>" though it notes that the Department of Homeland Security is saying that it deletes all data pertaining to the images after two weeks."
OK, could there be any funnier statement? That is just beyond unbelievable. So no photo is retained, no record of the comparison retained, and no meta data or biometric representation is retained, by ANY government or private agency? And how would they prove that?
The really sad part is that there are actually people out there who would believe such things. The only truly safe information is that not allowed to be collected in the first place.
>"So college's are bad because professors require proper sources for people's citations?"
Had you watched the videos, you would see that most of them have sources cited, with studies and facts obtained from many well known and respected places. But, again, it is easier for you to just dismiss without knowing.
Trying to gain insight and knowledge from a TWEET is generally unproductive. Please show me tweets from anywhere that contain footnotes, sources, and references. Twitter provides the equivalent of soundbites, it is not meant to be educational.
>"After reading that, it kind of makes it hard for me to take seriously anything else he says or produces."
That is unfortunate. So you didn't view any of the videos published by many bright and informed people because of your snap judgement from a single statement that might be read out of context, by one person? That is not the way to learn, but the way to censor your own exploration. It is exactly what we are talking about in colleges! You might not agree with something, but turning away from anything that challenges your beliefs isn't healthy.
Universities have become a haven of political correctness, speech-banning, and catering to every special flower at the expense of critical thinking, diversity, and learning. It doesn't help that the costs have gone through the roof and the average graduate (those who actually do graduate) are often less educated than high-school students of many years ago.
If you want to understand why most Conservatives are so upset about the state of Universities/Colleges, just check out some PragerU videos on the topic:
I certainly don't agree with everything Prager U puts out, but they have lots of very good points that are well illustrated, well supported, and educational.
>[Visa] launching a "cashless challenge" which would see 50 U.S. businesses receive $10,000 each to help them convert to a cashless payment model."
That should absolutely be illegal. This is of ZERO benefit to anyone but the greedy card companies and could terribly hurt anyone who cares about freedom or privacy. It could also be a total DISASTER in cases of emergency or system failures.
>"Is Amazon a productive change agent and force for the good of the consumer by virtue of a reduction in product prices? Or is Amazon's disruption of the general retail business a destroyer of jobs, moving previously productively employed workers into the unemployment line?"
Neither and yet both and yet that isn't what matters. I love Amazon. Most of us do. But what I do not like is that there is no real/viable OTHER "Amazon". That makes Amazon a type of monopoly in their own playground. Monopolies are rarely good for society or consumers in the long term. So I would certainly examine them, continuously, making sure they do not use their vast power to destroy or prevent competition. Competition and choice is what ultimately keeps prices down and forces companies to be responsive and offer good services, products, and selections.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. As Amazon gets bigger and bigger and flexes its muscles, none of us should be surprised by rising prices, bundling, lock-in, less-friendly terms for using their services, steering consumers to their own brands, undermining competition, undercutting, etc.
>"So now I ask you, Slashdotters: Why do you think carrying cash is so dangerous?"
I don't. Now, carrying around and flashing several hundred dollars could, indeed, be dangerous. But it is MORE dangerous to have NO cash at all on you. Then you are chained to 100% faith that your card or whatever technology will always work.... and it leaves you with essentially no way to pay person-to-person or at times you don't want to be tracked. In an emergency, cash always works.
>"Have you been robbed before, and that's why you feel this way?"
I would speculate very, very, very, very few Slashdotters have ever been robbed. And not having cash on you won't prevent robbery, which is a violent felony. It might prevent the loss of a whopping $60 or something you might be carrying, but that is so irrelevant compared to the actual physical and psychological danger of the event itself. It is not like you have a sign on you saying "I carry $0, please rob someone else." And that $800 phone and/or $500 tablet and/or $1500 notebook and/or $300 smart watch and/or $150 RayBans are right out in the open, aren't they?
If you believe carrying no cash is some type of protection, you have no logic and shouldn't be on Slashdot at all.
>"If you train a parole-bot with all of our (US, but probably most places) historical parole data, of course it's going to be quite racist!"
Sorry, but I think that is impossible. A computer can't be racist because it doesn't have feelings. Racism is based in emotion- hate, fear, jealousy; wanting to suppress, harass, or harm certain people; wanting to dominate others based on taught dogma. A computer can have results that are prejudice or bias (both of which are valid, logical, natural, and normal) but not racist. Computers don't have such motive. People seem to want to redefine the word "racist" nowadays.
>"No matter what I type it just gives me search results for cease and desist debt collectors."
Better than what I get. What I type is not even visible on the screen and then it says "I'm sorry to hear that, Here's how I can help:" and the rest of the page is just blank. Turned off my plugins and reloaded- no difference. Yeesh.
>"Taxes on corporate income don't affect the sales prices[...]Owners (including stockholders) absorb all of those taxes."
Nonsense! Taxes are an operational expense, just like any other- electricity, water, rent, paying employees, raw goods (which are all taxed already too), paying for auditors, advertisements, etc. Expenses (of which taxes are one) absolutely determine how much something costs to produce (either goods or services). In the long term, prices MUST be set higher than expense, or there is either no profit, or there is unsustainable loss. Market pressure and competition will force prices to be a low as reasonable for most markets, but how low they go is a function of how cheaply they can be produces, which is the cost (of which taxes are one).
>"I mean where I live you are happy to get 50% of your income after tax."
In reality, it is probably far, far less than that but in a way most people don't think about. Most people still believe the only taxes they pay of any real meaning are income taxes, sale taxes, and perhaps gasoline and property taxes (forgetting sin taxes, communications taxes, tickets, taxes hidden in water and sewer bills, entertainment taxes, "death" taxes, hundreds of different licensing fees which are all taxes, tolls, waste disposal taxes on repair bills, etc). But the huge hidden tax burden is what happens with taxes we don't see that are passed through to us as reduced wages and higher prices of goods and services. Corporate taxes, payroll taxes, operational fees, and materials taxes are not only paid by YOUR employer, but everything you buy is taxed over an over and over and over again through the entire chain of production. The ore mine, the refinery, the company that built the refinery equipment, the logistics company, the company that built the trucks and computers for the logistics company, the parts stamper, the distribution chain, the assembler, the retailer, etc. There can be hundreds and hundreds of companies all involved in just about every single one product and service in a complicated web.
My wild-ass-guess is that everything we buy costs at least double due to taxes all along the way that accumulate. Couple all that with all the taxes we directly see, and your earning-power-to-purchasing-power probably represents something like you get to keep/use 20% or less of what you could have earned.
>"Produce a bunch of garbage and hope people think its a positive."
Except that is NOT the Netflix Streaming model. They have actually produced a lot of great stuff (and later some mediocre too), and people DO think it is a positive. In fact, their own productions probably account for the majority of attracting and retaining their subscribers. Even their mediocre stuff is better than perhaps 90% of what is on traditional network TV.
What they don't have a lot of is Hollywood movies. For that, you still have to revert back to Netflix DVD. It would be nicer if they offered both, but apparently they can't AND retain the low price.
>"I have no idea what marketing bullshit you've been reading to make you believe that electric cars will ever be *more* convenient than gas cars in any of our lifetimes"
Use your imagination. Not everyone drives just like you. In my case, I very rarely travel over 200 miles. For me, it would be far more convenient to plug in my car in my garage and have it always ready and "full", instead of going out and waiting in a line at Costco to get gas.
>"Yeah, no government planning, just massive government subsidies."
>"Apart from incremental improvements, nothing sets Teslas apart from all the previous failed incarnations of electric cars except the massive branding effort."
Tesla has invested a tremendous amount of money, effort, and research in electric cars. Their battery technology, building methods, materials, engineering, software, and infrastructure set them way apart from other attempts. They produce extremely compelling vehicles, something real that can be purchased right now- they are just too expensive for most people. But that price has been steadily declining and not because of government intervention, bans, or artificial deadlines. Almost all technologies are incremental improvements, no matter what the industry/product/market.
>"They are not banning vehicles that use petrol/diesel, they are banning the sale of vehicles that use petrol/diesel."
Yes, I realize that. They are banning the CHOICE of consumers and manufacturers to make or buy certain products, indiscriminately, and for all cases, outright.
>"You're entire premise of being outraged is incorrect but don't let that stop you from being upset about NOT YOUR COUNTRY doing things they way they see fit."
No, my premise is not incorrect, but don't let that stop you from trying to correct me. And although I don't personally necessarily care that much about what France does, the trend could be catchy. Plus I can still have empathy for those in which their government tries to control everything to the possible detriment of their society.
Reply to self with a personal example I should have mentioned:
This year, the last of my yard power tools bit the dust. I decided it was time to replace them and went to Lowe's and started research. Was it time for electric/battery? Lots of reading, playing, thinking, and I went back and bought a set of Greenworks Pro (3 tools- weed trimmer, bush trimmer, blower- 3 batteries, and a rebate for 3 more batteries, free). I could not be more happy with them! No more gas, no more smell, no more trying over and over to start them, no more major noise or vibration or smell, and they even weigh less. They just work! And with brushless motors, 48V, and large batteries, they are powerful enough that I don't miss gas tools at all. And then I started telling my family and friends....
This didn't require the government to ban the noisy, pollution-prone gas tools. It didn't require the government to penalty-tax gas tools. It just required reasonable products to be available and work like they should. Early adopters a few years ago got early entry but also less powerful tools at a much higher price. I could have paid less for gas tools, but I understood all the advantages of electric and the timing and features were right at this point. And it is only going to get better as technology improves.
However, I did NOT replace my lawn mower. I don't believe mowers are ready yet (just not quite there in power/life/price) and my gas mower works fine. But maybe in a few years when it is time, something will be available that will sway me.
But I ALSO realize that SOME people still need access to massive power or REALLY long runtime- something that current electric tools can't manage. And for them, it is perfectly fine that gas powered tools remain available. Eventually, they will be in the tiny minority and not contribute much to yard tool gas usage or pollution.
>"France Set To Ban Sale of Petrol and Diesel Vehicles" >"France is planning to ban the sale of any car that uses petrol or diesel"
So which is it? Vehicles or cars? Motorcycles are not cars, neither are scooters, trucks, tractors, boats....
Why is it that so many governments and people are so hot on just outright "BANNING" things? Why not let things unfold naturally if possible? Or if absolutely necessary, why not tax "petrol" and/or gasoline cars a little higher and higher and use that money to build up the electric charging infrastructure, bolster battery/storage science, and support electric cars in other ways to slowly make them more attractive?
Things take time and artificially ramming one plan down everyone's throats just makes lots of people unhappy. If electric vehicles do what they promise (and Tesla seems to be able to show they will, and without any forced mandates, btw), people will naturally gravitate to them. Quiet, fast, reliable, efficient, smooth... and eventually even more convenient, when they become generally affordable, the market demand will take care of itself. Again, the Tesla example: Tesla Roadster-> Tesla S/X -> Tesla 3, each generation being refined and more affordable, and without any government "planning" the path for them.
>"At the end of November, criminals with other variants of the same Linux malware unleashed devastating attacks against DSL routers of Telekom customers. 900,000 devices were "
How many routers run MS-Windows?
> "Other Linux malware, such as the Tsunami backdoor, has been causing trouble for several years now and can be easily modified for attacks against IoT devices."
How many IOT devices run MS-Windows?
Routers and IOT devices are notorious about having crappy firmware with Linuxes that are hacked up and rarely (or sometimes never) updated. Comparing those to desktops and servers is much less a function of the security of Linux and more about the lack of maintenance and updates with the unusual role of the devices.
Sure, *ALL* operating systems have security risks and vulnerabilities. Anyone that thinks Linux (or any OS) is impervious to malware and safe needs to have their head examined. But the sensationalistic article title isn't really comparing machines of the same class, so it doesn't do the topic much justice.
>"I doubt any of those things are practical in an economy like Viet Nam's, as they require more infrastructure to supply and maintain than a cheap-ass motorbike."
If it is not practical in that economy to supply motorcycles with 1rst world, modern pollution controls, then it will be even LESS so for cars, which already cost a lot more.
>"Motorbikes have horrible emissions in all measurements, between 400% and 8000% depending on which metric you're measuring,"
What century are you researching? I am talking about MODERN motorcycles for 1st world countries. My motorcycle is 4 cycle,16 variable valve, water-cooled, ECU, fuel injected, catalytic convertor, charcoal canister, and O2 sensor. It is not as pollution-efficient as the same year typical car of the same engine displacement, but it uses less than half the fuel. Smaller bikes usually have the same controls and use less than 1/3 the fuel.... even more when compared to larger SUV type vehicles.
I am attacking the broad statement that banning motorcycles (which is the topic at hand) would be better for the environment. And depending on what is being compared, that is absolutely false.
>"I thought that getting a motorcycle would mean a savings in fuel too but I looked at how much fuel a motorcycle would take compared to a small car and the savings is not that great. I don't remember the exact vehicles being compared so you could argue I was looking at the wrong kind of vehicles."
It depends on the size and power of the motorcycle vs. car. A large/powerful motorcycle, like my 1.4 liter Kawasaki Concours, gets only about 42MPG. A small car with far, far less performance can approach that. And yet my 3.7 liter performance car gets only about 20MPG (which, of course, still could not outrun any performance motorcycle; that takes a rare car). But let's assume we are comparing apples to apples.... a small, non-performance car vs. a small, non-performance motorcycle, you should see a 3 to 4 times fuel savings. My friend's 500cc upright Honda motorcycle gets 75MPG and it has all the same modern pollution controls.... and even that is still far more performance than over 90% of cars on the road.
>"Here's the thing. I calculated that I'm already putting myself at risk in getting a motorcycle over that of a cage on wheels."
Ah, but that is a different topic:) The premise was just that modern motorcycles are dirty/inefficient vs. cars, which just isn't true. A modern motorcycle (as sold in most 1st world countries) is, indeed, a water-cooled 4 cycle engine and has a catalytic converter, ECU, fuel injection, and often even an O2 sensor and charcoal canister.
Now, if one wants to compare ancient motorcycles or what might already be in use in some country, that could shift everything somewhat. But they topic/premise was outright banning motorcycles, not banning *ancient* motorcycles.
Banning motorcycles is just stupid. For one-person transportation, a modern motorcycle emits less than half of what a modern car does (per person). Even with NO pollution controls, like an ancient design, a typical motorcycle will emit less than a modern car.
Perhaps make it illegal to drive ancient motorcycles without modern pollution controls?
Also, motorcycles take up less parking, less space on the roads, and are almost no wear on the roads.
>"Their conclusion is that acetaminophen can reduce a person's capacity to empathize with another person's pain."
I find that ironic because it seems acetaminophen doesn't do anything at all to alleviate my pain, ever. Ibuprofen, on the other hand, works great. Perhaps many of the test volunteers were still IN PAIN when using acetaminophen and so they can't think of others at the time (pain is, unfortunately, very good at bringing focus to itself).
Slashdot Mirror
>" though it notes that the Department of Homeland Security is saying that it deletes all data pertaining to the images after two weeks."
OK, could there be any funnier statement? That is just beyond unbelievable. So no photo is retained, no record of the comparison retained, and no meta data or biometric representation is retained, by ANY government or private agency? And how would they prove that?
The really sad part is that there are actually people out there who would believe such things. The only truly safe information is that not allowed to be collected in the first place.
>"So college's are bad because professors require proper sources for people's citations?"
Had you watched the videos, you would see that most of them have sources cited, with studies and facts obtained from many well known and respected places. But, again, it is easier for you to just dismiss without knowing.
Trying to gain insight and knowledge from a TWEET is generally unproductive. Please show me tweets from anywhere that contain footnotes, sources, and references. Twitter provides the equivalent of soundbites, it is not meant to be educational.
>"After reading that, it kind of makes it hard for me to take seriously anything else he says or produces."
That is unfortunate. So you didn't view any of the videos published by many bright and informed people because of your snap judgement from a single statement that might be read out of context, by one person? That is not the way to learn, but the way to censor your own exploration. It is exactly what we are talking about in colleges! You might not agree with something, but turning away from anything that challenges your beliefs isn't healthy.
+1
Universities have become a haven of political correctness, speech-banning, and catering to every special flower at the expense of critical thinking, diversity, and learning. It doesn't help that the costs have gone through the roof and the average graduate (those who actually do graduate) are often less educated than high-school students of many years ago.
If you want to understand why most Conservatives are so upset about the state of Universities/Colleges, just check out some PragerU videos on the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I certainly don't agree with everything Prager U puts out, but they have lots of very good points that are well illustrated, well supported, and educational.
>[Visa] launching a "cashless challenge" which would see 50 U.S. businesses receive $10,000 each to help them convert to a cashless payment model."
That should absolutely be illegal. This is of ZERO benefit to anyone but the greedy card companies and could terribly hurt anyone who cares about freedom or privacy. It could also be a total DISASTER in cases of emergency or system failures.
NO WAY
>"Is Amazon a productive change agent and force for the good of the consumer by virtue of a reduction in product prices? Or is Amazon's disruption of the general retail business a destroyer of jobs, moving previously productively employed workers into the unemployment line?"
Neither and yet both and yet that isn't what matters. I love Amazon. Most of us do. But what I do not like is that there is no real/viable OTHER "Amazon". That makes Amazon a type of monopoly in their own playground. Monopolies are rarely good for society or consumers in the long term. So I would certainly examine them, continuously, making sure they do not use their vast power to destroy or prevent competition. Competition and choice is what ultimately keeps prices down and forces companies to be responsive and offer good services, products, and selections.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. As Amazon gets bigger and bigger and flexes its muscles, none of us should be surprised by rising prices, bundling, lock-in, less-friendly terms for using their services, steering consumers to their own brands, undermining competition, undercutting, etc.
>"So now I ask you, Slashdotters: Why do you think carrying cash is so dangerous?"
I don't. Now, carrying around and flashing several hundred dollars could, indeed, be dangerous. But it is MORE dangerous to have NO cash at all on you. Then you are chained to 100% faith that your card or whatever technology will always work.... and it leaves you with essentially no way to pay person-to-person or at times you don't want to be tracked. In an emergency, cash always works.
>"Have you been robbed before, and that's why you feel this way?"
I would speculate very, very, very, very few Slashdotters have ever been robbed. And not having cash on you won't prevent robbery, which is a violent felony. It might prevent the loss of a whopping $60 or something you might be carrying, but that is so irrelevant compared to the actual physical and psychological danger of the event itself. It is not like you have a sign on you saying "I carry $0, please rob someone else." And that $800 phone and/or $500 tablet and/or $1500 notebook and/or $300 smart watch and/or $150 RayBans are right out in the open, aren't they?
If you believe carrying no cash is some type of protection, you have no logic and shouldn't be on Slashdot at all.
>"If you train a parole-bot with all of our (US, but probably most places) historical parole data, of course it's going to be quite racist!"
Sorry, but I think that is impossible. A computer can't be racist because it doesn't have feelings. Racism is based in emotion- hate, fear, jealousy; wanting to suppress, harass, or harm certain people; wanting to dominate others based on taught dogma. A computer can have results that are prejudice or bias (both of which are valid, logical, natural, and normal) but not racist. Computers don't have such motive. People seem to want to redefine the word "racist" nowadays.
>"No matter what I type it just gives me search results for cease and desist debt collectors."
Better than what I get. What I type is not even visible on the screen and then it says "I'm sorry to hear that, Here's how I can help:" and the rest of the page is just blank. Turned off my plugins and reloaded- no difference. Yeesh.
>"Taxes on corporate income don't affect the sales prices[...]Owners (including stockholders) absorb all of those taxes."
Nonsense! Taxes are an operational expense, just like any other- electricity, water, rent, paying employees, raw goods (which are all taxed already too), paying for auditors, advertisements, etc. Expenses (of which taxes are one) absolutely determine how much something costs to produce (either goods or services). In the long term, prices MUST be set higher than expense, or there is either no profit, or there is unsustainable loss. Market pressure and competition will force prices to be a low as reasonable for most markets, but how low they go is a function of how cheaply they can be produces, which is the cost (of which taxes are one).
>"I mean where I live you are happy to get 50% of your income after tax."
In reality, it is probably far, far less than that but in a way most people don't think about. Most people still believe the only taxes they pay of any real meaning are income taxes, sale taxes, and perhaps gasoline and property taxes (forgetting sin taxes, communications taxes, tickets, taxes hidden in water and sewer bills, entertainment taxes, "death" taxes, hundreds of different licensing fees which are all taxes, tolls, waste disposal taxes on repair bills, etc). But the huge hidden tax burden is what happens with taxes we don't see that are passed through to us as reduced wages and higher prices of goods and services. Corporate taxes, payroll taxes, operational fees, and materials taxes are not only paid by YOUR employer, but everything you buy is taxed over an over and over and over again through the entire chain of production. The ore mine, the refinery, the company that built the refinery equipment, the logistics company, the company that built the trucks and computers for the logistics company, the parts stamper, the distribution chain, the assembler, the retailer, etc. There can be hundreds and hundreds of companies all involved in just about every single one product and service in a complicated web.
My wild-ass-guess is that everything we buy costs at least double due to taxes all along the way that accumulate. Couple all that with all the taxes we directly see, and your earning-power-to-purchasing-power probably represents something like you get to keep/use 20% or less of what you could have earned.
>"Produce a bunch of garbage and hope people think its a positive."
Except that is NOT the Netflix Streaming model. They have actually produced a lot of great stuff (and later some mediocre too), and people DO think it is a positive. In fact, their own productions probably account for the majority of attracting and retaining their subscribers. Even their mediocre stuff is better than perhaps 90% of what is on traditional network TV.
What they don't have a lot of is Hollywood movies. For that, you still have to revert back to Netflix DVD. It would be nicer if they offered both, but apparently they can't AND retain the low price.
>"I have no idea what marketing bullshit you've been reading to make you believe that electric cars will ever be *more* convenient than gas cars in any of our lifetimes"
Use your imagination. Not everyone drives just like you. In my case, I very rarely travel over 200 miles. For me, it would be far more convenient to plug in my car in my garage and have it always ready and "full", instead of going out and waiting in a line at Costco to get gas.
>"Yeah, no government planning, just massive government subsidies."
https://seekingalpha.com/artic...
>"Apart from incremental improvements, nothing sets Teslas apart from all the previous failed incarnations of electric cars except the massive branding effort."
Tesla has invested a tremendous amount of money, effort, and research in electric cars. Their battery technology, building methods, materials, engineering, software, and infrastructure set them way apart from other attempts. They produce extremely compelling vehicles, something real that can be purchased right now- they are just too expensive for most people. But that price has been steadily declining and not because of government intervention, bans, or artificial deadlines. Almost all technologies are incremental improvements, no matter what the industry/product/market.
>"They are not banning vehicles that use petrol/diesel, they are banning the sale of vehicles that use petrol/diesel."
Yes, I realize that. They are banning the CHOICE of consumers and manufacturers to make or buy certain products, indiscriminately, and for all cases, outright.
>"You're entire premise of being outraged is incorrect but don't let that stop you from being upset about NOT YOUR COUNTRY doing things they way they see fit."
No, my premise is not incorrect, but don't let that stop you from trying to correct me. And although I don't personally necessarily care that much about what France does, the trend could be catchy. Plus I can still have empathy for those in which their government tries to control everything to the possible detriment of their society.
See my other recent posting for a perfect example of how the market can take care of itself: https://slashdot.org/comments....
Reply to self with a personal example I should have mentioned:
This year, the last of my yard power tools bit the dust. I decided it was time to replace them and went to Lowe's and started research. Was it time for electric/battery? Lots of reading, playing, thinking, and I went back and bought a set of Greenworks Pro (3 tools- weed trimmer, bush trimmer, blower- 3 batteries, and a rebate for 3 more batteries, free). I could not be more happy with them! No more gas, no more smell, no more trying over and over to start them, no more major noise or vibration or smell, and they even weigh less. They just work! And with brushless motors, 48V, and large batteries, they are powerful enough that I don't miss gas tools at all. And then I started telling my family and friends....
This didn't require the government to ban the noisy, pollution-prone gas tools. It didn't require the government to penalty-tax gas tools. It just required reasonable products to be available and work like they should. Early adopters a few years ago got early entry but also less powerful tools at a much higher price. I could have paid less for gas tools, but I understood all the advantages of electric and the timing and features were right at this point. And it is only going to get better as technology improves.
However, I did NOT replace my lawn mower. I don't believe mowers are ready yet (just not quite there in power/life/price) and my gas mower works fine. But maybe in a few years when it is time, something will be available that will sway me.
But I ALSO realize that SOME people still need access to massive power or REALLY long runtime- something that current electric tools can't manage. And for them, it is perfectly fine that gas powered tools remain available. Eventually, they will be in the tiny minority and not contribute much to yard tool gas usage or pollution.
>"France Set To Ban Sale of Petrol and Diesel Vehicles"
>"France is planning to ban the sale of any car that uses petrol or diesel"
So which is it? Vehicles or cars? Motorcycles are not cars, neither are scooters, trucks, tractors, boats....
Why is it that so many governments and people are so hot on just outright "BANNING" things? Why not let things unfold naturally if possible? Or if absolutely necessary, why not tax "petrol" and/or gasoline cars a little higher and higher and use that money to build up the electric charging infrastructure, bolster battery/storage science, and support electric cars in other ways to slowly make them more attractive?
Things take time and artificially ramming one plan down everyone's throats just makes lots of people unhappy. If electric vehicles do what they promise (and Tesla seems to be able to show they will, and without any forced mandates, btw), people will naturally gravitate to them. Quiet, fast, reliable, efficient, smooth... and eventually even more convenient, when they become generally affordable, the market demand will take care of itself. Again, the Tesla example: Tesla Roadster-> Tesla S/X -> Tesla 3, each generation being refined and more affordable, and without any government "planning" the path for them.
Please compare apples to apples...
>"At the end of November, criminals with other variants of the same Linux malware unleashed devastating attacks against DSL routers of Telekom customers. 900,000 devices were "
How many routers run MS-Windows?
> "Other Linux malware, such as the Tsunami backdoor, has been causing trouble for several years now and can be easily modified for attacks against IoT devices."
How many IOT devices run MS-Windows?
Routers and IOT devices are notorious about having crappy firmware with Linuxes that are hacked up and rarely (or sometimes never) updated. Comparing those to desktops and servers is much less a function of the security of Linux and more about the lack of maintenance and updates with the unusual role of the devices.
Sure, *ALL* operating systems have security risks and vulnerabilities. Anyone that thinks Linux (or any OS) is impervious to malware and safe needs to have their head examined. But the sensationalistic article title isn't really comparing machines of the same class, so it doesn't do the topic much justice.
>"I doubt any of those things are practical in an economy like Viet Nam's, as they require more infrastructure to supply and maintain than a cheap-ass motorbike."
If it is not practical in that economy to supply motorcycles with 1rst world, modern pollution controls, then it will be even LESS so for cars, which already cost a lot more.
>"Citation needed."
Not really. I have first-hand experience with it.
>"Motorbikes have horrible emissions in all measurements, between 400% and 8000% depending on which metric you're measuring,"
What century are you researching? I am talking about MODERN motorcycles for 1st world countries. My motorcycle is 4 cycle,16 variable valve, water-cooled, ECU, fuel injected, catalytic convertor, charcoal canister, and O2 sensor. It is not as pollution-efficient as the same year typical car of the same engine displacement, but it uses less than half the fuel. Smaller bikes usually have the same controls and use less than 1/3 the fuel.... even more when compared to larger SUV type vehicles.
I am attacking the broad statement that banning motorcycles (which is the topic at hand) would be better for the environment. And depending on what is being compared, that is absolutely false.
>"I thought that getting a motorcycle would mean a savings in fuel too but I looked at how much fuel a motorcycle would take compared to a small car and the savings is not that great. I don't remember the exact vehicles being compared so you could argue I was looking at the wrong kind of vehicles."
It depends on the size and power of the motorcycle vs. car. A large/powerful motorcycle, like my 1.4 liter Kawasaki Concours, gets only about 42MPG. A small car with far, far less performance can approach that. And yet my 3.7 liter performance car gets only about 20MPG (which, of course, still could not outrun any performance motorcycle; that takes a rare car). But let's assume we are comparing apples to apples.... a small, non-performance car vs. a small, non-performance motorcycle, you should see a 3 to 4 times fuel savings. My friend's 500cc upright Honda motorcycle gets 75MPG and it has all the same modern pollution controls.... and even that is still far more performance than over 90% of cars on the road.
>"Here's the thing. I calculated that I'm already putting myself at risk in getting a motorcycle over that of a cage on wheels."
Ah, but that is a different topic :) The premise was just that modern motorcycles are dirty/inefficient vs. cars, which just isn't true. A modern motorcycle (as sold in most 1st world countries) is, indeed, a water-cooled 4 cycle engine and has a catalytic converter, ECU, fuel injection, and often even an O2 sensor and charcoal canister.
Now, if one wants to compare ancient motorcycles or what might already be in use in some country, that could shift everything somewhat. But they topic/premise was outright banning motorcycles, not banning *ancient* motorcycles.
Banning motorcycles is just stupid. For one-person transportation, a modern motorcycle emits less than half of what a modern car does (per person). Even with NO pollution controls, like an ancient design, a typical motorcycle will emit less than a modern car.
Perhaps make it illegal to drive ancient motorcycles without modern pollution controls?
Also, motorcycles take up less parking, less space on the roads, and are almost no wear on the roads.
>"Does it work for anyone? "
It doesn't for me. Seemingly does absolutely nothing, regardless of the dose. Ibuprofen, however, works great.
>"Their conclusion is that acetaminophen can reduce a person's capacity to empathize with another person's pain."
I find that ironic because it seems acetaminophen doesn't do anything at all to alleviate my pain, ever. Ibuprofen, on the other hand, works great. Perhaps many of the test volunteers were still IN PAIN when using acetaminophen and so they can't think of others at the time (pain is, unfortunately, very good at bringing focus to itself).
>"Unless you count this as a classic demonstration of Darwin's Theory, then you are correct this does not belong here."
Not really. If this worked more like a classic Darwin view, society would be spared the procreation of such morons. However:
"The teenager [girlfriend] -- who is pregnant with the couple's second child -- now faces second-degree manslaughter charges"
So they lived a bit too long before showing their colors. Oh, yeah, also, marriage is such a huge commitment compared having children .
Some models have lights and play music when you spin them.