The "good" part is very subjective....And yeah, sometimes (often, actually) the journey leads to something I hadn't heard of from the 60s or 70s - but just as often I end up at something pretty modern. I don't know what types of music you like, but for my decidedly rock-centered preferences, I'm like a kid in a candy store.
I prefer post-modern, new wave, alternative, alternative rock, or whatever today's moniker of what essentially is a mostly non-mainstream line of music that caters more to musicality than whatever the teen masses deem good today. You can couple that with real country (not the rock/pop rip-off of today's "country" - but that genre is pretty much dead) old school rap (also dead) and definitely various flavors of hard rock and and even some metal and perhaps a couple of pop songs, and you have my mix. Perhaps I listened to a lot of music in the past (I know I did and I own a rather large collection) but most of what I've seen even in the comments and related bands almost never leads to anything new. I do have a couple of independent radio stations around which play new and eclectic music which generally leads to new bands before the mainstream gets a hold of them, so that's where most of my "new" exposure comes from. And the numbers are depressingly low for the genres I like, although there seems to be no shortage of what I consider talentless acts that will likely be completely forgotten and never heard again within 5 years except by their 4 remaining hard-core fans.
In short, I don't think Google can put up a walled garden, no matter what they try. They're a browser based service, and as such will always be subject to the disconnected nature of browsers.
I still find it difficult to find new quality music. Pandora essentially plays stuff I already own no matter what I drop into the seed, even something from the last year or two. YouTube, after a quick review, references things I can hear on any of the commercial radio stations. Nothing new there either. Maybe it's true, less good music is being made today. Good is subjective, obviously, but if you cut out all the Sheeran/Mendez/Katy Perry pop crap and a whole bunch of wanna be sorta rap thugs, there's really very little I call quality music.
Except the trophies, achievements or whatever you choose to call it aren't meaningless to the individual player. In many cases there may be a quick association to the moment of getting especially the rarer and harder achievements, which is no different than looking through a photo album. Would you call photo albums meaningless? To the person involved with the photos, I mean, not the world at large.
I guess this is where I part ways with the current games. I could care less about "trophies" or "achievements". I play games for fun and interest. I also suppose this is why my last triple A game purchase was created more than a decade ago, instead going with smaller shops and indie offerings. I don't care to grind through endlessly repetitive actions for a "trophy" that claims I did 'x' 1000[0[0]]+ times in bronze/silver/gold no less, because the color on screen makes it worth more!!!!
The study actually assumed being able to control all age related wear and tear diseases. To answer the AC, it also assumes implicitly that 2 factors increase the risk taking behavior, that boredom coupled with youthful energy drives activity and that the mix of youthful hormones and enzymes affect brain activity. IOW, you don't ever see 40, you'll think, feel, and act like a mid-20s person.
Anyone who asserts they are or aren't [constant] without experimental data to back up their position is equally bad
There is no data to prove a constant, only a preponderance of evidence. However, we have no data disproving the constant, and it only requires 1 repeatable test, so the one saying they aren't constants need to come up with some proof.
TL;DR the naysayers in this case are the ones that need to step up.
The problem is having faith in the result before the experiment is done. There's been argument over the years about if physical constants are constant and if physical laws have been consistent over time. Anyone who asserts they are or aren't without experimental data to back up their position is equally bad, and not actually using the scientific method or in any way practicing science.
So far as I'm aware, those physical constants have held up to all experimental evidence we have today. So accepting them as constants is reasonable for all other work. Until someone provides repeatable proof that they're not constant, this will not change. Kind of like the expansion of the universe and the fact that space itself is expanding. That one blew a lot of assumptions out of the water. So it's not that science is wrong, it's that people who assume that alternate facts can explain something with no basis is equally valid to experimentally derived theories that are delusional.
allergies and type 1 diabetes are defects in the immune system. With some severe enough to be bred out of the species quite quickly in general, or at least continue to be a relatively minor issue.
The last study I saw on this made the assumptions that the life age of the body would be set between 23 and 28. Based on the activities people do at that life age, the average expected lifespan was 220 IIRC. That was based on people having the energy and lifestyles that would make them more active and more likely to engage in activities and stupidities that would end in disaster, just to keep the interest in living higher.
On the top side, something like 1% of the population would make it to 1000, so the old geezer concept would definitely still apply but would possibly be more rare.
Granted, there's a lot of assumptions in that study, but given that the whole thing is hypothetical it's as good a set as any other.
An estate tax doesn't affect the obscenely rich, and never has. Look at Trump, et al. There's many ways around estate taxes for those with significant wealth. In fact, estate taxes are such a non-issue that they probably should be converted into other sorts of taxes that would affect these alternate wealth transfer options.
As for the current system, it's been co-opted by the rich and corporations to offload their fair share as much as possible onto others. It was never about keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. Recall that the income tax originally started as a tax on the top 10% of income earners. Had the rewrites of tax law all been indexed to CPI, roughly 75% of us would never pay income tax.
I can't argue against Rockefeller, but Gates definitely was all about bandaiding issues and funneling more money into his personal slush fund, err, Gates Foundation. Recall the laser mosquito elimination system? There's quite a few things they could do differently that would significantly help the targeted populations instead of keeping them at status quo, at best.
You've got this wrong. The corporate PBX can be setup to route a set of numbers to the callcenter's PBX, and everything is handled between the two companies. It does require work on the companies part to coordinate, but no "spoofing" required, as it's all internal. It also requires a level of trust, since the callcenter is now legally capable of calling on the company's behalf. Something tells me that potential alternate call center revenue flows would be affected.
At the national level, the Republicans have eliminated their seniority system, so young(er) people with new ideas are put in positions of responsibility and visibility.
Yep, those young whippersnappers like Grassley, McConnell, Hatch or even Collins or Murkowski just make Booker, Heitkamp, and O'Rourke look ancient. Meanwhile the over hill crowd like Flake are leaving.
You assume the SS tit will be there for GenX (and later). I call bullshit. That's going to be all kinds of fun.
SS will continue to provide benefits, just not as much for Gen X, and maybe even less the longer Republicans hold onto office. I don't know about you, but I've been socking away cash since my first day of FT employment. Precisely because I don't want to count on SS for retirement.
I've driven up there. The biggest problem IMNSHO is the fact that there was unregulated and unplanned growth coupled with no new road building and one of the worst layouts of a suburban oriented city road system on the planet. How many north/south or east/west thoroughfares are there? A fraction of any similar metropolitan area. NYC at least has a grid system in place. Boston is reasonably compact and more grid-oriented as well. LA, well, there's enough roads to get to where you're going, it's just that there's too many cars on the road with non-drivers in control, kind of. Houston - if you could only find a street that wasn't half blocked for construction. Those are some of the worst US traffic cities I've driven through.
My problem with these isn't even the 'being tracked' issue, it's that the Government (state or federal) was not meant to be a revenue generation machine. Unfortunately, governments use these tools not for safety, as they claim--especially in the instances of speed/red light/LPRs, but for revenue generation. They send automated civil fines for speed/light violations (potentially taken entirely out of context with no recourse)
I agree they're not supposed to be revenue generation machines. However, I disagree on the red light cameras. They most certainly are a safety issue, and a way to confirm the lights meet the specifications for the speed limits on the road. Note that most states have a timing requirement on lights, and usually that includes the ability of an 80 ton truck to safely stop once the light changes. So by no means should a red light camera ever catch a car running a red light other than when someone does it intentionally. Just get T-boned 1 time by some numb-nut that thinks red lights shouldn't apply to them, and you'll change your tune on those cameras.
This is by no means a true assertion. There are plenty of roads where the speed limits are artificially low for no known reason, other than perhaps revenue generation.
Google's a search engine, not a source. Reading comprehension and logical thought are required to parse the smorgasbord of potential results to ferret out true sources and then correlate the appropriate data to support your point. You failed.
I'm just pointing out that your assertions above don't match up with what you claimed from the article. This is correct as you admitted in a response, they come from a different source.
I went back and explicitly checked for the things you claimed above. You're incorrect on your initial assertions, that the levels were lower than Americans were exposed to prior to 1995 (the last year that levels were higher than 1.5 micrograms on average was 1990) and that the general air quality has been at or near the new level since 2010. It should also be noted that the article also states that the smelter was the primary source of lead for 1 of 2 areas in the US that failed to meet the 1.5 micrograms limit. That's not surprising since the soil in a relatively large area around the plant is so polluted with lead that it is a superfund site and that repeated removal and replacement of soil has been done in an attempt to clean up at least 700 residences. And failed.
Regarding your second claim, that it was lower than what everyone was exposed to prior to 1995, where are your exposure numbers? The only thing I could find was that previously referenced generic chart going back to 1980 that does not list the meager 6 locations tested, and some references to a 1965 study that showed that modern air levels of lead were 100s of times higher than those from before the industrial revolution.
Your follow up misses the actual date of the lead banning legislation as 1978, although you do get the 1990 extension through 1995 correct. It should also be noted that lead toxicity in children did drop 80% from 1980 as compared to 1999. That can mostly be attributed to the banning of leaded gas.
This has nothing to do with being confrontational unless your ego is so fragile that you take any correction of your now obviously incorrect statements as an affront instead of educational opportunity. You're being more than a little disingenuous with your liberal heaping of backdoor confrontation yourself: "grandstanding", "poor behavior", and other derogatory allusions to character, intelligence, etc.
So nothing in the article supports your statement. Glad that's clear now. Given that leaded gasoline was less than 0.6% of all gas sold in the US in 1995 accounting for 2000 short tons of lead, where exactly are you getting your exposed numbers from? Especially given that the soil itself around the plant is so contaminated that it is a superfund site?
Slashdot Mirror
The "good" part is very subjective....And yeah, sometimes (often, actually) the journey leads to something I hadn't heard of from the 60s or 70s - but just as often I end up at something pretty modern. I don't know what types of music you like, but for my decidedly rock-centered preferences, I'm like a kid in a candy store.
I prefer post-modern, new wave, alternative, alternative rock, or whatever today's moniker of what essentially is a mostly non-mainstream line of music that caters more to musicality than whatever the teen masses deem good today. You can couple that with real country (not the rock/pop rip-off of today's "country" - but that genre is pretty much dead) old school rap (also dead) and definitely various flavors of hard rock and and even some metal and perhaps a couple of pop songs, and you have my mix. Perhaps I listened to a lot of music in the past (I know I did and I own a rather large collection) but most of what I've seen even in the comments and related bands almost never leads to anything new. I do have a couple of independent radio stations around which play new and eclectic music which generally leads to new bands before the mainstream gets a hold of them, so that's where most of my "new" exposure comes from. And the numbers are depressingly low for the genres I like, although there seems to be no shortage of what I consider talentless acts that will likely be completely forgotten and never heard again within 5 years except by their 4 remaining hard-core fans.
In short, I don't think Google can put up a walled garden, no matter what they try. They're a browser based service, and as such will always be subject to the disconnected nature of browsers.
I still find it difficult to find new quality music. Pandora essentially plays stuff I already own no matter what I drop into the seed, even something from the last year or two. YouTube, after a quick review, references things I can hear on any of the commercial radio stations. Nothing new there either. Maybe it's true, less good music is being made today. Good is subjective, obviously, but if you cut out all the Sheeran/Mendez/Katy Perry pop crap and a whole bunch of wanna be sorta rap thugs, there's really very little I call quality music.
Except the trophies, achievements or whatever you choose to call it aren't meaningless to the individual player. In many cases there may be a quick association to the moment of getting especially the rarer and harder achievements, which is no different than looking through a photo album. Would you call photo albums meaningless? To the person involved with the photos, I mean, not the world at large.
I guess this is where I part ways with the current games. I could care less about "trophies" or "achievements". I play games for fun and interest. I also suppose this is why my last triple A game purchase was created more than a decade ago, instead going with smaller shops and indie offerings. I don't care to grind through endlessly repetitive actions for a "trophy" that claims I did 'x' 1000[0[0]]+ times in bronze/silver/gold no less, because the color on screen makes it worth more!!!!
I have no evidence of this but... if you were writing those stories, why wouldn't you?
Jail?
The study actually assumed being able to control all age related wear and tear diseases. To answer the AC, it also assumes implicitly that 2 factors increase the risk taking behavior, that boredom coupled with youthful energy drives activity and that the mix of youthful hormones and enzymes affect brain activity. IOW, you don't ever see 40, you'll think, feel, and act like a mid-20s person.
Anyone who asserts they are or aren't [constant] without experimental data to back up their position is equally bad
There is no data to prove a constant, only a preponderance of evidence. However, we have no data disproving the constant, and it only requires 1 repeatable test, so the one saying they aren't constants need to come up with some proof.
TL;DR the naysayers in this case are the ones that need to step up.
The problem is having faith in the result before the experiment is done. There's been argument over the years about if physical constants are constant and if physical laws have been consistent over time. Anyone who asserts they are or aren't without experimental data to back up their position is equally bad, and not actually using the scientific method or in any way practicing science.
So far as I'm aware, those physical constants have held up to all experimental evidence we have today. So accepting them as constants is reasonable for all other work. Until someone provides repeatable proof that they're not constant, this will not change. Kind of like the expansion of the universe and the fact that space itself is expanding. That one blew a lot of assumptions out of the water. So it's not that science is wrong, it's that people who assume that alternate facts can explain something with no basis is equally valid to experimentally derived theories that are delusional.
allergies and type 1 diabetes are defects in the immune system. With some severe enough to be bred out of the species quite quickly in general, or at least continue to be a relatively minor issue.
The last study I saw on this made the assumptions that the life age of the body would be set between 23 and 28. Based on the activities people do at that life age, the average expected lifespan was 220 IIRC. That was based on people having the energy and lifestyles that would make them more active and more likely to engage in activities and stupidities that would end in disaster, just to keep the interest in living higher.
On the top side, something like 1% of the population would make it to 1000, so the old geezer concept would definitely still apply but would possibly be more rare.
Granted, there's a lot of assumptions in that study, but given that the whole thing is hypothetical it's as good a set as any other.
An estate tax doesn't affect the obscenely rich, and never has. Look at Trump, et al. There's many ways around estate taxes for those with significant wealth. In fact, estate taxes are such a non-issue that they probably should be converted into other sorts of taxes that would affect these alternate wealth transfer options.
As for the current system, it's been co-opted by the rich and corporations to offload their fair share as much as possible onto others. It was never about keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. Recall that the income tax originally started as a tax on the top 10% of income earners. Had the rewrites of tax law all been indexed to CPI, roughly 75% of us would never pay income tax.
I can't argue against Rockefeller, but Gates definitely was all about bandaiding issues and funneling more money into his personal slush fund, err, Gates Foundation. Recall the laser mosquito elimination system? There's quite a few things they could do differently that would significantly help the targeted populations instead of keeping them at status quo, at best.
You've got this wrong. The corporate PBX can be setup to route a set of numbers to the callcenter's PBX, and everything is handled between the two companies. It does require work on the companies part to coordinate, but no "spoofing" required, as it's all internal. It also requires a level of trust, since the callcenter is now legally capable of calling on the company's behalf. Something tells me that potential alternate call center revenue flows would be affected.
At the national level, the Republicans have eliminated their seniority system, so young(er) people with new ideas are put in positions of responsibility and visibility.
Yep, those young whippersnappers like Grassley, McConnell, Hatch or even Collins or Murkowski just make Booker, Heitkamp, and O'Rourke look ancient. Meanwhile the over hill crowd like Flake are leaving.
Everybody gets smarter as they get older.
Only through their 20s...
The boomers were the god damn hippies once.
mostly in their early 20s, they grew out of it by mid 20s, or they're the ones we're still seeing wandering around.
You assume the SS tit will be there for GenX (and later). I call bullshit. That's going to be all kinds of fun.
SS will continue to provide benefits, just not as much for Gen X, and maybe even less the longer Republicans hold onto office. I don't know about you, but I've been socking away cash since my first day of FT employment. Precisely because I don't want to count on SS for retirement.
I've driven up there. The biggest problem IMNSHO is the fact that there was unregulated and unplanned growth coupled with no new road building and one of the worst layouts of a suburban oriented city road system on the planet. How many north/south or east/west thoroughfares are there? A fraction of any similar metropolitan area. NYC at least has a grid system in place. Boston is reasonably compact and more grid-oriented as well. LA, well, there's enough roads to get to where you're going, it's just that there's too many cars on the road with non-drivers in control, kind of. Houston - if you could only find a street that wasn't half blocked for construction. Those are some of the worst US traffic cities I've driven through.
You are not alone. Maybe I should try to login sometime? I have no idea what any of the credentials were though, and the data was all false anyways.
I'm pretty sure I can create an account per minute, so this might be more profitable than flipping burgers!
My problem with these isn't even the 'being tracked' issue, it's that the Government (state or federal) was not meant to be a revenue generation machine. Unfortunately, governments use these tools not for safety, as they claim--especially in the instances of speed/red light/LPRs, but for revenue generation. They send automated civil fines for speed/light violations (potentially taken entirely out of context with no recourse)
I agree they're not supposed to be revenue generation machines. However, I disagree on the red light cameras. They most certainly are a safety issue, and a way to confirm the lights meet the specifications for the speed limits on the road. Note that most states have a timing requirement on lights, and usually that includes the ability of an 80 ton truck to safely stop once the light changes. So by no means should a red light camera ever catch a car running a red light other than when someone does it intentionally. Just get T-boned 1 time by some numb-nut that thinks red lights shouldn't apply to them, and you'll change your tune on those cameras.
B. Speeding is dangerous and fucking stupid.
This is by no means a true assertion. There are plenty of roads where the speed limits are artificially low for no known reason, other than perhaps revenue generation.
Remember folks: if the traffic lights are sycn'd for 40, they're also sync'd for 80....
Too bad the speed limit's 30.
Google's a search engine, not a source. Reading comprehension and logical thought are required to parse the smorgasbord of potential results to ferret out true sources and then correlate the appropriate data to support your point. You failed.
I'm just pointing out that your assertions above don't match up with what you claimed from the article. This is correct as you admitted in a response, they come from a different source.
I went back and explicitly checked for the things you claimed above. You're incorrect on your initial assertions, that the levels were lower than Americans were exposed to prior to 1995 (the last year that levels were higher than 1.5 micrograms on average was 1990) and that the general air quality has been at or near the new level since 2010. It should also be noted that the article also states that the smelter was the primary source of lead for 1 of 2 areas in the US that failed to meet the 1.5 micrograms limit. That's not surprising since the soil in a relatively large area around the plant is so polluted with lead that it is a superfund site and that repeated removal and replacement of soil has been done in an attempt to clean up at least 700 residences. And failed.
Regarding your second claim, that it was lower than what everyone was exposed to prior to 1995, where are your exposure numbers? The only thing I could find was that previously referenced generic chart going back to 1980 that does not list the meager 6 locations tested, and some references to a 1965 study that showed that modern air levels of lead were 100s of times higher than those from before the industrial revolution.
Your follow up misses the actual date of the lead banning legislation as 1978, although you do get the 1990 extension through 1995 correct. It should also be noted that lead toxicity in children did drop 80% from 1980 as compared to 1999. That can mostly be attributed to the banning of leaded gas.
This has nothing to do with being confrontational unless your ego is so fragile that you take any correction of your now obviously incorrect statements as an affront instead of educational opportunity. You're being more than a little disingenuous with your liberal heaping of backdoor confrontation yourself: "grandstanding", "poor behavior", and other derogatory allusions to character, intelligence, etc.
Wait, you're trolling, aren't you?
So nothing in the article supports your statement. Glad that's clear now. Given that leaded gasoline was less than 0.6% of all gas sold in the US in 1995 accounting for 2000 short tons of lead, where exactly are you getting your exposed numbers from? Especially given that the soil itself around the plant is so contaminated that it is a superfund site?