It is unbelievable that CA has nothing better to do than meddle with things like this. This type of action is almost completely meaningless other than appearance. I get more paper in junk mail that I don't want (despite being on anti-marketing lists) in any single day than the amount of paper on receipts for over a month, which I DO want.
It can also be EXTREMELY expensive for small businesses to comply with such ridiculous laws. Why? Because if all they can produce is a paper receipt, now they somehow have to come up with some complex scheme to collect and enter private info be able to send an "electronic" version. Entire point of sale systems would have to be replaced, even if the retailer KNOWS that almost none of their customers want the option. It would also cost more in labor as they try to collect such info... which also slows down checkout lanes. Great!
Plus, if the customer doesn't get the "promised" receipt, they may have no return/exchange recourse at all and the business will have to spend labor/time/money dealing with all those issues, too.
>"Given that they are leaving an audible message that is supposed to be heard by humans, yes... I'm assuming that it operates in real time."
That is only for calls that are answered. Often they hang up if they don't get a connection to a "real" person or within "X" rings. Often they hang up WHEN they get a connection, and just note that there is a sucker and note the time/day and then step up the calls to that number by real people or other machines. And I believe each of the systems doing this can often place hundreds of calls simultaneously, continuously (which is one reason this is abused so badly).
It really is a very hostile and aggressive "industry" where their cost and time to connect is very low, and their risk is also very low.:(
>"How long does it take to connect a phone call? To make a billion phone calls would take over 20 years."
But there are hundreds or thousands of entities doing it continuously, at least 2/3rds of the day (typical waking hours). And each entity can make potentially hundreds of calls simultaneously. So that is potentially hundreds of thousands of calls every several seconds. That is perhaps 1 billion each DAY!
>"There's 300 million cell phones in the US (roughly) plus a bunch of land lines but let's forget about the land lines entirely."
I prefer we not forget about land lines entirely, because I am far more annoyed by such calls on my land line than my cell line (and get more on my land line).... and I can do MORE to prevent such calls on my call (with apps), although it is still a big problem on either.
>"So, yeah, very easy to see how we'd be hitting 1 billion robo calls in the US every week or maybe 50-55 billion a year."
Which is why, unfortunately, fining a few companies that make a few billion calls a year is a drop in a huge ocean that will probably make little to no real difference.
I couldn't agree with you more. I detest HTML Email. So I will detest this even more. ESPECIALLY since it will be even MORE annoying and proprietary (not working with all Email systems) and introduce even more compatibility, security, privacy, and performance issues.
>"I have Cree brand tube bulbs that replace fluorescent tubes and they are 3000K color temperature. I like 3000K; the "warm" temperature of 2700K seems kind of yellowish to me. I found that Cree has some 3000K bulbs on the Home Depot web site (I've never seen them in a store) and I plan to try buying some."
Agreed. I am a warm-white person for home use, generally. This has always meant around 2700K. I don't like "daylight" bulbs (5K) at all (except at work and in the garage). However, I have been able to move to "bright white", which is around 3000K in many applications and think it is a good compromise. Unfortunately, they are a bit hard to find.
>"Your "harsh" bulb may have a low CRI."
That is a problem with some of these newer, low-cost LED bulbs... regardless of color temperature. If the CRI is low, the colors it renders can be poor. Unfortunately, it seems to be rare to see the CRI on bulb packaging. Consumers are just starting to grasp color temperature, perhaps they can't handle CRI yet.
>"Am I wrong to consider energy efficiency problem with light bulbs largely solved? LED bulb are affordable and efficient. Is there anything else left to do? "
You are not wrong. The market is taking care of the "specialty" bulbs just fine. I can walk into any store now and find LED versions for almost all those bulbs. It look the invention of the "LED Filament" type bulbs, and wham- the floodgates opened. Clear bulbs with small bases and real filaments that project light in all the right places. It was a MAJOR breakthrough.
Any regulation is now just mostly a waste. Most consumers are not stupid, they understand LED, they are learning what lumens are, color temperature, and actual wattage. They are making informed and better decisions every year. Change takes time- both for development and education. And there ARE some cases where incandescent are still better and appropriate. Making them "illegal" doesn't make sense.
>"So you'll be able to see this content on pretty much anything (also iOS)."
Except the billions of TV's that never get a firmware update for it. And millions of Linux-running laptops/desktops/myth boxes/etc. And, as you pointed out, maybe not the billions of Android devices.
>"The funny thing is that what a terrorist wants is a large collection of people, all crowded together, in a place where no security checks occur. Like, you know, the queue for the security checks."
Yep. Criminals and terrorists also love so-called "gun-free" zones for the same reason- very low chance of anyone fighting back (because the law-abiding "good" people are stripped of their arms but not the "bad" people), sensitive area, lots of people and often children.
>"Ain't that the truth. The TSA is basically "feel good" theater that pretends they are making you more secure. Any determined attacker is not stopped by their efforts."
Yet they will still cost the tax payers billions and piss us all off with tremendous inconvenience in the process.
>"The only real way to do security in airports is to do things that TSA simply cannot do[...]Americans wouldn't stand for such invasive searching"
We can hope they [we] will continue to not stand for it, too. But I fear those days are numbered.
>"I have a great idea. What if you had headphones that didn't use a battery but instead plugged directly into a hypothetical Jack on a source of sound? I know it sounds crazy but it would work and could even be made universal.""
Really. And offer better sound options, too. And cost 10 times less. And available in hundreds of different styles, weights, colors, and designed to meet just about any need. And never have any interference. And can be connected immediately to anything without pairing. And are far less prone to loss.
>"However, if the install fest installs nonfree distros and nonfree software which make machines entirely function, it will fail to teach users to say no for freedom's sake."
That is a bit extreme, but I wouldn't expect less from Stallman. His motive is pure, but lots of ours is more of a realistic one... Users are ALREADY making some sacrifices by installing and using Linux, regardless of the distro. I would think that having a 1% "contamination" by non-FOSS firmware or video drivers, or whatever, to make the machine work with 99% FOSS instead of 0% FOSS is a huge win, any way you look at it.
>"Those users that get nonfree drivers would see what their moral cost is, and that there are people in the community who refuse to pay that cost."
Actually, I see far, far, far less of a "moral" cost with a non-free driver to get some hardware they already bought working (when there was no consideration to Linux-friendliness) than the correct troves of people flocking to Chrome (regardless of platform). One is almost a purely philosophical objection, the other one is causing rampant damage to user freedom, privacy, and choice, and the openness of access to information, itself. There are lots of "fights to fight", but let's focus on the big ones.
>"... but you're not talking about failure modes that patch created."
True, but the failure mode will exist anyway when the two sensors disagree (because one fails)... whether there is an indicator lamp or not, whether the software to handle it better is there or not. And the cost associated with a disaster due to the failure is very, very high. A simple cost/benefit analysis would have indicated how important it is. I am surprised that there aren't THREE sensors standard instead of just two.
>"The funny thing about this is that nobody responsible for this will actually suffer any real consequences."
Actually, part of the blame does rest on the two sets of pilots. And they did pay the ultimate price. Still, it would have been far better if these two extremely inexpensive addons (a lamp and an already-developed-but-disabled software patch) had been included as a base safety feature.
And Boeing, as a company, will also pay a steep price on the market, because it will hurt their reputation and sales. They might also be open to law suits from the families of the passengers and flight staff. It will also hurt their investors and stock holders. If it costs them enough, many of their employees will suffer due to loss of jobs and/or wages due to decreased demand.
The remaining thing to be seen is if any individuals from within Boeing will be liable for anything, either from internal or external entities.
So yes, there are already real consequences for many, if not most, involved. Are they enough? Perhaps, perhaps not. But let's not pretend nothing will or has happened and that nothing has or will change.
>"No, actually. It's like charging for Blind-Spot-Assist."
No, because that feature requires the addition of multiple radar systems and indicators and software. There is a significant/tangible cost for it, especially compared to the cost of the car. In the case of the plane, we are talking about an single indicator lamp and an already-developed-but-disabled software patch. The latter having essentially no cost, and the former being very minimal... almost zero compared to the overall cost of the plane. So I don't think that is the best example, either.
>"Boeing makes those things optional not just because they can but because airlines want to fly the cheapest plane they can."
True, but in this case, we are talking about an single indicator lamp and an already-developed-but-disabled software patch. The latter having essentially no cost, and the former being pretty minimal. It doesn't seem like these should be optional, especially because we are talking about primary safety of operation and not just convenience, capacity, design flair, security theater, or efficiency. If they didn't think it was important for safety, then why offer it at all?
>"Lefty nonsense? More like prohibitionist nonsense. Which I understand to be a "conservative" trait, if anything."
Actually it is either or both. They just take different approaches. The "Left" wants to ban because they believe they (and the government) know better than the "masses" and should take away responsibility in the name of collective health. The "Right" wants to ban because of "morality".
Ironically, Classic Liberals and Conservatives would both oppose banning personal consumption because they believe in personal freedom and responsibility.
"Left" isn't necessarily Liberal. And "Right" isn't necessarily Conservative. It is a confusing world we live in now.
So? Even if the flavoring IS attractive to minors, it probably doesn't matter- Have you seen the statistics of how many people alcohol kills- both users AND innocents? It makes no difference if you remove everything else from an alcoholic drink, as long as it has alcohol, those statistics will stay the same- alcoholism, impaired judgement, impaired motor skills, drunk driving, fights, accidents, alcohol poisoning, drug interactions, etc.
I suspect nicotine, itself, would be ZERO, if it is just nicotine (not cigarettes). And even with flavorings and such, it is probably still close to zero with vaping. As a public policy, it is insane to target nicotine while ignoring alcohol. It is already illegal for minors to buy, anywhere. Anything further than that will do FAR MORE HARM to society as a whole.
Don't get me wrong, I think performing safety research on vaping is a very good thing. But banning or regulating the sale or adult use of the product without any evidence of significant harm is just foolish (flavored or not)... especially when there is apparently already a lot of evidence of its safety, and even more especially when the alternative for those users is something known to create great harm to the user (cigarettes), and really annoy non-users in the process.
Slashdot Mirror
It is unbelievable that CA has nothing better to do than meddle with things like this. This type of action is almost completely meaningless other than appearance. I get more paper in junk mail that I don't want (despite being on anti-marketing lists) in any single day than the amount of paper on receipts for over a month, which I DO want.
It can also be EXTREMELY expensive for small businesses to comply with such ridiculous laws. Why? Because if all they can produce is a paper receipt, now they somehow have to come up with some complex scheme to collect and enter private info be able to send an "electronic" version. Entire point of sale systems would have to be replaced, even if the retailer KNOWS that almost none of their customers want the option. It would also cost more in labor as they try to collect such info... which also slows down checkout lanes. Great!
Plus, if the customer doesn't get the "promised" receipt, they may have no return/exchange recourse at all and the business will have to spend labor/time/money dealing with all those issues, too.
>"Given that they are leaving an audible message that is supposed to be heard by humans, yes... I'm assuming that it operates in real time."
That is only for calls that are answered. Often they hang up if they don't get a connection to a "real" person or within "X" rings. Often they hang up WHEN they get a connection, and just note that there is a sucker and note the time/day and then step up the calls to that number by real people or other machines. And I believe each of the systems doing this can often place hundreds of calls simultaneously, continuously (which is one reason this is abused so badly).
It really is a very hostile and aggressive "industry" where their cost and time to connect is very low, and their risk is also very low. :(
>"How long does it take to connect a phone call? To make a billion phone calls would take over 20 years."
But there are hundreds or thousands of entities doing it continuously, at least 2/3rds of the day (typical waking hours). And each entity can make potentially hundreds of calls simultaneously. So that is potentially hundreds of thousands of calls every several seconds. That is perhaps 1 billion each DAY!
>"There's 300 million cell phones in the US (roughly) plus a bunch of land lines but let's forget about the land lines entirely."
I prefer we not forget about land lines entirely, because I am far more annoyed by such calls on my land line than my cell line (and get more on my land line).... and I can do MORE to prevent such calls on my call (with apps), although it is still a big problem on either.
>"So, yeah, very easy to see how we'd be hitting 1 billion robo calls in the US every week or maybe 50-55 billion a year."
Which is why, unfortunately, fining a few companies that make a few billion calls a year is a drop in a huge ocean that will probably make little to no real difference.
>"Not because it is hard, but because we think it sounds easy. And will look good."
Welcome to politics!
>"Yes, show me how its all going to be paid for, and most of it will be contracted out."
Yep. Now extend that to ALL Federal programs, regulations, laws, and pork. Like that will ever happen...
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Up next...
Frexit
Grexit
Spexit
you get the idea
>"so many ways this is not a good idea."
+10000
I couldn't agree with you more. I detest HTML Email. So I will detest this even more. ESPECIALLY since it will be even MORE annoying and proprietary (not working with all Email systems) and introduce even more compatibility, security, privacy, and performance issues.
I hope it fails.
>"I have Cree brand tube bulbs that replace fluorescent tubes and they are 3000K color temperature. I like 3000K; the "warm" temperature of 2700K seems kind of yellowish to me. I found that Cree has some 3000K bulbs on the Home Depot web site (I've never seen them in a store) and I plan to try buying some."
Agreed. I am a warm-white person for home use, generally. This has always meant around 2700K. I don't like "daylight" bulbs (5K) at all (except at work and in the garage). However, I have been able to move to "bright white", which is around 3000K in many applications and think it is a good compromise. Unfortunately, they are a bit hard to find.
>"Your "harsh" bulb may have a low CRI."
That is a problem with some of these newer, low-cost LED bulbs... regardless of color temperature. If the CRI is low, the colors it renders can be poor. Unfortunately, it seems to be rare to see the CRI on bulb packaging. Consumers are just starting to grasp color temperature, perhaps they can't handle CRI yet.
>"Am I wrong to consider energy efficiency problem with light bulbs largely solved? LED bulb are affordable and efficient. Is there anything else left to do? "
You are not wrong. The market is taking care of the "specialty" bulbs just fine. I can walk into any store now and find LED versions for almost all those bulbs. It look the invention of the "LED Filament" type bulbs, and wham- the floodgates opened. Clear bulbs with small bases and real filaments that project light in all the right places. It was a MAJOR breakthrough.
Any regulation is now just mostly a waste. Most consumers are not stupid, they understand LED, they are learning what lumens are, color temperature, and actual wattage. They are making informed and better decisions every year. Change takes time- both for development and education. And there ARE some cases where incandescent are still better and appropriate. Making them "illegal" doesn't make sense.
>"So you'll be able to see this content on pretty much anything (also iOS)."
Except the billions of TV's that never get a firmware update for it.
And millions of Linux-running laptops/desktops/myth boxes/etc.
And, as you pointed out, maybe not the billions of Android devices.
No mention of TiVo, either.
>"The funny thing is that what a terrorist wants is a large collection of people, all crowded together, in a place where no security checks occur. Like, you know, the queue for the security checks."
Yep. Criminals and terrorists also love so-called "gun-free" zones for the same reason- very low chance of anyone fighting back (because the law-abiding "good" people are stripped of their arms but not the "bad" people), sensitive area, lots of people and often children.
How this type of scheme could be worth a free movie ticket is beyond me. But, I suppose some people will do anything.
Anyway... yep... Black Mirror season 1 episode 2 "Fifteen Million Merits" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>"Ain't that the truth. The TSA is basically "feel good" theater that pretends they are making you more secure. Any determined attacker is not stopped by their efforts."
Yet they will still cost the tax payers billions and piss us all off with tremendous inconvenience in the process.
>"The only real way to do security in airports is to do things that TSA simply cannot do[...]Americans wouldn't stand for such invasive searching"
We can hope they [we] will continue to not stand for it, too. But I fear those days are numbered.
>"Protected the public from nothing. Wasted time and money. Job well done."
+1 exactly
Ain't nothing more entertaining than the play that is security theater.
>"I have a great idea. What if you had headphones that didn't use a battery but instead plugged directly into a hypothetical Jack on a source of sound? I know it sounds crazy but it would work and could even be made universal.""
Really. And offer better sound options, too. And cost 10 times less. And available in hundreds of different styles, weights, colors, and designed to meet just about any need. And never have any interference. And can be connected immediately to anything without pairing. And are far less prone to loss.
Just imagine!
>"That's Linux by the way."
Agreed
>"However, if the install fest installs nonfree distros and nonfree software which make machines entirely function, it will fail to teach users to say no for freedom's sake."
That is a bit extreme, but I wouldn't expect less from Stallman. His motive is pure, but lots of ours is more of a realistic one... Users are ALREADY making some sacrifices by installing and using Linux, regardless of the distro. I would think that having a 1% "contamination" by non-FOSS firmware or video drivers, or whatever, to make the machine work with 99% FOSS instead of 0% FOSS is a huge win, any way you look at it.
>"Those users that get nonfree drivers would see what their moral cost is, and that there are people in the community who refuse to pay that cost."
Actually, I see far, far, far less of a "moral" cost with a non-free driver to get some hardware they already bought working (when there was no consideration to Linux-friendliness) than the correct troves of people flocking to Chrome (regardless of platform). One is almost a purely philosophical objection, the other one is causing rampant damage to user freedom, privacy, and choice, and the openness of access to information, itself. There are lots of "fights to fight", but let's focus on the big ones.
>"... but you're not talking about failure modes that patch created."
True, but the failure mode will exist anyway when the two sensors disagree (because one fails)... whether there is an indicator lamp or not, whether the software to handle it better is there or not. And the cost associated with a disaster due to the failure is very, very high. A simple cost/benefit analysis would have indicated how important it is. I am surprised that there aren't THREE sensors standard instead of just two.
>"The funny thing about this is that nobody responsible for this will actually suffer any real consequences."
Actually, part of the blame does rest on the two sets of pilots. And they did pay the ultimate price. Still, it would have been far better if these two extremely inexpensive addons (a lamp and an already-developed-but-disabled software patch) had been included as a base safety feature.
And Boeing, as a company, will also pay a steep price on the market, because it will hurt their reputation and sales. They might also be open to law suits from the families of the passengers and flight staff. It will also hurt their investors and stock holders. If it costs them enough, many of their employees will suffer due to loss of jobs and/or wages due to decreased demand.
The remaining thing to be seen is if any individuals from within Boeing will be liable for anything, either from internal or external entities.
So yes, there are already real consequences for many, if not most, involved. Are they enough? Perhaps, perhaps not. But let's not pretend nothing will or has happened and that nothing has or will change.
>"No, actually. It's like charging for Blind-Spot-Assist."
No, because that feature requires the addition of multiple radar systems and indicators and software. There is a significant/tangible cost for it, especially compared to the cost of the car. In the case of the plane, we are talking about an single indicator lamp and an already-developed-but-disabled software patch. The latter having essentially no cost, and the former being very minimal... almost zero compared to the overall cost of the plane. So I don't think that is the best example, either.
>"Boeing makes those things optional not just because they can but because airlines want to fly the cheapest plane they can."
True, but in this case, we are talking about an single indicator lamp and an already-developed-but-disabled software patch. The latter having essentially no cost, and the former being pretty minimal. It doesn't seem like these should be optional, especially because we are talking about primary safety of operation and not just convenience, capacity, design flair, security theater, or efficiency. If they didn't think it was important for safety, then why offer it at all?
>"Lefty nonsense? More like prohibitionist nonsense. Which I understand to be a "conservative" trait, if anything."
Actually it is either or both. They just take different approaches. The "Left" wants to ban because they believe they (and the government) know better than the "masses" and should take away responsibility in the name of collective health. The "Right" wants to ban because of "morality".
Ironically, Classic Liberals and Conservatives would both oppose banning personal consumption because they believe in personal freedom and responsibility.
"Left" isn't necessarily Liberal. And "Right" isn't necessarily Conservative. It is a confusing world we live in now.
>"Nicotine is far more addictive than alcohol"
So? Even if the flavoring IS attractive to minors, it probably doesn't matter- Have you seen the statistics of how many people alcohol kills- both users AND innocents? It makes no difference if you remove everything else from an alcoholic drink, as long as it has alcohol, those statistics will stay the same- alcoholism, impaired judgement, impaired motor skills, drunk driving, fights, accidents, alcohol poisoning, drug interactions, etc.
I suspect nicotine, itself, would be ZERO, if it is just nicotine (not cigarettes). And even with flavorings and such, it is probably still close to zero with vaping. As a public policy, it is insane to target nicotine while ignoring alcohol. It is already illegal for minors to buy, anywhere. Anything further than that will do FAR MORE HARM to society as a whole.
Don't get me wrong, I think performing safety research on vaping is a very good thing. But banning or regulating the sale or adult use of the product without any evidence of significant harm is just foolish (flavored or not)... especially when there is apparently already a lot of evidence of its safety, and even more especially when the alternative for those users is something known to create great harm to the user (cigarettes), and really annoy non-users in the process.