used against you whenever someone wants control over your behavior and I can almost guarantee that what they want from you is not in your best interests.
no I wouldn't, and I shouldn't be liable for that either. see there's this thing called 'shit happens' in life and society needs to accept this instead of demanding a way to point blame every time something bad happens. that parent took a risk with his kid's life (and his own) just like I did when we all decided to drive somewhere. this risk is NOT mitigated by lawyers and business owners selling snake oil protection, then building 'optional' surveillance societies around their policy holders to insure max profits. it's dictated by physics, skillset, and awareness. the only risk that it does mitigate is the artificial/legal one threatened by the over litigious society which created it all in the first place because it has increasing trouble dealing mentally with risk.
if you want to mitigate your risk, learn how to drive properly and stay alert while doing so.. if you can't, get off the road until you can! if anything, insurance has a negative impact on this by creating a false sense of security because of how its marketed. you'd think people would be smarter than that, but these days I have my doubts.
if having insurance wasn't the common assumption the law makes it, perhaps the increased sense of naked mortality would cause more people to be proactive in their driving.
in terms of providers themselves, it's fine if they want to set terms, even on rickety statistics, but it's another thing entirely when they become babysitters who insist on forcing pervasive monitoring of every aspect of your life that relates to the policy.. their 'savings' are the actual prices while those who opt out pay a fine. fuck that.
reaction times are only a part of the equation. if the driver is focused on what he's doing, he's far safer at any speed than the average driver who's daydreaming or talking on the cellphone. people need to get over this black and white view of speed, which comes from authority harping on it all the time to give justification for more speed traps/lower limits. this is to increase revenue, not safety
yes, many drivers overestimate their abilities, but not the abilities of their vehicles. for instance most people do not use the full force of their braking when needed, same thing with steering vs center of gravity and traction of tires. reducing speed only masks the real issue: lack of skill. this is what should be addressed. of course, increasing skills would decrease traffic accidents and the need for enforcement which would reduce the revenues of the state and insurance companies. we can't be having that of course..
it's too bad you're in the minority then. most managers/insurance agents assume infallibility whereas you know these things can be gamed/damaged/misinterpreted/uncalibrated. this puts the employee who drives that truck on the defensive constantly, making his life more miserable than it probably already is.
the real issue is when (not if) these things become mandatory for all policies. i'm sure politicians are already clamoring for it as it will give them another blue safety ribbon to pimp during the election cycle. in addition, the fact the information is collected and often resold to other organizations so they have the chance to (ab)use it, just makes the matter worse for people, psychologically.
..or maybe people need to stop randomly varying from 25-45 in a 50 because they're talking on the cellphone or watching movies or stoned or drunk or.... today there's a severe shortage of driving skill. by that I don't mean rigid adherence to speed limits, but actual ability to handle a vehicle. this is the #1 thing we could do to enhance safety. it isn't all about driving slow all the time, which just masks the real problem and is a typical attitude for today's society, but I digress.
if you're driving, drive. if you're walking, actually look around as you go. keep the cell in your pocket, or stop (and step to the side) to take the call if you can't do both. some white lines on the road aren't going to save your ass from a 4 ton suv driven by someone whose ineptitude behind the wheel couldn't save you even if he was paying attention.. if most people did these two things, we wouldn't NEED insurance to defend ourselves from rabidly emotional litigiousness.
a lot of it is still uncausated though because they don't have all the data. they just make assumptions like a,b,c are true therefore d,e,f result is likely because stats say so, individual circumstance be damned. this is one of the issues, if not THE issue, people have with insurance companies.
insurance is the new age form of slavery. it ties a remote, profit-motivated authority in with the relationship between a citizen's behavior and money that results in rein jerks whenever citizen threatens the cash flow. the pervasiveness of this kind of thing nowadays is so maddening it makes the gunfights of the past seem a palatable alternative. now that we have computers that can be programmed to tell us what to do, it will get a lot worse.
a time delay would just make it ripe for abuse.. some one would lobby for (and most likely get) a 'special powers' to censor the release for whatever reason..a reason that would be reinterpreted whenever it's convenient.
Slashdot Mirror
or perhaps quality could be pushed as a means of limiting pollution..ie make the product once instead of 3 times per customer, and encourage a repair rather than replace culture.
I'm not a chemist, but this sounds like one of those substances that'll degrade before it should, causing premature failure. plastic has gotten cheap and unreliable enough these days that I wonder if any increased recyclability is being offset by more products being thrown away due to premature breakage. perhaps it's anecdotal, but around the early 1990s, I noticed plastics getting lighter and more brittle, and larger products made with them had structural problems compared with their predecessors. examples coming to mind include kids toys, household appliances, automotive components, and personal electronics.
1. ..and if they defined it, they have no right to whine about others following said definition. like ford developing cars with four wheels and then suing a competitor because his car has four as well.
2. what does apple profitability have to do with this issue?
3. perception is not reality, though it is one of the subjective feelgoodisms that've taken over in the last decade or so at least. the others include, consensus, feelings, and 'equality.'
..or maybe they want a new car because the old one is falling apart? same deal with clothing.. sorry but all three items (apple products, cars, and clothes) are fashion items first and foremost because that's the only way to drive demand beyond what is needed. apple is the computing equivalent of bose. it's a lifestyle brand which basically means the cost is high to create exclusivity, which only matters socially. in a lot of ways, these two brands are not unlike scientology.
there were plenty of 'pocket computing' devices before the iphone.. you have fallen for the apple cultmarketing..
moderated funny but there is a lot of truth here.
$99 for a battery? are you kidding??
PCs will still be around for those who need them.
if they are, they'll be prohibitively expensive and thus restrict access to those interested in more than passive consumption of walled garden media.
dvds support LPCM at 48khz as well.
I'm not.. I never said that government wasn't spying, just that we don't have to give them backdoors to our crypto...yet.
no, he is not not their bitch. he is their employee. there is supposed to be a difference, though in today's world things like individual liberty and life balance are dying out in favor of unhealthy social dynamics. I think the bigger point is that employers should not have the right to expect or have such control.. it blurs the line between employee and slave. agreeing to stuff in a contract under duress (which this is since the choice is work or don't eat) is morally questionable at least, and probably against the law.
because the passive aggressive culture we have today needs it in order to feel secure. it loves argumentum ad populum (among others).
uh.. it's also here in the states too..
http://www.progressive.com/auto/snapshot-common-questions.aspx
they also lose their privacy once it does become required. despite what all the wannabe socialist and conservative 'personal responsibility = bend over and take it' despots think here on slashdot, privacy has great value to a healthy human psyche and a free society.
the primary reason speed is a factor is because people aren't paying attention when they drive. if they were paying attention they'd know when it's safe to go 80 and when they should slow to 50. they'd know that someone wants to pass, and let them. they'd also know to stay in the right lane if they intend to drive more slowly than avg. they would also be aware of what the cars around them are doing, maybe even why and thus be prepared to preempt stupidity.
reducing speed only masks the problem. of course speed limits aren't about safety, they're about revenue. it's a nice easy thing to make an issue about because 'speed is scary'. imagine what these politicians would do if they realized that right now they're spinning on a gyroscopic top at about 1000 angular mi/h that's also orbiting the sun at roughly 60000mi/hr. zomg! we're all gonna die!
as time goes on, the probability that those extrapolations will increase and cause more damage to more people is very high. this information will be used against you whenever someone wants control over your behavior and I can almost guarantee that what they want from you is not in your best interests.
no I wouldn't, and I shouldn't be liable for that either. see there's this thing called 'shit happens' in life and society needs to accept this instead of demanding a way to point blame every time something bad happens. that parent took a risk with his kid's life (and his own) just like I did when we all decided to drive somewhere. this risk is NOT mitigated by lawyers and business owners selling snake oil protection, then building 'optional' surveillance societies around their policy holders to insure max profits. it's dictated by physics, skillset, and awareness. the only risk that it does mitigate is the artificial/legal one threatened by the over litigious society which created it all in the first place because it has increasing trouble dealing mentally with risk.
if you want to mitigate your risk, learn how to drive properly and stay alert while doing so.. if you can't, get off the road until you can! if anything, insurance has a negative impact on this by creating a false sense of security because of how its marketed. you'd think people would be smarter than that, but these days I have my doubts.
if having insurance wasn't the common assumption the law makes it, perhaps the increased sense of naked mortality would cause more people to be proactive in their driving.
in terms of providers themselves, it's fine if they want to set terms, even on rickety statistics, but it's another thing entirely when they become babysitters who insist on forcing pervasive monitoring of every aspect of your life that relates to the policy.. their 'savings' are the actual prices while those who opt out pay a fine. fuck that.
reaction times are only a part of the equation. if the driver is focused on what he's doing, he's far safer at any speed than the average driver who's daydreaming or talking on the cellphone. people need to get over this black and white view of speed, which comes from authority harping on it all the time to give justification for more speed traps/lower limits. this is to increase revenue, not safety
yes, many drivers overestimate their abilities, but not the abilities of their vehicles. for instance most people do not use the full force of their braking when needed, same thing with steering vs center of gravity and traction of tires. reducing speed only masks the real issue: lack of skill. this is what should be addressed. of course, increasing skills would decrease traffic accidents and the need for enforcement which would reduce the revenues of the state and insurance companies. we can't be having that of course..
it's too bad you're in the minority then. most managers/insurance agents assume infallibility whereas you know these things can be gamed/damaged/misinterpreted/uncalibrated. this puts the employee who drives that truck on the defensive constantly, making his life more miserable than it probably already is.
the real issue is when (not if) these things become mandatory for all policies. i'm sure politicians are already clamoring for it as it will give them another blue safety ribbon to pimp during the election cycle. in addition, the fact the information is collected and often resold to other organizations so they have the chance to (ab)use it, just makes the matter worse for people, psychologically.
or because the hazard stepped out without looking because he's incompetent. it isn't just drivers. pedestrians these days are no better.
..or maybe people need to stop randomly varying from 25-45 in a 50 because they're talking on the cellphone or watching movies or stoned or drunk or.... today there's a severe shortage of driving skill. by that I don't mean rigid adherence to speed limits, but actual ability to handle a vehicle. this is the #1 thing we could do to enhance safety. it isn't all about driving slow all the time, which just masks the real problem and is a typical attitude for today's society, but I digress.
if you're driving, drive. if you're walking, actually look around as you go. keep the cell in your pocket, or stop (and step to the side) to take the call if you can't do both. some white lines on the road aren't going to save your ass from a 4 ton suv driven by someone whose ineptitude behind the wheel couldn't save you even if he was paying attention.. if most people did these two things, we wouldn't NEED insurance to defend ourselves from rabidly emotional litigiousness.
a lot of it is still uncausated though because they don't have all the data. they just make assumptions like a,b,c are true therefore d,e,f result is likely because stats say so, individual circumstance be damned. this is one of the issues, if not THE issue, people have with insurance companies.
insurance is the new age form of slavery. it ties a remote, profit-motivated authority in with the relationship between a citizen's behavior and money that results in rein jerks whenever citizen threatens the cash flow. the pervasiveness of this kind of thing nowadays is so maddening it makes the gunfights of the past seem a palatable alternative. now that we have computers that can be programmed to tell us what to do, it will get a lot worse.
a time delay would just make it ripe for abuse.. some one would lobby for (and most likely get) a 'special powers' to censor the release for whatever reason..a reason that would be reinterpreted whenever it's convenient.
yeah like socialism is utopia? there are other dynamics at play than your stupid one dimensional right vs left.