>Just ask them if they want this system in place the next time a democrat president sits in the whitehouse?
"It's OK to cheat to win, when you're right." Both sides are guilty of that, though I'm not going to argue whether it's an evenly divided guilt or not.
However, given that for Trump's base 'their guy' is in power, I doubt they're worried much about keeping him there - the rules can be bent to make a 2nd term happen, and then you have another 4 years to work on making a Republican dynasty a thing.
I mean... look at gerrymandering. It's not exactly an obscure attempt to manipulate democracy to ensure a win, and it's not a great long-term method for achieving that end repeatedly.
The first people to get the backdoors will be cops.
The second people will the in organized crime. It'll only take one bad law enforcement employee on their payroll to leak it... and THAT is just if there's some kind of key involved. The system itself will be public before the first device is even sold, since the standards will have to be given to the manufactures and they're going to leak like sieves.
Then you'll have a nation of devices that are completely untrustworthy. In theory... because in practice this is so obviously too stupid to work that they can't possibly go forward with it.
>It seems like it would be cheaper and we'd settle a lot of this shit for at least 50 years
It's not impossible that it'll come to that, but I hope it's unlikely. War is nasty business, and a lot of innocent people generally get traumatized, maimed, or dead... and it really only solves the problem if one side is obliterated. I mean, c'mon, you still have people who resent losing the previous civil war and I think it's safe to say enough time has passed that shouldn't be a thing anymore.
On the other hand, with every additional bit of crazy the POTUS does without being stopped because of an 'R'... it seems that much more likely that eventually blood will need to be shed to remove the entrenched powers. Keep in mind, it's the right that tends to be more fanatical about their guns and going to organized war while the left tends to sporadically breed terrorists. It absolutely would not be pretty or short if the USA fell into civil war, and I think you're still well within range of correcting things with the legal system and the ballot box.
You cannot tolerate your president trying to build a power structure outside the one constrained by your Constitution unless you WANT a dictatorship.
He's already tried to bring the FBI and court system to heel (including at least twice now declaring himself above the law), he's expressed an interest in controlling the media to ensure it aligns with his wishes (and taken a few practical steps in that direction), and now he's going to create a new intelligence service that is under his direct control?
Just how far does this guy have to go before he lacks the support to continue?
That's the obvious stuff. Listen carefully to celebrity interviews and you'll often hear them drop a brand name where they don't need to. Some of them are more subtle than others, but they're all getting paid every time that name passes their lips.
Too young for the end of the free love era, too old to simply grow up in the 80s. At least the 80s had cocaine to make up for the AIDS. Of course, I was still too young for cocaine... Old enough to avoid the emotional impact of WWII and the Cold War, so there's that.
Is there a good era to grow up in? I have a feeling it's pretty good to be a kid in the West right now, what with all the inexpensive electronics and such. We'll have to see if Trump manages to bring about Armageddon by messing around in the Middle East or via Best Korea. That could be a bit of a bummer.
You know, the other day I was sitting in my La-Z-Boy recliner enjoying the lumbar heater while surfing the net on my high-performance MSI laptop. Just as I was cracking open a fresh Coke and salivating at the crisp 'fizzle' sound, I realized how much of the media I consume is filled with product placement.
Yeah, most kids are like cats - they like getting into confined spaces they're not supposed to be in. Unlike cats, it's considered abuse if you leave food and water bowls and a sandbox on the floor for them and then walk away.
>That makes no sense. The entire point of these devices is to get information FROM the Internet.
It can act as an input to my computer, rather than a direct connection to a service. It can have its own local connections for home automation or monitoring.
I want something open source, that runs locally on my home network. If it requires connectivity to a server on the Internet, I don't want it.
There's no legitimate reason such a device can't be made except so that the tech companies can access whatever data they want - which yes, is PROBABLY just for product improvement (which will include better, creepier targeted advertising), but is also a massive invasion of privacy with all sorts of potential to be used by criminals and the government doing things you'd consider criminal.
If you know a more efficient way to get your kids clean, I'd like to hear it!
Of course, it only works if you have two kids of approximately the same mass, otherwise the drum is unbalanced and the washing machine shakes pretty badly.
>If I could maintain my current lifestyle, while working a 20 hour week, I certainly would not get a second job.
That's the point... you can't maintain your lifestyle because OTHER people will gladly pick up a second job so they can have more stuff. Eventually that kind of choice puts downward pressure on wages until everyone has to work 40 hours again just to keep up.
The last time I am aware something similar happened was when women entered the workforce in significant numbers post-WWII.
It used to be very common for women to not enter the workforce, and families did OK (for the times... poor buggers didn't have Internet, home theatres, or microwave ovens!). After women entered the workforce, it didn't take long for two incomes to become standard (even if it took a long time for women to commonly start doing the same kind of work as men after the war effort).
And what's happened since? Having one person stay home is now the exception rather than the rule, and it's generally considered a strain on the family finances if only one person in a couple is working.
Society adjusted to the near-doubling of the work force to ensure all the little cogs were kept turning for as much of the day as possible.
We're productive enough as a society that we could probably get by on a 20 hour work week.
So what happens then? Well, it's obviously fairly sustainable to work 40 hours per week... so someone's going to get two jobs with opposing schedules so they can have a nicer house.
When they do that, someone else won't have a job opportunity and they'll lower their income expectations. The economy will slowly adjust to the practical reality that people will work 40 hours a week for a standard wage, and then 20 hours won't be enough for food and shelter any longer and everyone will have to have two jobs instead of one.
He is an engineer by training, and anyone sane can look at his credentials and say, "Yes, he's an engineer by reasonable standards".
What he is NOT is licensed to use that title professionally in the United States. Which he wasn't doing, but some embarrassed bureaucrats pretended he was to silence him when they found him annoying.
>(why do I hate that term so much? The sun is not magically "renewing itself; it's literally burning to death...),
Yep. The term ought to be 'sustainable', though even then you have to have the caveat of, 'until the Sun renders the Earth uninhabitable'.
Even thorium, that nuclear darling, annoys me because it's only good for about 1,000 years at current power production levels. Great, so we take maybe 500 years getting our entire civilization dependent on thorium (instead of the mere hundred we've spent mainlining hydrocarbon fuels) and then we're right back where we are now... only addicted to levels of power production even further beyond what 'renewables' can provide.
If it's not solar, hydro, tidal, wind or geothermal, it's not particularly 'renewable'. I think there could be some hope for continuing with hydrocarbon fuels if we close the cycle and grow as much as we burn.
Yep. The rich ultimately aren't any smarter than the poor. They're short-sighted, greedy, and stupid, just like pretty much everyone else.
So squeeze the poor for more and more, manipulate them into giving even more after that... and then be surprised when the methods they use to do it get out of control and bite 'em in the ass, HARD.
I used to think maybe scientists should have more say in politics, but as I get older I'm starting to think the primary advisor to any politician should be a historian.
>Couple that with what could be grown in a wind farm supplied greenhouse
My first thought, honestly, was that they apparently import a lot of bread and milk (presumably at great expense)... so why not go with goat milk over cow milk and have an indoor farm? Goats eat pretty much anything, so if you can grow anything without too much power for heat and extra light, you're golden.
On the other hand, I doubt they have the money to build a giant indoor insulated and lit farm just for some goat milk.
It's one of those things you realize, 'They could get a lot more for a hell of a lot more than it would be worth to do'. Then I'm right back to 'why not move south?'. Then again, I really hate the cold, so I'm probably biased.
>. Insist poor people live like self-sacrificing monks, and sooner or later they'll make really stupid decisions, because fuck everything.
I think hope is a big part of the problem (combined with the general human difficulty dealing with risk/reward judgements and delayed gratification). If you can't see a practical chance for improving your circumstances in the long run, you focus on the short term improvements even if those choices are the very ones undermining your long-term opportunities.
Then there are people who go the other way, so focused on the long term that they forget their lifespan is finite; there's no point in saving for the future once you've made sure your children (if any) are OK... because you don't HAVE a future. You're going to die.
Enjoy the fruits of your labour while you can. Just don't enjoy so much you end up with a net negative to your life in the long run, that's all.
There is a difference between 'cheap' and 'frugal'. I don't spend money on stupid things. You know how rich people get rich? By getting people like you to be brand loyal and buy their stuff just because of the logo on it.
I buy what I need, when I need it, and of a quality that will last as long as I expect to need it for... without regard for who made it or who is selling it except when I'm weighing the value of a warranty.
So instead of a new BMW, some Nike shoes, a closet of Polo shirts, and a Starbucks coffee every day. I'm not blowing hundreds of dollars at a shot to get a lousy seat at a concert when the music's better on my home sound system. And no, I don't see every new movie in the theatres when I can wait and see them at home for a fraction of the cost.
I can go on vacations more frequently (and still be putting some money away for potential large future expenses). I can turn down overtime at work and spend more time with friends and family. If I have an unexpected expense, I can cover it.
>I'd rather have my fun now, thank you, even if that means not saving as much as you do
If your idea of 'fun' is living paycheque to paycheque... with a base load on your credit cards... OK. But a little short term restraint means you have less stress and more options in the long term.
If you're relatively poor but buy a coffee everyday... I guarantee you you're poor because of poor financial decisions and not because of circumstances beyond your control. And, if my blue-collar work experience has taught me anything, you probably also spend too much on tobacco, alcohol, and lottery tickets.
As I've progressed in my career, I actually do find myself exercising MORE restraint with regards to purchases, not less... even though I now have more money than I ever really seriously thought I would.
I realized there's nothing wrong with 'brown bagging' it, nothing wrong with used cars, clothing without fancy brand logos on it, etc. I find conspicuous consumption offensively stupid.
The result of this behaviour is that I haven't built up debt, and have paid off the 'unavoidable' debts a lot sooner than most, and now I live fairly comfortably and I'm not particularly stressed about finances. And because I'm not in debt, the money I earn is effectively worth more as I'm not bleeding interest payments to the bank.
$850 a year is a LOT of money if you keep rolling it into bonds and you're patient. It might mean helping your kid get through college without crippling debt, or maybe loaning them a down payment on a house.
Less than 700 people in the place. 12:10 male:female ratio. It's small, and there's nowhere else anywhere nearby. It's dark, and cold, and more or less in the middle of a cold ocean. There isn't enough food (at least if you want a modern diet - not sure about living off fish). Median income is ~US60K, but you know the cost of living is going to be nasty.
Why does Point Hope still exist? You'd think there'd be a small military outpost if anything.
I'm in the process of switching back to Android, actually, since I hate the stupid iPhone I have.
I was speaking in the general case. And yes, I'm aware I'll run into the problems I mentioned more frequently (unnecessary permissions aren't exactly unheard of with iPhone apps) once I'm back to Android, but it's worth it to have control of my device.
In short, stick it where the sun don't shine, Apple fanboi.
Slashdot Mirror
>Just ask them if they want this system in place the next time a democrat president sits in the whitehouse?
"It's OK to cheat to win, when you're right." Both sides are guilty of that, though I'm not going to argue whether it's an evenly divided guilt or not.
However, given that for Trump's base 'their guy' is in power, I doubt they're worried much about keeping him there - the rules can be bent to make a 2nd term happen, and then you have another 4 years to work on making a Republican dynasty a thing.
I mean... look at gerrymandering. It's not exactly an obscure attempt to manipulate democracy to ensure a win, and it's not a great long-term method for achieving that end repeatedly.
The first people to get the backdoors will be cops.
The second people will the in organized crime. It'll only take one bad law enforcement employee on their payroll to leak it... and THAT is just if there's some kind of key involved. The system itself will be public before the first device is even sold, since the standards will have to be given to the manufactures and they're going to leak like sieves.
Then you'll have a nation of devices that are completely untrustworthy. In theory... because in practice this is so obviously too stupid to work that they can't possibly go forward with it.
>It seems like it would be cheaper and we'd settle a lot of this shit for at least 50 years
It's not impossible that it'll come to that, but I hope it's unlikely. War is nasty business, and a lot of innocent people generally get traumatized, maimed, or dead... and it really only solves the problem if one side is obliterated. I mean, c'mon, you still have people who resent losing the previous civil war and I think it's safe to say enough time has passed that shouldn't be a thing anymore.
On the other hand, with every additional bit of crazy the POTUS does without being stopped because of an 'R'... it seems that much more likely that eventually blood will need to be shed to remove the entrenched powers. Keep in mind, it's the right that tends to be more fanatical about their guns and going to organized war while the left tends to sporadically breed terrorists. It absolutely would not be pretty or short if the USA fell into civil war, and I think you're still well within range of correcting things with the legal system and the ballot box.
> Deflecting blame is not a valid counterpoint strategy
It is not valid, but it's been pretty effective for about a year so far.
You cannot tolerate your president trying to build a power structure outside the one constrained by your Constitution unless you WANT a dictatorship.
He's already tried to bring the FBI and court system to heel (including at least twice now declaring himself above the law), he's expressed an interest in controlling the media to ensure it aligns with his wishes (and taken a few practical steps in that direction), and now he's going to create a new intelligence service that is under his direct control?
Just how far does this guy have to go before he lacks the support to continue?
That's the obvious stuff. Listen carefully to celebrity interviews and you'll often hear them drop a brand name where they don't need to. Some of them are more subtle than others, but they're all getting paid every time that name passes their lips.
>there wasn't much to do in the 70's
Too young for the end of the free love era, too old to simply grow up in the 80s. At least the 80s had cocaine to make up for the AIDS. Of course, I was still too young for cocaine... Old enough to avoid the emotional impact of WWII and the Cold War, so there's that.
Is there a good era to grow up in? I have a feeling it's pretty good to be a kid in the West right now, what with all the inexpensive electronics and such. We'll have to see if Trump manages to bring about Armageddon by messing around in the Middle East or via Best Korea. That could be a bit of a bummer.
You know, the other day I was sitting in my La-Z-Boy recliner enjoying the lumbar heater while surfing the net on my high-performance MSI laptop. Just as I was cracking open a fresh Coke and salivating at the crisp 'fizzle' sound, I realized how much of the media I consume is filled with product placement.
Yeah, most kids are like cats - they like getting into confined spaces they're not supposed to be in. Unlike cats, it's considered abuse if you leave food and water bowls and a sandbox on the floor for them and then walk away.
>That makes no sense. The entire point of these devices is to get information FROM the Internet.
It can act as an input to my computer, rather than a direct connection to a service. It can have its own local connections for home automation or monitoring.
I want something open source, that runs locally on my home network. If it requires connectivity to a server on the Internet, I don't want it.
There's no legitimate reason such a device can't be made except so that the tech companies can access whatever data they want - which yes, is PROBABLY just for product improvement (which will include better, creepier targeted advertising), but is also a massive invasion of privacy with all sorts of potential to be used by criminals and the government doing things you'd consider criminal.
If you know a more efficient way to get your kids clean, I'd like to hear it!
Of course, it only works if you have two kids of approximately the same mass, otherwise the drum is unbalanced and the washing machine shakes pretty badly.
>If I could maintain my current lifestyle, while working a 20 hour week, I certainly would not get a second job.
That's the point... you can't maintain your lifestyle because OTHER people will gladly pick up a second job so they can have more stuff. Eventually that kind of choice puts downward pressure on wages until everyone has to work 40 hours again just to keep up.
The last time I am aware something similar happened was when women entered the workforce in significant numbers post-WWII.
It used to be very common for women to not enter the workforce, and families did OK (for the times... poor buggers didn't have Internet, home theatres, or microwave ovens!). After women entered the workforce, it didn't take long for two incomes to become standard (even if it took a long time for women to commonly start doing the same kind of work as men after the war effort).
And what's happened since? Having one person stay home is now the exception rather than the rule, and it's generally considered a strain on the family finances if only one person in a couple is working.
Society adjusted to the near-doubling of the work force to ensure all the little cogs were kept turning for as much of the day as possible.
We're productive enough as a society that we could probably get by on a 20 hour work week.
So what happens then? Well, it's obviously fairly sustainable to work 40 hours per week... so someone's going to get two jobs with opposing schedules so they can have a nicer house.
When they do that, someone else won't have a job opportunity and they'll lower their income expectations. The economy will slowly adjust to the practical reality that people will work 40 hours a week for a standard wage, and then 20 hours won't be enough for food and shelter any longer and everyone will have to have two jobs instead of one.
Then you're right back to where we are now.
He is an engineer by training, and anyone sane can look at his credentials and say, "Yes, he's an engineer by reasonable standards".
What he is NOT is licensed to use that title professionally in the United States. Which he wasn't doing, but some embarrassed bureaucrats pretended he was to silence him when they found him annoying.
>(why do I hate that term so much? The sun is not magically "renewing itself; it's literally burning to death...),
Yep. The term ought to be 'sustainable', though even then you have to have the caveat of, 'until the Sun renders the Earth uninhabitable'.
Even thorium, that nuclear darling, annoys me because it's only good for about 1,000 years at current power production levels. Great, so we take maybe 500 years getting our entire civilization dependent on thorium (instead of the mere hundred we've spent mainlining hydrocarbon fuels) and then we're right back where we are now... only addicted to levels of power production even further beyond what 'renewables' can provide.
If it's not solar, hydro, tidal, wind or geothermal, it's not particularly 'renewable'. I think there could be some hope for continuing with hydrocarbon fuels if we close the cycle and grow as much as we burn.
Yep. The rich ultimately aren't any smarter than the poor. They're short-sighted, greedy, and stupid, just like pretty much everyone else.
So squeeze the poor for more and more, manipulate them into giving even more after that... and then be surprised when the methods they use to do it get out of control and bite 'em in the ass, HARD.
I used to think maybe scientists should have more say in politics, but as I get older I'm starting to think the primary advisor to any politician should be a historian.
>Couple that with what could be grown in a wind farm supplied greenhouse
My first thought, honestly, was that they apparently import a lot of bread and milk (presumably at great expense)... so why not go with goat milk over cow milk and have an indoor farm? Goats eat pretty much anything, so if you can grow anything without too much power for heat and extra light, you're golden.
On the other hand, I doubt they have the money to build a giant indoor insulated and lit farm just for some goat milk.
It's one of those things you realize, 'They could get a lot more for a hell of a lot more than it would be worth to do'. Then I'm right back to 'why not move south?'. Then again, I really hate the cold, so I'm probably biased.
You really need to re-read the very first statement of my post, which was a qualifier that excludes exactly that scenario.
>. Insist poor people live like self-sacrificing monks, and sooner or later they'll make really stupid decisions, because fuck everything.
I think hope is a big part of the problem (combined with the general human difficulty dealing with risk/reward judgements and delayed gratification). If you can't see a practical chance for improving your circumstances in the long run, you focus on the short term improvements even if those choices are the very ones undermining your long-term opportunities.
Then there are people who go the other way, so focused on the long term that they forget their lifespan is finite; there's no point in saving for the future once you've made sure your children (if any) are OK... because you don't HAVE a future. You're going to die.
Enjoy the fruits of your labour while you can. Just don't enjoy so much you end up with a net negative to your life in the long run, that's all.
There is a difference between 'cheap' and 'frugal'. I don't spend money on stupid things. You know how rich people get rich? By getting people like you to be brand loyal and buy their stuff just because of the logo on it.
I buy what I need, when I need it, and of a quality that will last as long as I expect to need it for... without regard for who made it or who is selling it except when I'm weighing the value of a warranty.
So instead of a new BMW, some Nike shoes, a closet of Polo shirts, and a Starbucks coffee every day. I'm not blowing hundreds of dollars at a shot to get a lousy seat at a concert when the music's better on my home sound system. And no, I don't see every new movie in the theatres when I can wait and see them at home for a fraction of the cost.
I can go on vacations more frequently (and still be putting some money away for potential large future expenses). I can turn down overtime at work and spend more time with friends and family. If I have an unexpected expense, I can cover it.
>I'd rather have my fun now, thank you, even if that means not saving as much as you do
If your idea of 'fun' is living paycheque to paycheque... with a base load on your credit cards... OK. But a little short term restraint means you have less stress and more options in the long term.
If you're relatively poor but buy a coffee everyday... I guarantee you you're poor because of poor financial decisions and not because of circumstances beyond your control. And, if my blue-collar work experience has taught me anything, you probably also spend too much on tobacco, alcohol, and lottery tickets.
As I've progressed in my career, I actually do find myself exercising MORE restraint with regards to purchases, not less... even though I now have more money than I ever really seriously thought I would.
I realized there's nothing wrong with 'brown bagging' it, nothing wrong with used cars, clothing without fancy brand logos on it, etc. I find conspicuous consumption offensively stupid.
The result of this behaviour is that I haven't built up debt, and have paid off the 'unavoidable' debts a lot sooner than most, and now I live fairly comfortably and I'm not particularly stressed about finances. And because I'm not in debt, the money I earn is effectively worth more as I'm not bleeding interest payments to the bank.
$850 a year is a LOT of money if you keep rolling it into bonds and you're patient. It might mean helping your kid get through college without crippling debt, or maybe loaning them a down payment on a house.
Less than 700 people in the place. 12:10 male:female ratio. It's small, and there's nowhere else anywhere nearby. It's dark, and cold, and more or less in the middle of a cold ocean. There isn't enough food (at least if you want a modern diet - not sure about living off fish). Median income is ~US60K, but you know the cost of living is going to be nasty.
Why does Point Hope still exist? You'd think there'd be a small military outpost if anything.
I'm in the process of switching back to Android, actually, since I hate the stupid iPhone I have.
I was speaking in the general case. And yes, I'm aware I'll run into the problems I mentioned more frequently (unnecessary permissions aren't exactly unheard of with iPhone apps) once I'm back to Android, but it's worth it to have control of my device.
In short, stick it where the sun don't shine, Apple fanboi.