The likelihood of a rheostat failing in that way is incredibly low. The sensor in the accelerator is of such a design that a fault as such would require action (it wouldn't just *happen* because you shook it a little or whatever), and would consistently occur in the same manner.
Accelerator pedals in drive-by-wire systems are universally wire-wound potentiometers. They work by the physical movement of a connection arm along a linear or circular path, thus reducing the length of electrical travel across a resistive medium. Getting to 100% means traveling a full distance. If it were physically broken in such a way that that could just happen, the pedal wouldn't work at all; if it had a short spot on it, that would trigger on 100% of uses, and only at a certain position.
We're talking about something that literally has never failed in this way in billions of cars worldwide. They're built in a way which doesn't allow that, in the same way they're built in a way such that they don't apply torque and kick back. It's the same object as the volume knob on a guitar amp or old stereo.
It's not even that so much as it is a matter of policy. They used an appeal to authority citing the FBI, along with a well-poisoning attack.
Basically, BuzzFeed doesn't like Trump because Trump's policies are destructive to America; the RNC response is, "Well, Hillary did bad things." Okay? If you had a choice between a candidate who is 100% celibate and seeks to legalize sex with children OR a candidate who has been convicted of raping children 9 times and seeks to strengthen child pornography laws and child protection laws, who would you vote for, assuming it was reasonable to believe both candidates's stances on the face?
This works because most people wouldn't vote for the pederast. People generally don't like to feel they've got their hands dirty, and will avoid taking action X because of its association, and reason they are then not responsible for the consequences. People won't vote for Hillary because she's a Democrat or Bernie because he's a Socialist, even if they agree with these peoples's views; they'll vote for Trump because he's the All American Man, even as they tell you he's smarter than he looks and won't do all that stupid shit (yes, I've had Trump supporters explain Trump won't really put all these policies in place because he'll check with his advisers first and do something sane).
People are basically stupid despite all having the same intellectual facilities as Stephen Hawking.
I've never seen that. Taxi cabs aren't some guy's Toyota with a Taxi sign; they always have custom paint jobs, branding painted right in, and integral electronics (the Taxi sign on top is wired in like police emergency lights, complete with a purpose-built instrument panel).
We're all surprised cases with no chance of winning are taken by lawyers; in this case, the lawyer is acting as an accomplice to an abuse of the courts. Such abuses *do* carry legal penalties, and the judge *can* sanction the lawyer if the lawyer has sufficient responsibility for court conduct. Lawyers can and have been sanctioned for taking ridiculous stances and attempting to manipulate the courts in representation of their clients. Lawyers and plaintiffs have been sanctioned and lawyers have been disbarred for what judges have described as "playing the court system like a lottery". There's a video game character named after a lawyer who successfully defended a lawsuit by pointing out that the plaintiff had been sued for *exactly* what they were suing for now, and took the stance the defense was taking at the time, and won; the judge was not amused, and penalized the plaintiff and their lawyers severely.
My point is users will use a central app like Expedia or Travelocity and find it adequate, and thus not bother with other apps; or they will have no such app and will select a favorite service and not put in effort to cross-check. Effort requires time and the expenditure of energy, both of which humans avoid expending.
In the event of one service (e.g. Uber) having less-than-perfect data, users who find Uber's prices listed in the aggregate as lower than what Uber actually offers will more frequently report this than users who find that Uber's prices are lower. Why?
If Uber is listed higher, users will either ignore it *or* check, find that Uber is lower, and have a least-effort action of hailing Uber and ending. That's the optimum decision; reporting takes effort; and they make the effort to double-check anyway (rather than being told it's cheapest and then finding out it's not), so there's minimal gain by reporting. Just the fact that some subset of these doesn't even look makes reporting less likely; that only the more pedantic subset will bother reporting rather than hailing and continuing with their lives increases that effect.
End result? Uber ends up frequently listed for prices higher than Uber is currently charging. Uber loses business over this.
Consumers have a limited amount of total income to spend. They spend it where they feel they are best served. Providing convenience and a perception of price savings will divert some user behavior from one activity to another. The product that makes money *is* user convenience.
It doesn't work that way in the U.S. Your argument is taxis are a legal entity, and then you're not defining what the taxi does in the framework of U.S. Law.
The only thing that's new is 'because internet, we deny liability....'
Uber carries more insurance on their drivers than taxi companies, largely because "Uber driver causes 6-car pile-up while raping passenger and has no insurance to pay for damages" would be bad publicity, while "Taxi crashes, liability insurance limited to $100,000" is just a random fact of the day.
Taxis drive the company's car, receive company benefits, and are employees of the company. They follow the company's schedule, which the company determines based on predictive analysis of the taxi market, creating fixed shifts for their drivers. Drivers do not elect to come into work when they feel like it and go home when they're tired of working; drivers do not use the taxi for personal business.
You know what I meant. Now you've gone and introduced a whole new level of hell to the "are X employees of Y?" argument. Are McDonalds hamburger flippers employees of McDonalds inc, or are they contractors operating through the contracting agency of each franchise?
A central app reduces the amount of time the user spends on that. Both time and willpower are limited--time by the obvious mechanism, willpower by the consumption of ATP in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (you can't keep making yourself do boring, annoying shit for the same reason you can't keep doing push-ups forever: eventually, the part of your body physically involved in doing that runs out of energy store and has to manufacture new ATP in the mitochondria from glucose; in the case of willpower, it's the part of your brain that overrides base reactions).
If you use a single, predictive application, then it will tend to lag behind when more-expensive but less-cooperative services reduce their prices. That means Uber's higher price of 20 minutes ago hasn't quite trickled down to the app, while Lyft adjusted their prices in 4 seconds and showed up as cheaper. Sucks to be Uber.
Referenced? Sheridan intuits the likely attack plan the Shadows are using and, as justification, claims it's what he'd do. Hilarity ensues because he's surrounded by Minbari religious caste.
Taxi companies hire employees, maintain and inspect cars, and generally monitor operations and handle logistics. They determine how many drivers they need and where to distribute them.
Uber puts out an app that says, "Find someone or find someone trying to find someone." The logistics are handled by the same nebulous concept often referred to as "the free market". Rather than hire people and take on the risk of having employees and making payroll, they let drivers flood the market until being a driver doesn't really pay well; in any case, they take a portion of the driver's proceeds as a finder's fee.
Uber is basically a realtor for drivers: they find a buyer and a seller and put them together. This is somewhat of an arbitrary distinction, in the same way that a Chevrolet factory having "employees" is arbitrary (because employees are selling the service of building a car, right?). We delineate it entirely because Uber is essentially allowing spot bidding for work (a driver sees work and claims it, rather than a company claiming it and assigning employees, or assigning employees to locate and claim work).
My example highlighted that Uber doesn't maintain its own taxi fleet, in the same way an Android app to find a random cookout and buy a burger doesn't maintain its own burger grills. Taxis keep fleets, and McDonalds keeps kitchens.
What would be the difference between McDonalds and a company which connects hamburger-makers with hamburger-eaters by letting any regular joe list himself as making hamburgers that day, so long as a portion of the transaction went to the hamburger app?
Most of the answers here are: use a long, random password; use a mixture of character classes; use a password generator; use unique passwords for everything; keep changing your passwords.
The people bluntly calling out XKCD got it right: a long, simple, memorable password with *lots* of entropy. It's 4 characters long, with a character class size of several thousand. Where you use additional passwords is your own business.
I have passwords from 8 years ago that I've struggled to remember. I had one that I used, once, 2 years back, to log into my HSA because they changed password requirements; I saved it in my browser and didn't think much about it. It took me two tries to remember what it was.
The memory is made up of words, images, intonation, caricature, emotion, everything. The original password was generated by pulling together concepts and images; one of the concepts was emotional, generated an emotional word, and thus generated the sense of a person making an exclamation. I *should* have spent eight seconds solidifying the entire set of data that arose from that little bit of effort, but I just picked something, typed it in, and continued on with my financial analysis; I still remembered it.
If I had just picked a word, or two words, or four words, or a phrase from a book, I would have forgotten it in like 10 seconds. Everybody does that: they grab a couple words, don't visualize them, don't render them vividly, and then forget them. Even for mnemonics world champions, memorizing long streams of text *perfectly* is hard; chunking a single concept works well enough, but you really have to generate a ton of associations to remember it.
He's talking about counter-terrorism. We know there are bad guys out there; suit up and go get them before they get us.
The problem is we don't know how many bad guys there are, who they are, what they want, where they might be, or how they might behave. You can't hunt an infinite enemy into extinction; and an enemy which is your own species is an infinite enemy. Wars haven't ended because we can't extinct bad humans without extincting all humans (and defining "bad" is hard); whereas we can extinct all tigers if tigers keep eating people.
In other words: the problem is environmental. Hackers aren't people; they're part of the world around you. You can't stamp out the hacker faction any more than you can stamp out heat, because there is no faction.
He got it backwards. You need an offensive mindset, alright: you need to become your own worst enemy. Thousands of years ago, people tried to remain pure, banishing evil from their thoughts; a particular general horrified the Chinese emperor by recommending defensive tactics based on what he would do if he were the enemy. This was done during a war the Chinese were losing, badly, and it completely reversed the war. I keep forgetting the details because it's hardly ever relevant (it was, amusingly, referenced in Babylon 5 in exactly one scene); it's relevant here.
You don't build networks on security technologies and practices; you build networks on threat models, on risks, and on potential attacks. You use security technologies and practices where necessary and appropriate, and you invent new ones to cover your unique risks. Everyone wants security to be either a product or a defined process, because tactics and strategy are hard.
Fascinating. If did not call you a clueless idiot before, but I will do so now. The term "one way encryption" is not used for cryto-hashes, and in particular it is not found on the wikipedia-page you link.
I said it was the "first result on Google" because the Wikipedia page calls hashing a one-way function. If you actually googled one-way encryption, you would see such gems as "What is the most secure one-way encryption" and "one-way encryption means hashing".
I also never said crypto hashes were "symmetric". If you were actually able to read, you would have seen that I said that signatures based on hashes are symmetric signatures.
What you actually said was:
And you just demonstrated that you have no clue what you are talking about as you confused symmetric and asymmetric crypto. Here is a hint: Verifying a hash means to verify a shared, known good value, that is known-good by a different mechanism. Verifying a signature means an asymmetric verification, no shared value involved.
Now, how might I confuse symmetric and asymmetric crypto if verifying a signature is asymmetric?
If verifying a signature is asymmetric encryption, and I have confused the two by confusing a hash with a signature, then one must conclude a hash is symmetric encryption; however, a hash is only ever referred to as "one-way encryption", never "symmetric encryption." You made a logical proposition to the contrary.
Further, you proposed that a signature doesn't rely on a shared value. That is patently impossible: some data must be shared to verify that data. In all digital signature algorithms--RSA, DSA, ECC, DH--on all protocols, this is a hash. TLS exchanges keys signed by certificate authorities; modern browsers are rejecting keys signed with old hash algorithms (SHA1) and requiring SHA2, even though the signature still encrypts the has using RSA. Why would it matter, if digital signatures didn't use hashes?
Listen kid, get at least crypto 101 before you try to tussle with somebody on PhD level in the security field. You are so outclassed it is not funny anymore.
Your Ph.D. from 1940 doesn't make you right. Either you weren't paying attention in class or times have changed in the past 80 years. I started studying cryptography in 2003; maybe you should catch up to the modern century.
Tell that to the millions of Americans who either don't have a job, or are under employed... or who are in the process of being "right-sized".
You mean the 5.6% UE4 unemployment, which is less than the 10% we had around 2010? It's below where Bush had it in 2003, and it's below where Obama had it mid-2008.
Those numbers are complete crap. If you believe them, then there is no way for us to have a conversation, because we are coming at this from different angles.
Explain.
You REALLY should watch that... while not everything may come true there, it doesn't all have to.
I've watch HNNA, and it's a scare piece like Michael Moore's work.
Walmart is planning to replace their warehouse workers with drones. Amazon is already doing it. Wendy's is replacing thousands of employees, etc. etc.
Farmers are replacing good, able-bodied Americans with tractors. Factories are replacing good line workers with industrial machines. Welcome to 1920.
You seem to not understand that we enjoy running water, cars, airplanes, in-house heating, and food that we can *buy* for a fraction of our income instead of spending nearly every penny we have *and* having our own half-acre farm because technology eliminated a whole bunch of jobs.
Extrapolating from the past into the future is called "planning", and it can be done horribly wrong. Eating can be done horribly wrong, too, by eating too much, eating poisonous things, or shoving the fork through your eye.
Slashdot Mirror
The likelihood of a rheostat failing in that way is incredibly low. The sensor in the accelerator is of such a design that a fault as such would require action (it wouldn't just *happen* because you shook it a little or whatever), and would consistently occur in the same manner.
Accelerator pedals in drive-by-wire systems are universally wire-wound potentiometers. They work by the physical movement of a connection arm along a linear or circular path, thus reducing the length of electrical travel across a resistive medium. Getting to 100% means traveling a full distance. If it were physically broken in such a way that that could just happen, the pedal wouldn't work at all; if it had a short spot on it, that would trigger on 100% of uses, and only at a certain position.
We're talking about something that literally has never failed in this way in billions of cars worldwide. They're built in a way which doesn't allow that, in the same way they're built in a way such that they don't apply torque and kick back. It's the same object as the volume knob on a guitar amp or old stereo.
Ban him from filing lawsuits under the vexatious litigation precedent.
It's not even that so much as it is a matter of policy. They used an appeal to authority citing the FBI, along with a well-poisoning attack.
Basically, BuzzFeed doesn't like Trump because Trump's policies are destructive to America; the RNC response is, "Well, Hillary did bad things." Okay? If you had a choice between a candidate who is 100% celibate and seeks to legalize sex with children OR a candidate who has been convicted of raping children 9 times and seeks to strengthen child pornography laws and child protection laws, who would you vote for, assuming it was reasonable to believe both candidates's stances on the face?
This works because most people wouldn't vote for the pederast. People generally don't like to feel they've got their hands dirty, and will avoid taking action X because of its association, and reason they are then not responsible for the consequences. People won't vote for Hillary because she's a Democrat or Bernie because he's a Socialist, even if they agree with these peoples's views; they'll vote for Trump because he's the All American Man, even as they tell you he's smarter than he looks and won't do all that stupid shit (yes, I've had Trump supporters explain Trump won't really put all these policies in place because he'll check with his advisers first and do something sane).
People are basically stupid despite all having the same intellectual facilities as Stephen Hawking.
We let employees reduce their salary by 1/52 to purchase an additional 40 hours of vacation.
I've never seen that. Taxi cabs aren't some guy's Toyota with a Taxi sign; they always have custom paint jobs, branding painted right in, and integral electronics (the Taxi sign on top is wired in like police emergency lights, complete with a purpose-built instrument panel).
Look at Arrow Cab, the Yellow Cab Company, Yellow Cab's Prius variant, Union Cab, Nellis Cab Company (selling point: their Prius fleet), National Cab and Town Taxi, and so forth. This is common across Canada, Singapore, and Japan as well, and much of the rest of the world follows suit. Many of these are state or national brands.
I would never have guessed you had to *buy* a car tied to a certain brand of taxi to be a taxi driver. What do you do if you change taxi companies?
We're all surprised cases with no chance of winning are taken by lawyers; in this case, the lawyer is acting as an accomplice to an abuse of the courts. Such abuses *do* carry legal penalties, and the judge *can* sanction the lawyer if the lawyer has sufficient responsibility for court conduct. Lawyers can and have been sanctioned for taking ridiculous stances and attempting to manipulate the courts in representation of their clients. Lawyers and plaintiffs have been sanctioned and lawyers have been disbarred for what judges have described as "playing the court system like a lottery". There's a video game character named after a lawyer who successfully defended a lawsuit by pointing out that the plaintiff had been sued for *exactly* what they were suing for now, and took the stance the defense was taking at the time, and won; the judge was not amused, and penalized the plaintiff and their lawyers severely.
This is more than stupid; it is illegal.
My point is users will use a central app like Expedia or Travelocity and find it adequate, and thus not bother with other apps; or they will have no such app and will select a favorite service and not put in effort to cross-check. Effort requires time and the expenditure of energy, both of which humans avoid expending.
In the event of one service (e.g. Uber) having less-than-perfect data, users who find Uber's prices listed in the aggregate as lower than what Uber actually offers will more frequently report this than users who find that Uber's prices are lower. Why?
If Uber is listed higher, users will either ignore it *or* check, find that Uber is lower, and have a least-effort action of hailing Uber and ending. That's the optimum decision; reporting takes effort; and they make the effort to double-check anyway (rather than being told it's cheapest and then finding out it's not), so there's minimal gain by reporting. Just the fact that some subset of these doesn't even look makes reporting less likely; that only the more pedantic subset will bother reporting rather than hailing and continuing with their lives increases that effect.
End result? Uber ends up frequently listed for prices higher than Uber is currently charging. Uber loses business over this.
Consumers have a limited amount of total income to spend. They spend it where they feel they are best served. Providing convenience and a perception of price savings will divert some user behavior from one activity to another. The product that makes money *is* user convenience.
It doesn't work that way in the U.S. Your argument is taxis are a legal entity, and then you're not defining what the taxi does in the framework of U.S. Law.
The only thing that's new is 'because internet, we deny liability....'
Uber carries more insurance on their drivers than taxi companies, largely because "Uber driver causes 6-car pile-up while raping passenger and has no insurance to pay for damages" would be bad publicity, while "Taxi crashes, liability insurance limited to $100,000" is just a random fact of the day.
Disbar the plaintiff's lawyer.
Umbrella insurance.
Choice (a) is a taxi.
Taxis drive the company's car, receive company benefits, and are employees of the company. They follow the company's schedule, which the company determines based on predictive analysis of the taxi market, creating fixed shifts for their drivers. Drivers do not elect to come into work when they feel like it and go home when they're tired of working; drivers do not use the taxi for personal business.
You know what I meant. Now you've gone and introduced a whole new level of hell to the "are X employees of Y?" argument. Are McDonalds hamburger flippers employees of McDonalds inc, or are they contractors operating through the contracting agency of each franchise?
A central app reduces the amount of time the user spends on that. Both time and willpower are limited--time by the obvious mechanism, willpower by the consumption of ATP in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (you can't keep making yourself do boring, annoying shit for the same reason you can't keep doing push-ups forever: eventually, the part of your body physically involved in doing that runs out of energy store and has to manufacture new ATP in the mitochondria from glucose; in the case of willpower, it's the part of your brain that overrides base reactions).
If you use a single, predictive application, then it will tend to lag behind when more-expensive but less-cooperative services reduce their prices. That means Uber's higher price of 20 minutes ago hasn't quite trickled down to the app, while Lyft adjusted their prices in 4 seconds and showed up as cheaper. Sucks to be Uber.
So, taxis aren't Ubers, just like McDonalds aren't apps to link you up to some dude's backyard cookout.
Referenced? Sheridan intuits the likely attack plan the Shadows are using and, as justification, claims it's what he'd do. Hilarity ensues because he's surrounded by Minbari religious caste.
Taxi companies hire employees, maintain and inspect cars, and generally monitor operations and handle logistics. They determine how many drivers they need and where to distribute them.
Uber puts out an app that says, "Find someone or find someone trying to find someone." The logistics are handled by the same nebulous concept often referred to as "the free market". Rather than hire people and take on the risk of having employees and making payroll, they let drivers flood the market until being a driver doesn't really pay well; in any case, they take a portion of the driver's proceeds as a finder's fee.
Uber is basically a realtor for drivers: they find a buyer and a seller and put them together. This is somewhat of an arbitrary distinction, in the same way that a Chevrolet factory having "employees" is arbitrary (because employees are selling the service of building a car, right?). We delineate it entirely because Uber is essentially allowing spot bidding for work (a driver sees work and claims it, rather than a company claiming it and assigning employees, or assigning employees to locate and claim work).
My example highlighted that Uber doesn't maintain its own taxi fleet, in the same way an Android app to find a random cookout and buy a burger doesn't maintain its own burger grills. Taxis keep fleets, and McDonalds keeps kitchens.
Just use predictive averages based on historical and current prices reported by users.
What would be the difference between McDonalds and a company which connects hamburger-makers with hamburger-eaters by letting any regular joe list himself as making hamburgers that day, so long as a portion of the transaction went to the hamburger app?
The bad advice still keeps rolling in.
Most of the answers here are: use a long, random password; use a mixture of character classes; use a password generator; use unique passwords for everything; keep changing your passwords.
The people bluntly calling out XKCD got it right: a long, simple, memorable password with *lots* of entropy. It's 4 characters long, with a character class size of several thousand. Where you use additional passwords is your own business.
I have passwords from 8 years ago that I've struggled to remember. I had one that I used, once, 2 years back, to log into my HSA because they changed password requirements; I saved it in my browser and didn't think much about it. It took me two tries to remember what it was.
The memory is made up of words, images, intonation, caricature, emotion, everything. The original password was generated by pulling together concepts and images; one of the concepts was emotional, generated an emotional word, and thus generated the sense of a person making an exclamation. I *should* have spent eight seconds solidifying the entire set of data that arose from that little bit of effort, but I just picked something, typed it in, and continued on with my financial analysis; I still remembered it.
If I had just picked a word, or two words, or four words, or a phrase from a book, I would have forgotten it in like 10 seconds. Everybody does that: they grab a couple words, don't visualize them, don't render them vividly, and then forget them. Even for mnemonics world champions, memorizing long streams of text *perfectly* is hard; chunking a single concept works well enough, but you really have to generate a ton of associations to remember it.
He's talking about counter-terrorism. We know there are bad guys out there; suit up and go get them before they get us.
The problem is we don't know how many bad guys there are, who they are, what they want, where they might be, or how they might behave. You can't hunt an infinite enemy into extinction; and an enemy which is your own species is an infinite enemy. Wars haven't ended because we can't extinct bad humans without extincting all humans (and defining "bad" is hard); whereas we can extinct all tigers if tigers keep eating people.
In other words: the problem is environmental. Hackers aren't people; they're part of the world around you. You can't stamp out the hacker faction any more than you can stamp out heat, because there is no faction.
He got it backwards. You need an offensive mindset, alright: you need to become your own worst enemy. Thousands of years ago, people tried to remain pure, banishing evil from their thoughts; a particular general horrified the Chinese emperor by recommending defensive tactics based on what he would do if he were the enemy. This was done during a war the Chinese were losing, badly, and it completely reversed the war. I keep forgetting the details because it's hardly ever relevant (it was, amusingly, referenced in Babylon 5 in exactly one scene); it's relevant here.
You don't build networks on security technologies and practices; you build networks on threat models, on risks, and on potential attacks. You use security technologies and practices where necessary and appropriate, and you invent new ones to cover your unique risks. Everyone wants security to be either a product or a defined process, because tactics and strategy are hard.
It's more that I disagree with them in the same way you might disagree that drinking juiced hemlock and belladonna would be good for your health.
Fascinating. If did not call you a clueless idiot before, but I will do so now. The term "one way encryption" is not used for cryto-hashes, and in particular it is not found on the wikipedia-page you link.
I said it was the "first result on Google" because the Wikipedia page calls hashing a one-way function. If you actually googled one-way encryption, you would see such gems as "What is the most secure one-way encryption" and "one-way encryption means hashing".
I also never said crypto hashes were "symmetric". If you were actually able to read, you would have seen that I said that signatures based on hashes are symmetric signatures.
What you actually said was:
And you just demonstrated that you have no clue what you are talking about as you confused symmetric and asymmetric crypto. Here is a hint: Verifying a hash means to verify a shared, known good value, that is known-good by a different mechanism. Verifying a signature means an asymmetric verification, no shared value involved.
Now, how might I confuse symmetric and asymmetric crypto if verifying a signature is asymmetric?
If verifying a signature is asymmetric encryption, and I have confused the two by confusing a hash with a signature, then one must conclude a hash is symmetric encryption; however, a hash is only ever referred to as "one-way encryption", never "symmetric encryption." You made a logical proposition to the contrary.
Further, you proposed that a signature doesn't rely on a shared value. That is patently impossible: some data must be shared to verify that data. In all digital signature algorithms--RSA, DSA, ECC, DH--on all protocols, this is a hash. TLS exchanges keys signed by certificate authorities; modern browsers are rejecting keys signed with old hash algorithms (SHA1) and requiring SHA2, even though the signature still encrypts the has using RSA. Why would it matter, if digital signatures didn't use hashes?
Listen kid, get at least crypto 101 before you try to tussle with somebody on PhD level in the security field. You are so outclassed it is not funny anymore.
Your Ph.D. from 1940 doesn't make you right. Either you weren't paying attention in class or times have changed in the past 80 years. I started studying cryptography in 2003; maybe you should catch up to the modern century.
Tell that to the millions of Americans who either don't have a job, or are under employed... or who are in the process of being "right-sized".
You mean the 5.6% UE4 unemployment, which is less than the 10% we had around 2010? It's below where Bush had it in 2003, and it's below where Obama had it mid-2008.
Those numbers are complete crap. If you believe them, then there is no way for us to have a conversation, because we are coming at this from different angles.
Explain.
You REALLY should watch that... while not everything may come true there, it doesn't all have to.
I've watch HNNA, and it's a scare piece like Michael Moore's work.
Walmart is planning to replace their warehouse workers with drones. Amazon is already doing it. Wendy's is replacing thousands of employees, etc. etc.
Farmers are replacing good, able-bodied Americans with tractors. Factories are replacing good line workers with industrial machines. Welcome to 1920.
You seem to not understand that we enjoy running water, cars, airplanes, in-house heating, and food that we can *buy* for a fraction of our income instead of spending nearly every penny we have *and* having our own half-acre farm because technology eliminated a whole bunch of jobs.
Extrapolating from the past into the future is called "planning", and it can be done horribly wrong. Eating can be done horribly wrong, too, by eating too much, eating poisonous things, or shoving the fork through your eye.