>"Illegal aliens don't get foodstamps or housing assistance."
Until we turn around and do yet another "amnesty" and make them all citizens. Because, this is the last time, and we will prevent the situation from happening again by tightening the border and enforcement... yeah right. Rinse and repeat.
>"That's up to states, they can't dole out federal money to illegals."
But they CAN dole out state money, and some states do. And in theory, illegal immigrants are not supposed to be able to work- we have laws to prevent it. Yet the laws are ignored or skirted, and so there is no local, state, or federal income tax on any of those earnings, and no SSI collected, and no worker's comp.
Simple math. If we weren't providing any untaxed employment, and weren't providing any "free" services and benefits, then there wouldn't be much illegal immigration because they could not survive (or it would be only crime and illegal activity that supports them such as theft, drugs, smuggling, human trafficking, etc; because you can be assured that charity won't cover it).
>"All the outdoor parks and memorials will remain open because there's no need to close them. Trees keep growing, rivers keep flowing..."
Unless you are under the Obama administration and then close and ROPE/CONE OFF outdoor parks, monuments and/or parking, just to prove a point. So the shutdown won't pay for the operational aspects, but they somehow can pay rangers and police to force people to not enter parks, to park their cars, or get too close to monuments??
>"It's stupid that our system allows this so easily."
Agreed. And if something is shut down, then it should mean just that- nobody gets paid. Not now and not later. Closing services and then turning around and PAYING everyone for having done no work is crazy. And that includes Congress, President, etc. Being ACTUALLY unpaid after the new year would surely motivate them to pass a budget.
>"It should have a cruise control mode that funds at existing levels until budget agreements are made."
Better yet, it should also be coupled with a balanced budget amendment so that it is impossible to spend more than is taken in. Period. Budget exceeds revenue? Flat percent spending cut across the board automatically. Either spend less, tax more, or some combination of both.
>"Yet another slashdot whiner who canÃ(TM)t grasp that Ãoeworks wellà is far more important than being ÃoefirstÃ."
And yet, I have used examples of all of those technologies, working very well, in various non-Apple phones, before Apple "invented" them. So, sorry, that doesn't fly.
This is not anything fantastic. It is no great feat to make a fake "hand" to fool a deep-vein-palm-scanner. It changes nothing.
Fingerprints- you leave them everywhere. DNA- you leave it everywhere. Face- you show it everywhere. Iris- visible when look at any device. Hand/finger shape- not live, visible in any photo.
The whole point of deep vein scan is that what is being scanned is never left anywhere (latent) and not casually visible or obtainable. The veins are beneath the skin in the palm, in an area rarely exposed "outward" and can be seen only in infrared at very close range. When you "enroll", you know you are doing so and typically have to be an active participant. Combined with a password, something you "know", not "are", it is perhaps the most secure in-use thing out there while also being the most private, and actually very cheap to implement, and still fast enough for real-time use (those last qualifications throwing out things like retina, which is typically expensive, complex, and slow).
Meanwhile, fingerprint and faceID systems continue to erode privacy and diminish actual security. DNA, when it eventually comes, well.... go watch the old film GATTACA.
And that last article about people not willing to pay Apple's insane prices anymore is amusing. And the article before about them eying 3D cameras, although phones have already done that. And Apple users laughing at phones with fingerprint sensors, then Apple "inventing" it. And laughing at large-screen phones, then "inventing" it. And laughing at the capacitive Samsung S Pen, then "inventing" the concept with the Apple Pencil. Other companies were first with OLED displays, wireless charging, optical stabilization, touch screens, smart watches, keyboard covers, zoom pinching, face ID, removal of home button, slim bezels, dual rear cameras, RFID payments, water resistance... but the distortion field says that either Apple invented them or somehow only Apple could make it work right.
But let's give them credit- they were among the first with no headphone jack, non-user-replaceable batteries, and strange cut-out areas on the display.
>"What's the point of this browser, when in real life its behavior is not much different or even worse than Chrome's?"
Still is more user driven. Still is much more configurable. Still no info shared with Google or third parties (in this example). Still not a binary blob. Still resists the web being "owned" by a single company.
>"I owned an Evo 3D and liked it a lot. I also have a VR headset. I'm the target market for this. Note: the Evo 3D did not require any hardware to view in 3D on the device."
I, too, had a 3D Evo. It was neat how it worked, especially with the no-glasses-needed-screen. But for my own uses, I thought it was more of a novelty than something useful. Please keep in mind that I very much enjoy 3D- I have lots of 3D blurays and a 3D TV, and go to 3D movies in the theater. When done right, it can add another great aspect to movie story-telling. So if even I can say it probably isn't that big a deal in a phone, it is likely to be too gimmicky to most others out there.
I will laugh, however, when it comes to the "iPhone" and Apple and it's users claim they invented that idea, too.
>"I'd expect China to be throwing huge piles of money into transitioning away from Windows entirely for all military and government functions, and all major companies too. They even tried with Red Flag Linux, and that ended badly."
You are correct that they shouldn't trust closed US software/hardware (yet we probably shouldn't either). Although their attempt with using Linux didn't end "badly", it just ended because for whatever reason, they decided not to pursue it. At the time, it was probably less about security than a bluff to try and force Microsoft to lower prices and/or include certain "features", coupled with their unwillingness to port their applications to the platform. Actually, it could have been a huge win for them had they continued the process.
>"Funny how for some people big government is a solution to any problem unless itâ(TM)s a solution they donâ(TM)t want at all."
Indeed.
And in this case, it would more realistic and acceptable with one easy change. STOP focusing on "climate change". Hence:
"The world needs to be working on lots of solutions to stop climate change" (-Bill Gates)
How about:
The world needs cheap power. The world needs energy independence. The economy will boon with cheap/plentiful/safe energy. The world will have much more PEACE with cheap/plentiful/safe energy. It can help solve suffering, hunger, lack of other resources, it can lower taxes, lower regulations, increase safety, increase productivity, stimulate new types of products, and on and on. Those are concrete things we KNOW can and would materialize. Build a platform on THOSE and watch what happens. And it doesn't have to be just nuclear.
Instead, the public wants to continuously argue over climate change. We don't know for sure how big a problem climate change is, but wouldn't it be wonderful if the cure was a SIDE EFFECT of doing the right things for a myriad of OTHER good reasons?
>"After all these years I have a hard time understanding why "browser wars" are still a thing. We've got plenty of options and more perhaps coming."
No we don't. We had four major browsers: IE, Firefox, Chrome/Chromium, and Safari. Everything else is now barely noise on a graph. Of those 4, only TWO are multiplatform (Firefox, Chrome) and open source (Firefox, Chromium). And only one (Firefox) is open development, browser-only company, open-source, and multiplatform.
Google's hard-core Chrome marketing efforts (and Mozillia necessary overhaul of Firefox) have decimated Firefox (despite its now fantastic performance and modern abilities). And now Microsoft is almost handing their browser to Google.
Make no mistake thinking you really have choice- I actually came across more than one site now that is NOT programmed to open/neutral standards and have become, essentially, "Chrome only" sites. Yes, flashback time. What is that site? Cox Communications. Now you can't even RESET YOUR ACCOUNT PASSWORD IN FIREFOX OR SAFARI. YOU MUST USE CHROME (and hours on the phone with tech support verified this insanity). And this is my ISP! So if you thought this kind of stuff was in the past (like I did), wake up and smell the new IE6.
So, no, depending on your needs and platform, your *effective* "choice" is rapidly disappearing.
It really is quite difficult for me to feel all that sorry about advertisers and ad sellers being upset that their precious data is wrong/overstated/contaminated. The "ad wars" [on users' eyes, ears, cpu, screen space, bandwidth, patience] are so insane now, the anarchist in me is almost happy about it.
Ooops, another site that wants to shame/annoy/warn/block me because of my ad filters protecting my privacy/sanity/bandwidth/battery/security. Hmmm....
>"When kids are at school, you want them to be tracked. Kids have been tracked and monitored at school for decades."
There is a difference between taking attendance and tracking every moment of a child. Watching if they are awake. Watching who they associate with. Watching everywhere they go. Oh, and "watching" also means "storing for future reference." Where does the tracking end? What is next?
This is bad for anyone but perhaps especially harmful for children- if they grow up thinking they are always being watched by people not there, it will be extremely difficult for them to develop a healthy psyche, "unwatched" morals, a reasonable expectation of "safety", or even any type of free or independent thought/expression. Coupled with a non-free and repressive government, it is just scary as f*** as this thread implies.
>"I was recently in an eye dr's office and every single kid there was playing with his phone. I guess that's ok, they are not running around and bothering anyone;)"
However, it is NOT OK when the phones are making noise, which seems to be extremely common now and that sure as hell bothers ME. I can't even enjoy dinner in a restaurant without some parent allowing their kid to either watch video with the audio BLASTING or playing some annoying game with sound. It is utterly amazing to me that the parents don't realize just how rude and annoying that is to everyone around them.
Parents- please discover the concept of earphones.
>""Whenever I tell people I don't have a phone, they say, 'Oh, that's so great. I wish I didn't have to have one.'" That's "one thing digital refuseniks never have to worry about," the article concludes: "Who is the servant in their digital relationship, and who is the master."
This is just silly. You don't have to NOT have a smart phone to prevent being rude, unsafe, or being obsessed. Smart phones are great for so many other things- news, easy texting, hotting down a note, maps and directions, flashlight, finding a store, calculator, listening to a podcast or music, weather, calendar, looking up word definitions or encyclopedia pages, playing an occasional casual word game, easily taking photos, etc.
If you have ZERO self control, then try this, I know it is a new concept: Delete the social media apps and disable/block them from sending any type of notifications/Email. Done. THOSE are what seem to drive people to be so totally obsessive with their phones. Delete Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. If you want to participate on those, allocate some time to use them on your home desktop/laptop, perhaps once a day for an hour or something. Then get on with your life!
>"Basing an entire social system around selfishness in the face of all reason and research"
Right, because the entire USA "social system" (actually, you are talking about economics, not "social system") should be based on sharing, flowers, love, rainbows, through centralized planning, taking other peoples' money to re-allocate, and run by the so-called intellectual elite, who somehow know "what is best" for us peons and can mange it all better, oh and somehow without any corruption or "meaness".
No thanks. I will take heartless Capitalism, where the market responds to customer demands, finds and offers the lowest prices, creates opportunity, and is free to innovate, grow, and change quickly as needs change. Sure, it has to be controlled a bit to prevent monopolies from taking over, or destroying the environment, but otherwise needs to be left mostly alone.
>"These "Lite" Pixels will be the first phones in the mid-range Google has released since the Nexus 5X, which launched at $379 in the US in 2015."
Too late. I (and probably many, many others) moved on, after waiting years for a nice, affordable, capable phone from Google to replace the Nexus 5 (the last one meeting the criteria). I bought a Moto G5+ from Costco for $189 and couldn't be more pleased. Plus, unlike the Nexus/Pixel, it has an SD card, which as been EXTREMELY useful. Also still has a headphone jack (as does the Moto G6).
>"Now all we need is a Nondiscrimination law --- that is, to say,
a federal rule against price discrimination or blanket pricing deals in that: A healthcare provider may not charge individuals a higher price than a partner insurance company would pay for the same service."
I couldn't agree more. Because I can tell you now, that "master list" they post means nothing. Insurance companies pay much, much, much, much less than what is posted. And very, very few people would ever pay out-of-pocket.
>"The real reason that cannot happen is that when every shutdown is resolved, the government pays all the federal workers for the time they were not working. So shutdowns don't actually save the federal government any money at all. It's all just politics and grandstanding."
Exactly. So the entire thing is a farce- the public loses services for no reason and Federal employees get paid to do nothing. It is infuriating. I want it shut down and painful for everyone, while saving money to boot.
>"What is the difference between hunting whales and all the other animals we eat"
Whales are a high-order mammal with great intelligence (like dolphins and apes). We evolved [humans] tend to place a increasingly high stigma on killing and eating animals as they get closer to us on the scale of intelligence.
Plus many whales are endangered or struggling species. Plus they have very long lifespans with low birth rates. Plus they can't be farmed. Plus the hunting methods of killing them tends to be incredibly cruel/slow.
Part of me would like to see the shutdown last exactly as long as it would take to balance the budget and pay off the national debt. What an interesting experiment THAT would be.... Of course, that can't happen (for pretty obvious reasons).
I really do wish we had a Constitutional Amendment that required a balanced budget or it just cuts all spending across the board, automatically, until it is balanced. Of course, that does nothing for the $21 *TRILLION* debt (which cost us $310 BILLION to service in 2018 alone, $2.6 TRILLION over the last 10 years), but at least it is a start. In the mean time, raise taxes, stop spending (my preference), or some combination of both!
>"It doesn't matter if a whole neighborhood wants fresh food, if none of them have the means to become business owners, and the business-owning class live elsewhere and are completely out of touch. It's not as if something pops up on their screen "these citizens demanding fresh food" and then some entrepreneur will pounce on it."
That is typical (and, IMHO, generally incorrect) Socialist-think. Trust me, if there were a market and profit could be made, it doesn't matter where the "business-owning class" live, they will open a store or a corporate store will move in, eventually.
It is true that part of that equation/calculation for profitability (beyond mere demand and consumer ability to pay at a reasonable amount above cost) does include ability to find a location in the area in question without overwhelming risk of debilitating crime (very rare) and the ability to find suitable workers (also rare). It is also true that it may also take time for the demand to be recognized and for a reaction.
The author is trying to make this a race thing about food. Sorry, there is no great conspiracy, they are just dollar stores. If an area has a market for "fresh food", then usually it will be filled. The reality is that either people in certain areas don't want "fresh food" or won't pay for it, so the stores that would sell it either don't offer it or they close down. This is what the market does- it fills demands in order to survive and make profit.
Dollar stores aren't trying to be grocery stores, they are supplying a limited number of long shelf-life products that *sell* to people who want it, as a convenience, in an otherwise very much non-food store. At least the ones I have been in, 80% of the store are things like housewares, cards, gifts, personal hygiene supplies, plastic goods, balloons, decor, books, games, toys, office supplies, etc.
Dollar stores are great for finding some inexpensive supplies and gifts. I go there frequently. But you have to watch their SIZES of things- the pricing is not always good for what you get and can be had cheaper at Walmart or even a grocery store. But lots of things are much cheaper than can be had anywhere else, and some things not available at all anywhere else (locally).
If the goal is for people to eat better, that requires education, which creates desire and demand, which then stimulates supply creation. Supply will not create demand. The process is not perfect, but that is generally how it works (and no other process works better in the long run).
The state of New York prohibits "any person to slaughter or butcher domesticated dog or domesticated cat to create food, meat or meat products for human or animal consumption."
California prohibits the consumption of the carcass of an animal that was âoetraditionally or commonly kept as a pet.â
Wisconsin prohibits (except when being attacked) a person from intentionally kill a dog unless done in a proper and humane manner.
Granted, you are being nit-picky about your specific example of just killing and eating. It SHOULD be legal to humanely kill your pet as an act of euthanasia when they are terminally sick and suffering (just like it should be for humans). But the flavor of your post is that you can do anything you want to your pets, and that is clearly not true. There are lots of various laws about torture, withholding food, forcing them to fight, etc. And if you think that kind of stuff (or even killing your own pet for no very good reason) is moral, then I think you are a sociopath.
Slashdot Mirror
>"Illegal aliens don't get foodstamps or housing assistance."
Until we turn around and do yet another "amnesty" and make them all citizens. Because, this is the last time, and we will prevent the situation from happening again by tightening the border and enforcement... yeah right. Rinse and repeat.
>"That's up to states, they can't dole out federal money to illegals."
But they CAN dole out state money, and some states do. And in theory, illegal immigrants are not supposed to be able to work- we have laws to prevent it. Yet the laws are ignored or skirted, and so there is no local, state, or federal income tax on any of those earnings, and no SSI collected, and no worker's comp.
Simple math. If we weren't providing any untaxed employment, and weren't providing any "free" services and benefits, then there wouldn't be much illegal immigration because they could not survive (or it would be only crime and illegal activity that supports them such as theft, drugs, smuggling, human trafficking, etc; because you can be assured that charity won't cover it).
>"All the outdoor parks and memorials will remain open because there's no need to close them. Trees keep growing, rivers keep flowing..."
Unless you are under the Obama administration and then close and ROPE/CONE OFF outdoor parks, monuments and/or parking, just to prove a point. So the shutdown won't pay for the operational aspects, but they somehow can pay rangers and police to force people to not enter parks, to park their cars, or get too close to monuments??
https://naturalresources.house...
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/...
>"It's stupid that our system allows this so easily."
Agreed. And if something is shut down, then it should mean just that- nobody gets paid. Not now and not later. Closing services and then turning around and PAYING everyone for having done no work is crazy. And that includes Congress, President, etc. Being ACTUALLY unpaid after the new year would surely motivate them to pass a budget.
>"It should have a cruise control mode that funds at existing levels until budget agreements are made."
Better yet, it should also be coupled with a balanced budget amendment so that it is impossible to spend more than is taken in. Period. Budget exceeds revenue? Flat percent spending cut across the board automatically. Either spend less, tax more, or some combination of both.
>"Yet another slashdot whiner who canÃ(TM)t grasp that Ãoeworks wellà is far more important than being ÃoefirstÃ."
And yet, I have used examples of all of those technologies, working very well, in various non-Apple phones, before Apple "invented" them. So, sorry, that doesn't fly.
This is not anything fantastic. It is no great feat to make a fake "hand" to fool a deep-vein-palm-scanner. It changes nothing.
Fingerprints- you leave them everywhere.
DNA- you leave it everywhere.
Face- you show it everywhere.
Iris- visible when look at any device.
Hand/finger shape- not live, visible in any photo.
The whole point of deep vein scan is that what is being scanned is never left anywhere (latent) and not casually visible or obtainable. The veins are beneath the skin in the palm, in an area rarely exposed "outward" and can be seen only in infrared at very close range. When you "enroll", you know you are doing so and typically have to be an active participant. Combined with a password, something you "know", not "are", it is perhaps the most secure in-use thing out there while also being the most private, and actually very cheap to implement, and still fast enough for real-time use (those last qualifications throwing out things like retina, which is typically expensive, complex, and slow).
Meanwhile, fingerprint and faceID systems continue to erode privacy and diminish actual security. DNA, when it eventually comes, well.... go watch the old film GATTACA.
Yep.
And that last article about people not willing to pay Apple's insane prices anymore is amusing. And the article before about them eying 3D cameras, although phones have already done that. And Apple users laughing at phones with fingerprint sensors, then Apple "inventing" it. And laughing at large-screen phones, then "inventing" it. And laughing at the capacitive Samsung S Pen, then "inventing" the concept with the Apple Pencil. Other companies were first with OLED displays, wireless charging, optical stabilization, touch screens, smart watches, keyboard covers, zoom pinching, face ID, removal of home button, slim bezels, dual rear cameras, RFID payments, water resistance... but the distortion field says that either Apple invented them or somehow only Apple could make it work right.
But let's give them credit- they were among the first with no headphone jack, non-user-replaceable batteries, and strange cut-out areas on the display.
Yes, I turn everything off that shares info. Most (perhaps all with regards to data sharing) is in Preferences and clearly labeled.
>"What's the point of this browser, when in real life its behavior is not much different or even worse than Chrome's?"
Still is more user driven.
Still is much more configurable.
Still no info shared with Google or third parties (in this example).
Still not a binary blob.
Still resists the web being "owned" by a single company.
>"I owned an Evo 3D and liked it a lot. I also have a VR headset. I'm the target market for this. Note: the Evo 3D did not require any hardware to view in 3D on the device."
I, too, had a 3D Evo. It was neat how it worked, especially with the no-glasses-needed-screen. But for my own uses, I thought it was more of a novelty than something useful. Please keep in mind that I very much enjoy 3D- I have lots of 3D blurays and a 3D TV, and go to 3D movies in the theater. When done right, it can add another great aspect to movie story-telling. So if even I can say it probably isn't that big a deal in a phone, it is likely to be too gimmicky to most others out there.
I will laugh, however, when it comes to the "iPhone" and Apple and it's users claim they invented that idea, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>"I'd expect China to be throwing huge piles of money into transitioning away from Windows entirely for all military and government functions, and all major companies too. They even tried with Red Flag Linux, and that ended badly."
You are correct that they shouldn't trust closed US software/hardware (yet we probably shouldn't either). Although their attempt with using Linux didn't end "badly", it just ended because for whatever reason, they decided not to pursue it. At the time, it was probably less about security than a bluff to try and force Microsoft to lower prices and/or include certain "features", coupled with their unwillingness to port their applications to the platform. Actually, it could have been a huge win for them had they continued the process.
>"Funny how for some people big government is a solution to any problem unless itâ(TM)s a solution they donâ(TM)t want at all."
Indeed.
And in this case, it would more realistic and acceptable with one easy change. STOP focusing on "climate change". Hence:
"The world needs to be working on lots of solutions to stop climate change" (-Bill Gates)
How about:
The world needs cheap power. The world needs energy independence. The economy will boon with cheap/plentiful/safe energy. The world will have much more PEACE with cheap/plentiful/safe energy. It can help solve suffering, hunger, lack of other resources, it can lower taxes, lower regulations, increase safety, increase productivity, stimulate new types of products, and on and on. Those are concrete things we KNOW can and would materialize. Build a platform on THOSE and watch what happens. And it doesn't have to be just nuclear.
Instead, the public wants to continuously argue over climate change. We don't know for sure how big a problem climate change is, but wouldn't it be wonderful if the cure was a SIDE EFFECT of doing the right things for a myriad of OTHER good reasons?
>"After all these years I have a hard time understanding why "browser wars" are still a thing. We've got plenty of options and more perhaps coming."
No we don't. We had four major browsers: IE, Firefox, Chrome/Chromium, and Safari. Everything else is now barely noise on a graph. Of those 4, only TWO are multiplatform (Firefox, Chrome) and open source (Firefox, Chromium). And only one (Firefox) is open development, browser-only company, open-source, and multiplatform.
Google's hard-core Chrome marketing efforts (and Mozillia necessary overhaul of Firefox) have decimated Firefox (despite its now fantastic performance and modern abilities). And now Microsoft is almost handing their browser to Google.
Make no mistake thinking you really have choice- I actually came across more than one site now that is NOT programmed to open/neutral standards and have become, essentially, "Chrome only" sites. Yes, flashback time. What is that site? Cox Communications. Now you can't even RESET YOUR ACCOUNT PASSWORD IN FIREFOX OR SAFARI. YOU MUST USE CHROME (and hours on the phone with tech support verified this insanity). And this is my ISP! So if you thought this kind of stuff was in the past (like I did), wake up and smell the new IE6.
So, no, depending on your needs and platform, your *effective* "choice" is rapidly disappearing.
It really is quite difficult for me to feel all that sorry about advertisers and ad sellers being upset that their precious data is wrong/overstated/contaminated. The "ad wars" [on users' eyes, ears, cpu, screen space, bandwidth, patience] are so insane now, the anarchist in me is almost happy about it.
Ooops, another site that wants to shame/annoy/warn/block me because of my ad filters protecting my privacy/sanity/bandwidth/battery/security. Hmmm....
>"When kids are at school, you want them to be tracked. Kids have been tracked and monitored at school for decades."
There is a difference between taking attendance and tracking every moment of a child. Watching if they are awake. Watching who they associate with. Watching everywhere they go. Oh, and "watching" also means "storing for future reference." Where does the tracking end? What is next?
This is bad for anyone but perhaps especially harmful for children- if they grow up thinking they are always being watched by people not there, it will be extremely difficult for them to develop a healthy psyche, "unwatched" morals, a reasonable expectation of "safety", or even any type of free or independent thought/expression. Coupled with a non-free and repressive government, it is just scary as f*** as this thread implies.
>"I was recently in an eye dr's office and every single kid there was playing with his phone. I guess that's ok, they are not running around and bothering anyone ;)"
However, it is NOT OK when the phones are making noise, which seems to be extremely common now and that sure as hell bothers ME. I can't even enjoy dinner in a restaurant without some parent allowing their kid to either watch video with the audio BLASTING or playing some annoying game with sound. It is utterly amazing to me that the parents don't realize just how rude and annoying that is to everyone around them.
Parents- please discover the concept of earphones.
>""Whenever I tell people I don't have a phone, they say, 'Oh, that's so great. I wish I didn't have to have one.'" That's "one thing digital refuseniks never have to worry about," the article concludes: "Who is the servant in their digital relationship, and who is the master."
This is just silly. You don't have to NOT have a smart phone to prevent being rude, unsafe, or being obsessed. Smart phones are great for so many other things- news, easy texting, hotting down a note, maps and directions, flashlight, finding a store, calculator, listening to a podcast or music, weather, calendar, looking up word definitions or encyclopedia pages, playing an occasional casual word game, easily taking photos, etc.
If you have ZERO self control, then try this, I know it is a new concept: Delete the social media apps and disable/block them from sending any type of notifications/Email. Done. THOSE are what seem to drive people to be so totally obsessive with their phones. Delete Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. If you want to participate on those, allocate some time to use them on your home desktop/laptop, perhaps once a day for an hour or something. Then get on with your life!
>"Basing an entire social system around selfishness in the face of all reason and research"
Right, because the entire USA "social system" (actually, you are talking about economics, not "social system") should be based on sharing, flowers, love, rainbows, through centralized planning, taking other peoples' money to re-allocate, and run by the so-called intellectual elite, who somehow know "what is best" for us peons and can mange it all better, oh and somehow without any corruption or "meaness".
No thanks. I will take heartless Capitalism, where the market responds to customer demands, finds and offers the lowest prices, creates opportunity, and is free to innovate, grow, and change quickly as needs change. Sure, it has to be controlled a bit to prevent monopolies from taking over, or destroying the environment, but otherwise needs to be left mostly alone.
>"These "Lite" Pixels will be the first phones in the mid-range Google has released since the Nexus 5X, which launched at $379 in the US in 2015."
Too late. I (and probably many, many others) moved on, after waiting years for a nice, affordable, capable phone from Google to replace the Nexus 5 (the last one meeting the criteria). I bought a Moto G5+ from Costco for $189 and couldn't be more pleased. Plus, unlike the Nexus/Pixel, it has an SD card, which as been EXTREMELY useful. Also still has a headphone jack (as does the Moto G6).
>"Now all we need is a Nondiscrimination law --- that is, to say,
a federal rule against price discrimination or blanket pricing deals in that: A healthcare provider may not charge individuals a higher price than a partner insurance company would pay for the same service."
I couldn't agree more. Because I can tell you now, that "master list" they post means nothing. Insurance companies pay much, much, much, much less than what is posted. And very, very few people would ever pay out-of-pocket.
>"The real reason that cannot happen is that when every shutdown is resolved, the government pays all the federal workers for the time they were not working. So shutdowns don't actually save the federal government any money at all. It's all just politics and grandstanding."
Exactly. So the entire thing is a farce- the public loses services for no reason and Federal employees get paid to do nothing. It is infuriating. I want it shut down and painful for everyone, while saving money to boot.
>"What is the difference between hunting whales and all the other animals we eat"
Whales are a high-order mammal with great intelligence (like dolphins and apes). We evolved [humans] tend to place a increasingly high stigma on killing and eating animals as they get closer to us on the scale of intelligence.
Plus many whales are endangered or struggling species.
Plus they have very long lifespans with low birth rates.
Plus they can't be farmed.
Plus the hunting methods of killing them tends to be incredibly cruel/slow.
Part of me would like to see the shutdown last exactly as long as it would take to balance the budget and pay off the national debt. What an interesting experiment THAT would be.... Of course, that can't happen (for pretty obvious reasons).
I really do wish we had a Constitutional Amendment that required a balanced budget or it just cuts all spending across the board, automatically, until it is balanced. Of course, that does nothing for the $21 *TRILLION* debt (which cost us $310 BILLION to service in 2018 alone, $2.6 TRILLION over the last 10 years), but at least it is a start. In the mean time, raise taxes, stop spending (my preference), or some combination of both!
>"It doesn't matter if a whole neighborhood wants fresh food, if none of them have the means to become business owners, and the business-owning class live elsewhere and are completely out of touch. It's not as if something pops up on their screen "these citizens demanding fresh food" and then some entrepreneur will pounce on it."
That is typical (and, IMHO, generally incorrect) Socialist-think. Trust me, if there were a market and profit could be made, it doesn't matter where the "business-owning class" live, they will open a store or a corporate store will move in, eventually.
It is true that part of that equation/calculation for profitability (beyond mere demand and consumer ability to pay at a reasonable amount above cost) does include ability to find a location in the area in question without overwhelming risk of debilitating crime (very rare) and the ability to find suitable workers (also rare). It is also true that it may also take time for the demand to be recognized and for a reaction.
The author is trying to make this a race thing about food. Sorry, there is no great conspiracy, they are just dollar stores. If an area has a market for "fresh food", then usually it will be filled. The reality is that either people in certain areas don't want "fresh food" or won't pay for it, so the stores that would sell it either don't offer it or they close down. This is what the market does- it fills demands in order to survive and make profit.
Dollar stores aren't trying to be grocery stores, they are supplying a limited number of long shelf-life products that *sell* to people who want it, as a convenience, in an otherwise very much non-food store. At least the ones I have been in, 80% of the store are things like housewares, cards, gifts, personal hygiene supplies, plastic goods, balloons, decor, books, games, toys, office supplies, etc.
Dollar stores are great for finding some inexpensive supplies and gifts. I go there frequently. But you have to watch their SIZES of things- the pricing is not always good for what you get and can be had cheaper at Walmart or even a grocery store. But lots of things are much cheaper than can be had anywhere else, and some things not available at all anywhere else (locally).
If the goal is for people to eat better, that requires education, which creates desire and demand, which then stimulates supply creation. Supply will not create demand. The process is not perfect, but that is generally how it works (and no other process works better in the long run).
It took me seconds to find these-
The state of New York prohibits "any person to slaughter or butcher domesticated dog or domesticated cat to create food, meat or meat products for human or animal consumption."
California prohibits the consumption of the carcass of an animal that was âoetraditionally or commonly kept as a pet.â
Wisconsin prohibits (except when being attacked) a person from intentionally kill a dog unless done in a proper and humane manner.
Granted, you are being nit-picky about your specific example of just killing and eating. It SHOULD be legal to humanely kill your pet as an act of euthanasia when they are terminally sick and suffering (just like it should be for humans). But the flavor of your post is that you can do anything you want to your pets, and that is clearly not true. There are lots of various laws about torture, withholding food, forcing them to fight, etc. And if you think that kind of stuff (or even killing your own pet for no very good reason) is moral, then I think you are a sociopath.