>" you cannot tolerate beliefs other than your own. Proof of that is the moderation given my prior post. It's no more flamebait than yours. It's modded down because you aren't tolerant. You will not defend to the death my right to say things you don't like, you oppose them vigorously. You do not consider them, you do not even debate them. You are no hero of tolerance."
You are way off base and have no idea who I am or what I believe or do. And I do, very much, believe in the freedom of people to say what they want, even those who disagree with me. *I* didn't mod your post down, other(s) did. I can't mod anything in this topic because I posted. And, besides, modding is not censorship.
>"Given that Liberals are amongst the first to censor and restrict, whereas Leftists are the ones who introduce laws that improve freedom, you might want to swap those around. Instead, chances are I'll get trolled or modded, because censorship is after all what Liberals and Libertarians do best"
What alternate reality do you live in?? You are the one swapping things around. Libertarians, Liberals (at least as they have typically and historically been), AND Conservatives all believe in free discussion and free speech and oppose censorship. It is the modern leftists who suppress speech and call anyone who disagree or try to debate with them racist, homophobe, sexist, whatever and seek to shut down communication. They cancel speeches, scream at people they don't like, claim that speech is "violence", mob events, obsess on so-called "micro-aggressions", try to get people fired for their opinions, create anti-speech "safe zones", even try to COMPEL their own type of speech (haven't you seen ANYTHING by Jordan Peterson?)
And saying that "Leftists are the ones who introduce laws that improve freedom" while implying Libertarians suppress freedom, is beyond laughable. I don't think you know what "freedom" actually is. Freedom is being free to do what you want, being free from government laws and regulations and having your money taken from you. No sect supports that more than Libertarians.
>"In theory you are right. In reality this will not work on so many levels."
Please check what I wrote again. It sounds like you agree that it WILL work. I never said a parent shouldn't sit with children and let them explore an open web and guide and explain and discuss, that is exactly what I would do. I said they should not be allowed unsupervised access to the web while on a blacklist. A whitelist can be extremely "safe" because there are little or no surprises, if you pick the allowed sites carefully.
The problem is that people don't want to (or can't) properly parent at all. Proper parenting requires time and effort, it requires allowing children to explore while keeping an eye on them. It requires answering questions, guiding, and allowing children to fail so they can overcome adversity. It also requires challenges and a bit of freedom and risk so children can develop morals, reasoning, and survival skills.
Unsupervised web access for young children, even on a blacklist, is far too much risk and with zero feedback, explanation, or guidance.
Blacklists and keyword filters (what Apple is trying to do) *never* work like you think they will. The WWW is far, far, far too big and complicated for any such grandiose scheme to ever hope to tame. Even a site like Wikipedia is far too diverse, frank, and complex (I have seen plenty of shocking things there not suitable for children).
The only thing that works is a whitelist- allowing one to visit ONLY the specifically sites in an approved list. Of course, this is extremely restrictive and often not practical. Personally, I would not allow young children unsupervised access to non-whitelisted web, ever. As they get older, I would continuously expand the whitelist until eventually flipping over to a blacklist.
>"Mr. Schneier says only government intervention can save us from such emerging calamities. "I can think of no industry in the past 100 years that has improved its safety and security without being compelled to do so by government."
That seems a bit grandiose. Yes, government regulation can and does help with safety and security. It is a necessary part of the modern world. However, it also stifles freedom, the economy, and innovation. I can so no better example off the top of my head than the signs and labels on nearly everything in California that everything is "known to cause cancer". Saying that market forces have no impact on safety is just crazy. Companies are very wary of litigation and bad press; both are very powerful incentives to produce safe and desirable products.
We always need a balance- the question is, what is that balance? Freedom/privacy and safety/security are, generally, diametrically opposed. Just as important is an educated and informed population.
>"It doesn't work that way. [...] There has to be corroborating evidence."
Ask Kavanaugh how that worked out. He wasn't convicted of anything, but without a single bit of corroborating evidence, his name was smeared to high hell and back and his career stained forever. Accusation without corroborating evidence can still be very damaging.
>"No candidate - not one - was talking about voting reform like approval, ranked, or IR voting."
It is unlikely that either major party will support the fair vote because it weakens their own stranglehold on the country. It will have to be pushed through starting on the local levels, where parties don't matter much. This is already happening (although far too slowly). Then up to the State level. That is when things will start to really change. The States are mostly in control of how voting happens, not only for their own domain but also in Federal elections (thank goodness the founders were smart). Once the idea is understood, proven to work well on the local level, then proven again at the State, it won't take much push to unleash it for that State's Federal delegates (Congress) especially if it means matching voting style that the State's citizens are already accustomed. Other States will notice and it might start a good "infection". One can hope...
But it is just as important (if not more so) for the primaries within the parties. There are even signs there might be more acceptance to that than we thought. Had it been so, it is very unlikely we would have ended up with the two of most hated 2016 Presidential candidates in my memory (and probably much further back). This is so much more important than just one position, though.
>"Legislating through the judiciary is a terrible idea because you aren't always the one appointing judges and the only recourse is to change the friggin' Constitution"
That is by design. I really do tire of politicians (and judges) trying to "reinterpret" the Constitution, when in most cases, it is quite apparent what was meant by what was written and what the context was of the Founders. Oh, and of course, just ignoring the Constitution when it is inconvenient (especially the 10th Amendment).
There is a self-contained way to change the Constitution, through Amendment. And although some times it has worked out well, some Amendments have been pretty stupid (like the big 3: popular election of Senators, Federal income tax, prohibition).
There are only three Amendments I would like to see. The first would require that the Fed cannot spend more than it has revenue. The second would be a Presidential "line item veto". The third would be that laws cannot be passed denying rights/access/freedoms to/of adults of majority age (for example, telling an 18-year-old they can vote, own property, die for their country, etc.... but not drink or not buy a handgun; in the private sector often even renting a car). Personally, I think that should be combined with raising the age of majority to 20, at which age NO rights can be restricted- seems logical at this point.
>Change won't come from establishment politicians - we need to be willing to elect some nutjobs who promise to overturn Citizen's United.
Absolutely agree with that. Although they don't have to be "nutjobs", there are some really bright and sound people that would do well to work outside the two major parties. Plus, new parties could form that really aren't crazy, they just differ from the main R and D stances in important ways.
>"I would LOVE that. But first people need to go out and vote in the primaries AND/OR vote third party
There is the problem. Voting so-called "third party" is almost always a 100% mistake. This is due to the "spoiler effect", which is not only real, but it is pretty bad. Essentially, due to our current system, voting outside the main R/D means your vote will actually hurt you- not only can you not win, but the vote will take away a vote from the candidate closest to who you would have voted for had you voted for one of the two main! It really, really sucks. You might have seen this stuff before, but check out:
>"How can anyone argue that pre-1972 music needs MORE protection than when the artist was first incentivized to write and record the song?"
+100
>"Our system is not set up to benefit society - obvious stuff, but needs to be reiterated I guess. Stop voting for these people."
Which people would that be?
The last MAJOR extension of copyright was the 1998 act signed by Bill Clinton (D) with an R congress (both houses). And before that was the MUCH more major 1976 act signed by Ford (R) with a D congress (both houses).
Not saying you are making a partisan accusation, but that is the climate nowadays. It seems likely that most politicians can be bought/pressured by the media giants, regardless of party (at least the two major ones), or time.
"Not voting for these people" is really pretty non-constructive because we have almost no choice to make. The solution to that is ranked choice/instant runoff voting for primaries and elections:
That is where I suggest people throw their energy/support if we really want meaningful choice, meaningful change, and meaningful power as voters. Otherwise we are just trapped voting against the one of the two that seems to suck the most or spoiling the vote by trying something different.
So I still have nothing to replace my ancient Nexus 10 with that is reasonable. I don't want a narrow screen (want large 16:9 video). I don't want to spend as much as a laptop. I don't care about a keyboard (that is why I want a TABLET). I don't care about pens. But I do want a headphone jack, very long battery life, and lots of storage (32GB *free* minimum). Closest thing in years now seems to be the Samsung Tab S4- but that means very expensive and questionable Android updates. Hmm...
block the wavelengths of light that comes from LED and LCD
No, it cannot block LED light and will not block LED screens. It might be able to block LCD screens by just being specially polarized lenses. But LED light is no different than most other light, and is of no particular frequency, unless it was polarized for some reason (like because it was used in an LCD screen).
The summary and/or article fell for the marketing crap. Until recently, all marketed "LED" screens are not LED, they are LCD screens with LED backlighting.
1) We never called LCD screens with florescent backlighting "florescent screens"
2) We never called LCD screens with electroluminescent backlighting "electroluminescent screens".
3) We never called LCD screens with incandescent backlighting "incandescent screens".
>"If you don't trust a host on your network communicating with the outside, then don't allow that to happen at all. If some things must be allowed, then work on a whitelist."
That's what we do for most users (a whitelist). And it is no simple task, either. This is because sites link to other sites and content delivery networks, too. So for a page to really "work", then there might be lots of things that also have to be whitelisted.... many of which are not easy to find/discover. And many of which change over time.
>"It's a shame that [modern left]* liberals don't actually value civil liberties anymore."
Or facts (which also don't care about feelings) Or due process Or assumption of innocence Or freedom of speech (for those who disagree with them) Or that speech is not violence Or that group identity politics promote stereotypes, hatred, segregation, intolerance, and racism, and destroy individuals' rights
* My addition, since the left has corrupted the term "liberal" now.
Please, Mozilla, if you are going to support WebP images make absolutely sure Firefox complies with the image.animation_mode setting so any WebP animation can be controlled or disabled by the user!
Or Monkfruit. Neither of which are "artificial". Still, this whole article is a disaster of misleading and inaccurate information. Almost like it is news that is fake... but that never happens.
>"It'd be tempting to have it run at the docked clock speed while in portable mode"
There is an easy solution to that. Give the user a CHOICE. I know, it isn't fashionable to let users decide. But a single setting option would allow the user to pick do they want higher performance or longer battery life. Cost $0.
My wish? A non-portable Switch version. There are people who have no interest in portable or having a screen and just want a console to play at home on the big screen who would be tempted to buy if it were much cheaper. Add a non-portable version to the lineup at half the price (no dock, no screen, no batteries, no charging circuits, no space limitations, etc).
And which mobile phone service can a citizen switch to that gives them the choice to turn off that alert?
>"Nuke inbound to . LEAVE IMMEDIATELY. Still don't want the alert?"
Did you read what I wrote? I will quote the last line for you:
"And yes, I would leave such an alert enabled."
But to play the devil's advocate, anyway.... there is nothing one could do that would make any difference in such a situation. And in your first example, it is silly to think one would have NO OTHER way of hearing about or discovering really important news, even if one did decide to turn off such a phone alert.
>"This is truly chump change compared to the flapping pile of data dirt already stored on you, and I. Living in a crazy world is a grey scale of death by a thousand cuts. This is just one cut. Save the cries for the really deep ones."
I am very, very aware of how much spying and data collection is going on. Way before people like Snowden started raising eyebrows. Indeed this is just a small cut... but I tend to stand against all the cuts; they all hurt, and they are all additive. But don't think my ire is reserved for something just this small; I have plenty enough to go around. Although small, it is so visible, widespread, and so blatant an example of the nanny state, it is annoying enough to hold up as a good example of how individuals are continuously losing control to the state.
I think it should have 12 cameras because there should be at least 6 on the front AND 6 on the back, and a 12 inch screen, and be 3mm "thin", and have 4 cutouts....
>"The electronic trespass rubric seems like a sham to me. If there were a tornado coming through, you'd want to know"
Indeed. Too bad every one of those tornado alerts I got were hundreds of miles away from me and always at some insane time, and with an EXTREMELY loud and frightening alarm. And so I turned that portion off. Don't even get me started about "amber alerts"...
And yet we are not "allowed" to turn off "Presidential Alerts"
The real issue here is one of principle. I don't think the government- ANY BRANCH OR ANY ONE in the government should have the "right" to force message me on my personal mobile phone. I think they have clear cause to put such a system together. And it should be tested. I even think it is a good idea to have it "enabled" by default. But *I*, as the owner of the device, should have the right to turn off that alert on *MY* phone if I so choose. That is the enraging part. For me (and I suppose many others) it has nothing to do with stupid politics. It is about freedom and the right to control my own devices. And yes, I would leave such an alert enabled.
>"In just 4hours enough NEW bitmining machines are added to the equation to undermine every milliwatt-hour of energy saved over the last decade from my LED bulbs. "
Well, that is not only true, but very frustrating. At least you know you did what you could, and it will help YOUR energy bill to boot. I agree with you that the whole bitmining thing really is a huge mess.... I imagine the only thing that could help deal with it is to make it uneconomical by constantly step-raising the pricing on such users. But how to do that without penalizing those who really need the energy for USEFUL things, like cooling their building, charging their cars, or running production lines that make stuff? Life is complicated. We really need working/safe/plentiful fusion power.
>"When do you expect them to hit zero, with things going they way they are ?"
With or without crashing the economy? That is the first question to ask, and a very important one. If it is artificially pushed too hard, then we will completely lose the ability to change at all. Solutions that work AND that make economic sense will be those implemented all on their own, without much resistance. Look at LED lighting for an example of a huge win.
Then consider that market forces have been moving on the problem for a long time. Efficiency of energy consumption has improved tremendously and zero-carbon energy production has been ramping up year after year. Things can only happen so fast.
Slashdot Mirror
>" you cannot tolerate beliefs other than your own. Proof of that is the moderation given my prior post. It's no more flamebait than yours. It's modded down because you aren't tolerant. You will not defend to the death my right to say things you don't like, you oppose them vigorously. You do not consider them, you do not even debate them. You are no hero of tolerance."
You are way off base and have no idea who I am or what I believe or do. And I do, very much, believe in the freedom of people to say what they want, even those who disagree with me. *I* didn't mod your post down, other(s) did. I can't mod anything in this topic because I posted. And, besides, modding is not censorship.
>"Given that Liberals are amongst the first to censor and restrict, whereas Leftists are the ones who introduce laws that improve freedom, you might want to swap those around. Instead, chances are I'll get trolled or modded, because censorship is after all what Liberals and Libertarians do best"
What alternate reality do you live in?? You are the one swapping things around. Libertarians, Liberals (at least as they have typically and historically been), AND Conservatives all believe in free discussion and free speech and oppose censorship. It is the modern leftists who suppress speech and call anyone who disagree or try to debate with them racist, homophobe, sexist, whatever and seek to shut down communication. They cancel speeches, scream at people they don't like, claim that speech is "violence", mob events, obsess on so-called "micro-aggressions", try to get people fired for their opinions, create anti-speech "safe zones", even try to COMPEL their own type of speech (haven't you seen ANYTHING by Jordan Peterson?)
And saying that "Leftists are the ones who introduce laws that improve freedom" while implying Libertarians suppress freedom, is beyond laughable. I don't think you know what "freedom" actually is. Freedom is being free to do what you want, being free from government laws and regulations and having your money taken from you. No sect supports that more than Libertarians.
>"In theory you are right. In reality this will not work on so many levels."
Please check what I wrote again. It sounds like you agree that it WILL work. I never said a parent shouldn't sit with children and let them explore an open web and guide and explain and discuss, that is exactly what I would do. I said they should not be allowed unsupervised access to the web while on a blacklist. A whitelist can be extremely "safe" because there are little or no surprises, if you pick the allowed sites carefully.
The problem is that people don't want to (or can't) properly parent at all. Proper parenting requires time and effort, it requires allowing children to explore while keeping an eye on them. It requires answering questions, guiding, and allowing children to fail so they can overcome adversity. It also requires challenges and a bit of freedom and risk so children can develop morals, reasoning, and survival skills.
Unsupervised web access for young children, even on a blacklist, is far too much risk and with zero feedback, explanation, or guidance.
Blacklists and keyword filters (what Apple is trying to do) *never* work like you think they will. The WWW is far, far, far too big and complicated for any such grandiose scheme to ever hope to tame. Even a site like Wikipedia is far too diverse, frank, and complex (I have seen plenty of shocking things there not suitable for children).
The only thing that works is a whitelist- allowing one to visit ONLY the specifically sites in an approved list. Of course, this is extremely restrictive and often not practical. Personally, I would not allow young children unsupervised access to non-whitelisted web, ever. As they get older, I would continuously expand the whitelist until eventually flipping over to a blacklist.
>"Mr. Schneier says only government intervention can save us from such emerging calamities. "I can think of no industry in the past 100 years that has improved its safety and security without being compelled to do so by government."
That seems a bit grandiose. Yes, government regulation can and does help with safety and security. It is a necessary part of the modern world. However, it also stifles freedom, the economy, and innovation. I can so no better example off the top of my head than the signs and labels on nearly everything in California that everything is "known to cause cancer". Saying that market forces have no impact on safety is just crazy. Companies are very wary of litigation and bad press; both are very powerful incentives to produce safe and desirable products.
We always need a balance- the question is, what is that balance? Freedom/privacy and safety/security are, generally, diametrically opposed. Just as important is an educated and informed population.
>"It doesn't work that way. [...] There has to be corroborating evidence."
Ask Kavanaugh how that worked out. He wasn't convicted of anything, but without a single bit of corroborating evidence, his name was smeared to high hell and back and his career stained forever. Accusation without corroborating evidence can still be very damaging.
>"No candidate - not one - was talking about voting reform like approval, ranked, or IR voting."
It is unlikely that either major party will support the fair vote because it weakens their own stranglehold on the country. It will have to be pushed through starting on the local levels, where parties don't matter much. This is already happening (although far too slowly). Then up to the State level. That is when things will start to really change. The States are mostly in control of how voting happens, not only for their own domain but also in Federal elections (thank goodness the founders were smart). Once the idea is understood, proven to work well on the local level, then proven again at the State, it won't take much push to unleash it for that State's Federal delegates (Congress) especially if it means matching voting style that the State's citizens are already accustomed. Other States will notice and it might start a good "infection". One can hope...
But it is just as important (if not more so) for the primaries within the parties. There are even signs there might be more acceptance to that than we thought. Had it been so, it is very unlikely we would have ended up with the two of most hated 2016 Presidential candidates in my memory (and probably much further back). This is so much more important than just one position, though.
>"Legislating through the judiciary is a terrible idea because you aren't always the one appointing judges and the only recourse is to change the friggin' Constitution"
That is by design. I really do tire of politicians (and judges) trying to "reinterpret" the Constitution, when in most cases, it is quite apparent what was meant by what was written and what the context was of the Founders. Oh, and of course, just ignoring the Constitution when it is inconvenient (especially the 10th Amendment).
There is a self-contained way to change the Constitution, through Amendment. And although some times it has worked out well, some Amendments have been pretty stupid (like the big 3: popular election of Senators, Federal income tax, prohibition).
There are only three Amendments I would like to see. The first would require that the Fed cannot spend more than it has revenue. The second would be a Presidential "line item veto". The third would be that laws cannot be passed denying rights/access/freedoms to/of adults of majority age (for example, telling an 18-year-old they can vote, own property, die for their country, etc.... but not drink or not buy a handgun; in the private sector often even renting a car). Personally, I think that should be combined with raising the age of majority to 20, at which age NO rights can be restricted- seems logical at this point.
>Change won't come from establishment politicians - we need to be willing to elect some nutjobs who promise to overturn Citizen's United.
Absolutely agree with that. Although they don't have to be "nutjobs", there are some really bright and sound people that would do well to work outside the two major parties. Plus, new parties could form that really aren't crazy, they just differ from the main R and D stances in important ways.
>"I would LOVE that. But first people need to go out and vote in the primaries AND/OR vote third party
There is the problem. Voting so-called "third party" is almost always a 100% mistake. This is due to the "spoiler effect", which is not only real, but it is pretty bad. Essentially, due to our current system, voting outside the main R/D means your vote will actually hurt you- not only can you not win, but the vote will take away a vote from the candidate closest to who you would have voted for had you voted for one of the two main! It really, really sucks. You might have seen this stuff before, but check out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
>"How can anyone argue that pre-1972 music needs MORE protection than when the artist was first incentivized to write and record the song?"
+100
>"Our system is not set up to benefit society - obvious stuff, but needs to be reiterated I guess. Stop voting for these people."
Which people would that be?
The last MAJOR extension of copyright was the 1998 act signed by Bill Clinton (D) with an R congress (both houses). And before that was the MUCH more major 1976 act signed by Ford (R) with a D congress (both houses).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Not saying you are making a partisan accusation, but that is the climate nowadays. It seems likely that most politicians can be bought/pressured by the media giants, regardless of party (at least the two major ones), or time.
"Not voting for these people" is really pretty non-constructive because we have almost no choice to make. The solution to that is ranked choice/instant runoff voting for primaries and elections:
https://www.fairvote.org/
That is where I suggest people throw their energy/support if we really want meaningful choice, meaningful change, and meaningful power as voters. Otherwise we are just trapped voting against the one of the two that seems to suck the most or spoiling the vote by trying something different.
And it has no headphone jack. Fail.
So I still have nothing to replace my ancient Nexus 10 with that is reasonable. I don't want a narrow screen (want large 16:9 video). I don't want to spend as much as a laptop. I don't care about a keyboard (that is why I want a TABLET). I don't care about pens. But I do want a headphone jack, very long battery life, and lots of storage (32GB *free* minimum). Closest thing in years now seems to be the Samsung Tab S4- but that means very expensive and questionable Android updates. Hmm...
block the wavelengths of light that comes from LED and LCD
No, it cannot block LED light and will not block LED screens. It might be able to block LCD screens by just being specially polarized lenses. But LED light is no different than most other light, and is of no particular frequency, unless it was polarized for some reason (like because it was used in an LCD screen).
The summary and/or article fell for the marketing crap. Until recently, all marketed "LED" screens are not LED, they are LCD screens with LED backlighting.
1) We never called LCD screens with florescent backlighting "florescent screens"
2) We never called LCD screens with electroluminescent backlighting "electroluminescent screens".
3) We never called LCD screens with incandescent backlighting "incandescent screens".
>"If you don't trust a host on your network communicating with the outside, then don't allow that to happen at all. If some things must be allowed, then work on a whitelist."
That's what we do for most users (a whitelist). And it is no simple task, either. This is because sites link to other sites and content delivery networks, too. So for a page to really "work", then there might be lots of things that also have to be whitelisted.... many of which are not easy to find/discover. And many of which change over time.
But governments can be trusted with built-in encryption backdoors. Hmm.
>"It's a shame that [modern left]* liberals don't actually value civil liberties anymore."
Or facts (which also don't care about feelings)
Or due process
Or assumption of innocence
Or freedom of speech (for those who disagree with them)
Or that speech is not violence
Or that group identity politics promote stereotypes, hatred, segregation, intolerance, and racism, and destroy individuals' rights
* My addition, since the left has corrupted the term "liberal" now.
Please, Mozilla, if you are going to support WebP images make absolutely sure Firefox complies with the image.animation_mode setting so any WebP animation can be controlled or disabled by the user!
>"What about Stevia?"
Or Monkfruit. Neither of which are "artificial". Still, this whole article is a disaster of misleading and inaccurate information. Almost like it is news that is fake... but that never happens.
>"I don't think it's that the US is any better than China, it's just that we're wealthier and so our ruling class[...]
You are kidding right? Do you really believe that? Really? I mean.... really???
>"Still, the GOP has been pretty pro-surveillance (not that the Dems have been helping in that regard"
The "pro-surveillance" State is very much bi-partisan. Don't try weakening it a bit with the "have not been helping".
>"It'd be tempting to have it run at the docked clock speed while in portable mode"
There is an easy solution to that. Give the user a CHOICE. I know, it isn't fashionable to let users decide. But a single setting option would allow the user to pick do they want higher performance or longer battery life. Cost $0.
My wish? A non-portable Switch version. There are people who have no interest in portable or having a screen and just want a console to play at home on the big screen who would be tempted to buy if it were much cheaper. Add a non-portable version to the lineup at half the price (no dock, no screen, no batteries, no charging circuits, no space limitations, etc).
>sure you can, it's called "cancelling service".
And which mobile phone service can a citizen switch to that gives them the choice to turn off that alert?
>"Nuke inbound to . LEAVE IMMEDIATELY. Still don't want the alert?"
Did you read what I wrote? I will quote the last line for you:
"And yes, I would leave such an alert enabled."
But to play the devil's advocate, anyway.... there is nothing one could do that would make any difference in such a situation. And in your first example, it is silly to think one would have NO OTHER way of hearing about or discovering really important news, even if one did decide to turn off such a phone alert.
>"This is truly chump change compared to the flapping pile of data dirt already stored on you, and I. Living in a crazy world is a grey scale of death by a thousand cuts. This is just one cut. Save the cries for the really deep ones."
I am very, very aware of how much spying and data collection is going on. Way before people like Snowden started raising eyebrows. Indeed this is just a small cut... but I tend to stand against all the cuts; they all hurt, and they are all additive. But don't think my ire is reserved for something just this small; I have plenty enough to go around. Although small, it is so visible, widespread, and so blatant an example of the nanny state, it is annoying enough to hold up as a good example of how individuals are continuously losing control to the state.
>"How about six cameras?"
+1
I think it should have 12 cameras because there should be at least 6 on the front AND 6 on the back, and a 12 inch screen, and be 3mm "thin", and have 4 cutouts....
>"The electronic trespass rubric seems like a sham to me. If there were a tornado coming through, you'd want to know"
Indeed. Too bad every one of those tornado alerts I got were hundreds of miles away from me and always at some insane time, and with an EXTREMELY loud and frightening alarm. And so I turned that portion off. Don't even get me started about "amber alerts"...
And yet we are not "allowed" to turn off "Presidential Alerts"
The real issue here is one of principle. I don't think the government- ANY BRANCH OR ANY ONE in the government should have the "right" to force message me on my personal mobile phone. I think they have clear cause to put such a system together. And it should be tested. I even think it is a good idea to have it "enabled" by default. But *I*, as the owner of the device, should have the right to turn off that alert on *MY* phone if I so choose. That is the enraging part. For me (and I suppose many others) it has nothing to do with stupid politics. It is about freedom and the right to control my own devices. And yes, I would leave such an alert enabled.
>"In just 4hours enough NEW bitmining machines are added to the equation to undermine every milliwatt-hour of energy saved over the last decade from my LED bulbs. "
Well, that is not only true, but very frustrating. At least you know you did what you could, and it will help YOUR energy bill to boot. I agree with you that the whole bitmining thing really is a huge mess.... I imagine the only thing that could help deal with it is to make it uneconomical by constantly step-raising the pricing on such users. But how to do that without penalizing those who really need the energy for USEFUL things, like cooling their building, charging their cars, or running production lines that make stuff? Life is complicated. We really need working/safe/plentiful fusion power.
>"When do you expect them to hit zero, with things going they way they are ?"
With or without crashing the economy? That is the first question to ask, and a very important one. If it is artificially pushed too hard, then we will completely lose the ability to change at all. Solutions that work AND that make economic sense will be those implemented all on their own, without much resistance. Look at LED lighting for an example of a huge win.
Then consider that market forces have been moving on the problem for a long time. Efficiency of energy consumption has improved tremendously and zero-carbon energy production has been ramping up year after year. Things can only happen so fast.