Since every individual has to make money somehow, "business" regulations are effectively the same thing as individual regulations. A guy who is the sole proprietor of a bodega is just as tied to a soda tax as Walgreens. The idea that the government has any say whatsoever in a private transaction between two individuals (other than perhaps ensuring a free market... perhaps) is antithetic to classical liberalism.
I was mocking his whiny tone and trying to be funny. Linux may be "better" than Apple in this regard, but it is still a matter of degree. Old hardware won't be supported forever, no matter what your platform is. Apple is better than most vendors at supporting older devices - I'm still getting software updates for my late 2008 MacBook Pro. I mean, damn. But hardware-wise, they won't even sell me a new battery since it falls outside of their 5-year support policy. Eventually they won't bother compiling OSX for my laptop and I'll have to live with the latest version that runs, which they generally keep updating for 3 versions. So at this stage I may very well have software updates for an 11-year-old laptop before they finally pull the plug... that's just silly.
That's true but also pretty irrelevant. Why in the world would someone buy an Apple product if they have an expectation of infinite software updates? It's not like Apple has suddenly changed policy.
Why not? It's a form of transport. The operators and mechanics are something that can be addressed with investment in infrastructure. I dare say 560 lives - statistical noise, really - could be saved with trivial amounts of money being spent compared to air infrastructure to save the same number.
Well, he has played golf with his opponents husband on more than one occasion... how different can they really be?
And by different, I don't mean in effectiveness... it's hard to even say how effective Trump would be since he has zero track record. I mean in their worldview. There will be little change to any major policy.
I mostly agree with everything you wrote, but I would add that a vote for a third party candidate makes it easier for that party to get ballot access in the next election. The more elections a third party is in, the more likely the changes you describe are to happen. We will never have a change to the system if we keep voting for the two entrenched parties.
Personally - and I'm not sure how you'd classify this, perhaps principle, I'm more likely to stay home than vote for Trump or Clinton. They are both wrong for this country in different ways and I'm not sure who would be worse, though Trump is certainly more of a wild card. But essentially they both play for the same team, so I don't really think it matters too much who wins. At the end of the day, the people paying for the $10,000 plate dinners still run the show - and they really don't care much about the R or the D. Given that there are two other choices, if I actually go to the polls, I'll pull a lever for one of them. I like libertarians (of the less wacky variety) in general - I'd probably even describe myself as one except where the ideology runs into pragmatism... like everywhere:) But even Stein is preferable to the mainstream candidates.
Look at what you wrote. Britain, an island with a natural "wall" 19 miles wide at its narrowest point, is having an immigration problem. Trump wants to solve it with a flimsy fence. Thank you, I could not better illustrate what a child-like solution to the problem it is.
"We"? No. We are exactly the same species as our parents and grandparents. We'll keep right on killing each other in new and technically interesting ways. Musk can point to his 1 fatality in 134 million miles track record as being better than the 1 in 94 million human average - fair or not. He's selling cars, after all. By the time regulators catch up, they'll be requiring autopilot because the accident rate will be consistently better than humans. We'll keep right on being human.
Donald Trump only has something like 20% odds, yet he'll probably get more than 1/3 of the popular vote. I say if you don't like Hillary, "throw your vote away" on a third party and not someone who has a 9-year-old's solution to immigration and runs a campaign targeting Archie Bunker.
Give me a car that will take me to work while I nap in the backseat. I have no interest in being on the road filled with semi-autonomous cars.
Sorry, but history seems to indicate that humans don't adopt technology this way. We just brashly try shit way before it is remotely safe to do so, and then regulation follows when necessary. Hell, seat belts weren't standard on ANY car until 1958, and the very first seat belt law anywhere in the world didn't happen until 1970. Automobiles have historically been death traps, with a continuum to relative safety now. This will probably continue going forward, until our descendants view our relative death traps as we do the Model T. Automation will almost certainly make cars safer, but it won't be a binary operation. It will be a long slog through imperfect implementations.
I agree that being in a hospital is dangerous, but that "third leading cause of death" stat is totally BS. The study said that there were medical mistakes in xxx numbers of deaths, not that xxx deaths were caused by medical mistakes. A concern for sure, but totally different things.
She's in a major-city hospital now, and one of the best in the world prior. You'd be shocked how badly hospital staff are taught about law and how misunderstood things like organ donor status and do not resuscitate orders are. Again, it's not about malice or effort - it's simply not understanding what a status like "organ donor" means.
It's not that nefarious... the complexities of the law are totally lost on hospital staff and they can misunderstand "organ donor" to mean "don't try to save me". Really. My wife works in a hospital and will not become an organ donor. I'm still willing to risk it, but partially because I know she's wise to the game.
and that we are smart enough to know that cooperation is a better long term strategy than winner take all competition.
I don't think that is self-evident at all. The very fact that genes for selfishness still exist proves that cooperation is not always the best strategy for survival.
I'm pretty sure there will always be a commercial market for music. Think movies and, well, commercials. For that matter, I think people will still buy music and want to listen to the radio. I'm just suggesting that the law be changed to better match reality - most regular people are not very educated on copyright law, violate it on a regular basis, and are not particularly guided by it. Commercial users are different - they know the law, as they should since it is their business.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say anything about conservatives, but they quite obviously selectively choose when they want to emphasize individual rights.
Since every individual has to make money somehow, "business" regulations are effectively the same thing as individual regulations. A guy who is the sole proprietor of a bodega is just as tied to a soda tax as Walgreens. The idea that the government has any say whatsoever in a private transaction between two individuals (other than perhaps ensuring a free market... perhaps) is antithetic to classical liberalism.
I was mocking his whiny tone and trying to be funny. Linux may be "better" than Apple in this regard, but it is still a matter of degree. Old hardware won't be supported forever, no matter what your platform is. Apple is better than most vendors at supporting older devices - I'm still getting software updates for my late 2008 MacBook Pro. I mean, damn. But hardware-wise, they won't even sell me a new battery since it falls outside of their 5-year support policy. Eventually they won't bother compiling OSX for my laptop and I'll have to live with the latest version that runs, which they generally keep updating for 3 versions. So at this stage I may very well have software updates for an 11-year-old laptop before they finally pull the plug... that's just silly.
That's true but also pretty irrelevant. Why in the world would someone buy an Apple product if they have an expectation of infinite software updates? It's not like Apple has suddenly changed policy.
I agree that it should not be enabled by default, but I also think it sounds useful if you have decent internet service.
Linux once again provides forced obsolence <sic> to my i386 devices.
Yes, that demonstrates just how insanely complicated it is (though the example you provide is actually pretty simple).
They both exist, and they both have demonstrated value. I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Lordy, I was being informal in my speech. The point remains, the behavior exists because at some point it was advantageous.
You're overlooking several things in regards to Britain.
No, the Trump supporter is overlooking things in regards to Britain. I'm well aware that immigration is a complex issue with many variables.
It is not a fair comparison.
Why not? It's a form of transport. The operators and mechanics are something that can be addressed with investment in infrastructure. I dare say 560 lives - statistical noise, really - could be saved with trivial amounts of money being spent compared to air infrastructure to save the same number.
I for one, love that they put the "eject economy class" button right next to the button for coffee.
Well, he has played golf with his opponents husband on more than one occasion... how different can they really be?
And by different, I don't mean in effectiveness... it's hard to even say how effective Trump would be since he has zero track record. I mean in their worldview. There will be little change to any major policy.
I mostly agree with everything you wrote, but I would add that a vote for a third party candidate makes it easier for that party to get ballot access in the next election. The more elections a third party is in, the more likely the changes you describe are to happen. We will never have a change to the system if we keep voting for the two entrenched parties.
Personally - and I'm not sure how you'd classify this, perhaps principle, I'm more likely to stay home than vote for Trump or Clinton. They are both wrong for this country in different ways and I'm not sure who would be worse, though Trump is certainly more of a wild card. But essentially they both play for the same team, so I don't really think it matters too much who wins. At the end of the day, the people paying for the $10,000 plate dinners still run the show - and they really don't care much about the R or the D. Given that there are two other choices, if I actually go to the polls, I'll pull a lever for one of them. I like libertarians (of the less wacky variety) in general - I'd probably even describe myself as one except where the ideology runs into pragmatism... like everywhere :) But even Stein is preferable to the mainstream candidates.
Look at what you wrote. Britain, an island with a natural "wall" 19 miles wide at its narrowest point, is having an immigration problem. Trump wants to solve it with a flimsy fence. Thank you, I could not better illustrate what a child-like solution to the problem it is.
"We"? No. We are exactly the same species as our parents and grandparents. We'll keep right on killing each other in new and technically interesting ways. Musk can point to his 1 fatality in 134 million miles track record as being better than the 1 in 94 million human average - fair or not. He's selling cars, after all. By the time regulators catch up, they'll be requiring autopilot because the accident rate will be consistently better than humans. We'll keep right on being human.
Donald Trump only has something like 20% odds, yet he'll probably get more than 1/3 of the popular vote. I say if you don't like Hillary, "throw your vote away" on a third party and not someone who has a 9-year-old's solution to immigration and runs a campaign targeting Archie Bunker.
Give me a car that will take me to work while I nap in the backseat. I have no interest in being on the road filled with semi-autonomous cars.
Sorry, but history seems to indicate that humans don't adopt technology this way. We just brashly try shit way before it is remotely safe to do so, and then regulation follows when necessary. Hell, seat belts weren't standard on ANY car until 1958, and the very first seat belt law anywhere in the world didn't happen until 1970. Automobiles have historically been death traps, with a continuum to relative safety now. This will probably continue going forward, until our descendants view our relative death traps as we do the Model T. Automation will almost certainly make cars safer, but it won't be a binary operation. It will be a long slog through imperfect implementations.
I agree that being in a hospital is dangerous, but that "third leading cause of death" stat is totally BS. The study said that there were medical mistakes in xxx numbers of deaths, not that xxx deaths were caused by medical mistakes. A concern for sure, but totally different things.
She's in a major-city hospital now, and one of the best in the world prior. You'd be shocked how badly hospital staff are taught about law and how misunderstood things like organ donor status and do not resuscitate orders are. Again, it's not about malice or effort - it's simply not understanding what a status like "organ donor" means.
It's not that nefarious... the complexities of the law are totally lost on hospital staff and they can misunderstand "organ donor" to mean "don't try to save me". Really. My wife works in a hospital and will not become an organ donor. I'm still willing to risk it, but partially because I know she's wise to the game.
But those are two more political parties... It's still partisan.
Gary Johnson? Jill Stein? Why pretend there are only 2 candidates?
and that we are smart enough to know that cooperation is a better long term strategy than winner take all competition.
I don't think that is self-evident at all. The very fact that genes for selfishness still exist proves that cooperation is not always the best strategy for survival.
I'm pretty sure there will always be a commercial market for music. Think movies and, well, commercials. For that matter, I think people will still buy music and want to listen to the radio. I'm just suggesting that the law be changed to better match reality - most regular people are not very educated on copyright law, violate it on a regular basis, and are not particularly guided by it. Commercial users are different - they know the law, as they should since it is their business.