Short term subsidies like this are what helps manufacturers to ramp up mass production to that end.
Subsidies are an extremely inefficient way of accomplishing that. Car companies only spend about 5% of revenue on R&D, so 95% of the subsidy is going elsewhere. It would be far more efficient to just directly fund the necessary R&D.
Uhh there was one busted in Australia not too long ago who was raping, torturing, and murdering kids on a private darknet PPV.
Peter Scully. He is accused of murdering one girl, but he didn't film it. The things he did film were horrific, but did not include any killings. So no "snuff film".
1. DNA collected without the parent's presence will be tossed out as evidence, so what's the big deal?
You could use this same argument to justify any invasion of privacy by the police. They install a secret camera in your living room? Since it isn't admissible as evidence, "what's the big deal?"
Even then, it won't be a match.
You are missing the point. DNA results don't come back as "match" or "no match". They also come back as "related". If 50% of comparison points match, there is a good likelihood that they have found a parent, child, or sibling of the perp. They can then correlate that with other evidence (maybe the victim was the estranged girlfriend of the match's brother), and get a warrant to collect the suspect's DNA. You can't avoid being swept up in this by just refusing to give your own DNA.
Or letting one more child be raped and murder equals what the fuck exactly?
There are many myths about "snuff films" that record actual murders, but none have ever been verified. In the most famous case Ruggero Deodato was prosecuted for murder, but was acquitted when the actors and actresses that he had allegedly murdered showed up to testify in his defense. It is hard to imagine how some scenes in his films could have been made without killing someone, but they obviously were, since the people "killed" were still alive and healthy.
In some restaurants I see customer scrolling from page to page to find the thing that they want
The UIs will improve. But customers will also get better at using the kiosks. At first, many people had problems accepting and dealing with bank ATMs. Even today, some people have problems with self-checkout at grocery stores, even though the UIs have improved.
There were even problems getting people to accept "department stores" where you could actually WALK INTO THE STORE and pick your items off a shelf, rather than handing your list to a clerk at the front counter, and then waiting while your items were retrieved.
I tend to side with the police because at least they're out their putting their lives at risk to protect the public
Except that the police are not "putting their lives at risk". Policing is not a particularly dangerous profession. Farmers, truck drivers, and even garbagemen, are more likely to die on the job. The most common reason that police die is suicide. The second most common reason is traffic accidents.
Real life policing is very different from what is depicted in the movies. For instance, over a 30 year career, this is the median number of times that a police officer fires his weapon in the line of duty: 0.
everyone stupid enough not to say "get a warrant."
1. They are collecting DNA from children, without parental consent. How many children know enough to say "get a warrant"? 2. They don't have to have YOUR data to arrest you. They can get a sibling/parent/child match and use that to identify you as a suspect.
If the local police are incompetent at maintaining a database, and/or analysing DNA, then this is more dangerous. Innocent people will be charged and convicted based on bogus data, faulty evidence, or unwarranted "scientific certainty" that they did it.
we have seen a number of top businesses start to hoard cash - the best example of which would be Apple, which is sitting on over $200 Billion.
When a normal person uses the word "cash" they are referring to actual currency, such as coins and paper bills. That is NOT what Apple and other corporations are accumulating. Their "cash" is actually bonds... which are an investment. So the problem is not that they are "hoarding cash", but that they are investing outside America (because of our idiotic tax laws).
We can hope that automation starts to open up new markets like technological advances of the past did, but we should prepare for the possibility that it won't.
That may be a problem in the future, but it not a problem today. We have a mostly full-employment economy. Although people replaced by kiosks may need to move and/or retrain, there are plenty of jobs available.
there is plenty of neglected infrastructure that we as a country could start training and paying people to repair.
Anything would be better than working as a "wetware-kiosk" that adds no value.
27% of microsoft users don't know how to install a program.
Yes, it is true that people that use their system's default browser tend to be dumb. These people are statistically poorly performing employees, and some companies avoid hiring them. So even if you use MSIE or Edge as your browser, you should use something else when submitting your resume.
Can you provide an actual statistical analysis of your conclusion
Are you serious? Do you also need "statistical analysis" that the earth isn't flat? Look at any measure of economic freedom, such as the Ease of Doing Business Index, which measures the burden of government regulation and corruption. The top ten are: New Zealand, Singapore, Denmark, Hong Kong, South Korea, Norway, United Kingdom, United States, and Sweden. These are all prosperous countries. The bottom ten are: Haiti, Angola, Afghanistan, Congo, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Venezuela, Libya, Eritrea, and Somalia. These countries are, economically and politically, the worst of the worst.
If you look at measures of social tolerance, and rule of law, such as the Human Freedom Index, you see the same pattern. Free countries are prosperous. Repressive countries are dirt poor.
Clearly we need regulation for things that have no market solution, such as pollution and enforcing contracts, but if you build a system where the government is "picking winners", handing out subsidies and tax breaks, controlling prices, and building "national champions", then you are going to end up with a corrupt and inefficient system.
I'd say just automate the whole thing and get rid of people altogether, but then they'd just be on welfare.
This is the Lump of Labor Fallacy. There is not a fixed number of jobs in the economy, and eliminating a particular job does not mean "one less job". These kiosks lower costs, and those costs will go to the customers (as lower prices) or the owners (as higher profits). Either way, someone will have more money in their pocket, and will spend that money on other goods, services or investments, generating jobs elsewhere in the economy.
Dead end make-work jobs are not "good for the economy", and the point of work is to create goods and services, not to "keep people busy".
at McDonald's if I have to punch buttons on a Kiosk to get my food I'll just go home and have a Marie Callender's TV dinner.
Not me. I want to have social engagement with my friends and family, not some pimple faced cashier at McDonalds. The kiosk is faster, more accurate, and saves money. I also use the ATM at the bank, and the self-checkout at the grocery store. I hate having some cashier pawing over my stuff and making snide comments like "Extra small condoms, huh... and a twelve pack, so that should last you, what, six months!" Grrr.
why they don't just push the electricity down the line they are using anyway to transmit the power to a point where they DO have a hill
Because then you need transmission lines that can handle peak loads, rather than average loads, and you also suffer transmission losses (in both directions if the demand is near the coast, as is likely in many areas).
and build it on land where it's much cheaper to build and easier to maintain
Possibly because it is NOT cheaper. Why do you presume that building a concrete sphere is more expensive than building a concrete dam? Besides, good dam sites are either already being used, or are not used for environmental reasons (such as migrating fish). We have plenty of ocean.
I would suggest formal Licensure for Cybersecurity professionals
Licenses mean compliance with a bureaucratic checklist, which is very different from actual competence. In a fast evolving field like computer security, the checklist will lag actual best practices by about a decade. Most existing formal computer certifications are widely considered to be negatively correlated with competence, so the track record is not good.
It's well known that exposure to UV increases the risk of skin cancer. Is that heating or ionization?
UV light causes ionization. Furthermore, there is ACTUAL EVIDENCE that UV light causes cancer. Skin cancer is highly correlated with UV exposure. Americans are more likely to get skin cancer on their left arm. Australians tend to get it on their right arm. The only plausible explanation for that is that Americans drive on the right, and Aussies on the left, exposing different arms to the sun.
If cellphones cause cancer, there would be similar disparities in brain cancer incidence depending on whether the cellphone is held to your right ear or left ear. Researchers have looked for this, and found no significant difference in cancer rates between "listening side" and "non-listening side". There is also no evidence that heavy cell users have higher rates of brain cancer.
Is it possible that that we have missed something? Sure, but maybe we also missed Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.
Is it impossible that you are wrong, and that heat and ionization are not the only way that a brain could be affected?
Nothing is completely impossible, but this issue has been studied to death. Billions of people use cellphones. If there was an issue it would have shown up in epidemiological data long ago.
Doing yet more research is nearly pointless. It would be far better to focus resources on other health issues that are supported by actual evidence rather than pseudoscience.
The concerns are not valid. There are two ways you can determine this for yourself: The finger method, or the brain method.
Finger method: Type some search terms into a browser and try to find peer reviewed research that shows cellphone radiation is dangerous. You won't find any. You will, however, find plenty of ranting by crackpots.
Brain method: Think about what radiation is, and how it could damage a brain. There are two ways that could happen: heat and ionization. Cellphone radiation produces a negligible amount of the first, and none of the second.
In the absence of either evidence or plausible mechanism, it is safe to presume cellphone radiation harmless. You should find something else to worry about.
They won't pay for quality that doesn't matter. Twenty years ago I had a $1000 HP printer that was built like a tank. Today I have a $50 HP printer made out of flimsy plastic. But it prints better than the old one. It is faster, quieter, and has way better resolution. It also has a built in scanner.
Actually, the damage is not caused by expansion, but by crystallization. So you need to add something that creates an amorphous solid ice when mixed with water, or at least far smaller ice crystals.
Unlikely. This is another one of those amazing "breakthroughs" we see every week that goes nowhere.
Except that over the last decade we have seen dramatic battery improvements in cost, capacity, reliability, and charging speed, as a result of the very breakthroughs that you are denigrating.
Slashdot Mirror
Short term subsidies like this are what helps manufacturers to ramp up mass production to that end.
Subsidies are an extremely inefficient way of accomplishing that. Car companies only spend about 5% of revenue on R&D, so 95% of the subsidy is going elsewhere. It would be far more efficient to just directly fund the necessary R&D.
Uhh there was one busted in Australia not too long ago who was raping, torturing, and murdering kids on a private darknet PPV.
Peter Scully. He is accused of murdering one girl, but he didn't film it. The things he did film were horrific, but did not include any killings. So no "snuff film".
1. DNA collected without the parent's presence will be tossed out as evidence, so what's the big deal?
You could use this same argument to justify any invasion of privacy by the police. They install a secret camera in your living room? Since it isn't admissible as evidence, "what's the big deal?"
Even then, it won't be a match.
You are missing the point. DNA results don't come back as "match" or "no match". They also come back as "related". If 50% of comparison points match, there is a good likelihood that they have found a parent, child, or sibling of the perp. They can then correlate that with other evidence (maybe the victim was the estranged girlfriend of the match's brother), and get a warrant to collect the suspect's DNA. You can't avoid being swept up in this by just refusing to give your own DNA.
Or letting one more child be raped and murder equals what the fuck exactly?
There are many myths about "snuff films" that record actual murders, but none have ever been verified. In the most famous case Ruggero Deodato was prosecuted for murder, but was acquitted when the actors and actresses that he had allegedly murdered showed up to testify in his defense. It is hard to imagine how some scenes in his films could have been made without killing someone, but they obviously were, since the people "killed" were still alive and healthy.
using an exploit that the FBI knew about but didn't tell the banks?
How many banks rely on Tor?
In some restaurants I see customer scrolling from page to page to find the thing that they want
The UIs will improve. But customers will also get better at using the kiosks. At first, many people had problems accepting and dealing with bank ATMs. Even today, some people have problems with self-checkout at grocery stores, even though the UIs have improved.
There were even problems getting people to accept "department stores" where you could actually WALK INTO THE STORE and pick your items off a shelf, rather than handing your list to a clerk at the front counter, and then waiting while your items were retrieved.
I tend to side with the police because at least they're out their putting their lives at risk to protect the public
Except that the police are not "putting their lives at risk". Policing is not a particularly dangerous profession. Farmers, truck drivers, and even garbagemen, are more likely to die on the job. The most common reason that police die is suicide. The second most common reason is traffic accidents.
Real life policing is very different from what is depicted in the movies. For instance, over a 30 year career, this is the median number of times that a police officer fires his weapon in the line of duty: 0.
everyone stupid enough not to say "get a warrant."
1. They are collecting DNA from children, without parental consent. How many children know enough to say "get a warrant"?
2. They don't have to have YOUR data to arrest you. They can get a sibling/parent/child match and use that to identify you as a suspect.
If the local police are incompetent at maintaining a database, and/or analysing DNA, then this is more dangerous. Innocent people will be charged and convicted based on bogus data, faulty evidence, or unwarranted "scientific certainty" that they did it.
we have seen a number of top businesses start to hoard cash - the best example of which would be Apple, which is sitting on over $200 Billion.
When a normal person uses the word "cash" they are referring to actual currency, such as coins and paper bills. That is NOT what Apple and other corporations are accumulating. Their "cash" is actually bonds ... which are an investment. So the problem is not that they are "hoarding cash", but that they are investing outside America (because of our idiotic tax laws).
We can hope that automation starts to open up new markets like technological advances of the past did, but we should prepare for the possibility that it won't.
That may be a problem in the future, but it not a problem today. We have a mostly full-employment economy. Although people replaced by kiosks may need to move and/or retrain, there are plenty of jobs available.
there is plenty of neglected infrastructure that we as a country could start training and paying people to repair.
Anything would be better than working as a "wetware-kiosk" that adds no value.
27% of microsoft users don't know how to install a program.
Yes, it is true that people that use their system's default browser tend to be dumb. These people are statistically poorly performing employees, and some companies avoid hiring them. So even if you use MSIE or Edge as your browser, you should use something else when submitting your resume.
In years past to use some web based software supplied by vendor you HAD to use IE or it wouldn't work.
If you use Selenium, you HAVE to use Firefox, or it won't work. So I use Chrome for browsing and Firefox for web-scripting.
Can you provide an actual statistical analysis of your conclusion
Are you serious? Do you also need "statistical analysis" that the earth isn't flat? Look at any measure of economic freedom, such as the Ease of Doing Business Index, which measures the burden of government regulation and corruption. The top ten are: New Zealand, Singapore, Denmark, Hong Kong, South Korea, Norway, United Kingdom, United States, and Sweden. These are all prosperous countries. The bottom ten are: Haiti, Angola, Afghanistan, Congo, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Venezuela, Libya, Eritrea, and Somalia. These countries are, economically and politically, the worst of the worst.
If you look at measures of social tolerance, and rule of law, such as the Human Freedom Index, you see the same pattern. Free countries are prosperous. Repressive countries are dirt poor.
Clearly we need regulation for things that have no market solution, such as pollution and enforcing contracts, but if you build a system where the government is "picking winners", handing out subsidies and tax breaks, controlling prices, and building "national champions", then you are going to end up with a corrupt and inefficient system.
(like this French restaurant which my wife and visit everytime we go to Tokyo)
Can you recommend a good sushi restaurant in Paris?
I'd say just automate the whole thing and get rid of people altogether, but then they'd just be on welfare.
This is the Lump of Labor Fallacy. There is not a fixed number of jobs in the economy, and eliminating a particular job does not mean "one less job". These kiosks lower costs, and those costs will go to the customers (as lower prices) or the owners (as higher profits). Either way, someone will have more money in their pocket, and will spend that money on other goods, services or investments, generating jobs elsewhere in the economy.
Dead end make-work jobs are not "good for the economy", and the point of work is to create goods and services, not to "keep people busy".
at McDonald's if I have to punch buttons on a Kiosk to get my food I'll just go home and have a Marie Callender's TV dinner.
Not me. I want to have social engagement with my friends and family, not some pimple faced cashier at McDonalds. The kiosk is faster, more accurate, and saves money. I also use the ATM at the bank, and the self-checkout at the grocery store. I hate having some cashier pawing over my stuff and making snide comments like "Extra small condoms, huh ... and a twelve pack, so that should last you, what, six months!" Grrr.
why they don't just push the electricity down the line they are using anyway to transmit the power to a point where they DO have a hill
Because then you need transmission lines that can handle peak loads, rather than average loads, and you also suffer transmission losses (in both directions if the demand is near the coast, as is likely in many areas).
and build it on land where it's much cheaper to build and easier to maintain
Possibly because it is NOT cheaper. Why do you presume that building a concrete sphere is more expensive than building a concrete dam? Besides, good dam sites are either already being used, or are not used for environmental reasons (such as migrating fish). We have plenty of ocean.
I would suggest formal Licensure for Cybersecurity professionals
Licenses mean compliance with a bureaucratic checklist, which is very different from actual competence. In a fast evolving field like computer security, the checklist will lag actual best practices by about a decade. Most existing formal computer certifications are widely considered to be negatively correlated with competence, so the track record is not good.
It will also provide the perfect defense for any hacker that gets caught: "He hacked me first!"
It's well known that exposure to UV increases the risk of skin cancer. Is that heating or ionization?
UV light causes ionization. Furthermore, there is ACTUAL EVIDENCE that UV light causes cancer. Skin cancer is highly correlated with UV exposure. Americans are more likely to get skin cancer on their left arm. Australians tend to get it on their right arm. The only plausible explanation for that is that Americans drive on the right, and Aussies on the left, exposing different arms to the sun.
If cellphones cause cancer, there would be similar disparities in brain cancer incidence depending on whether the cellphone is held to your right ear or left ear. Researchers have looked for this, and found no significant difference in cancer rates between "listening side" and "non-listening side". There is also no evidence that heavy cell users have higher rates of brain cancer.
Is it possible that that we have missed something? Sure, but maybe we also missed Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.
Is it impossible that you are wrong, and that heat and ionization are not the only way that a brain could be affected?
Nothing is completely impossible, but this issue has been studied to death. Billions of people use cellphones. If there was an issue it would have shown up in epidemiological data long ago.
Doing yet more research is nearly pointless. It would be far better to focus resources on other health issues that are supported by actual evidence rather than pseudoscience.
I don't know if their concerns are valid or not.
The concerns are not valid. There are two ways you can determine this for yourself: The finger method, or the brain method.
Finger method: Type some search terms into a browser and try to find peer reviewed research that shows cellphone radiation is dangerous. You won't find any. You will, however, find plenty of ranting by crackpots.
Brain method: Think about what radiation is, and how it could damage a brain. There are two ways that could happen: heat and ionization. Cellphone radiation produces a negligible amount of the first, and none of the second.
In the absence of either evidence or plausible mechanism, it is safe to presume cellphone radiation harmless. You should find something else to worry about.
Americans won't pay for quality anymore.
They won't pay for quality that doesn't matter. Twenty years ago I had a $1000 HP printer that was built like a tank. Today I have a $50 HP printer made out of flimsy plastic. But it prints better than the old one. It is faster, quieter, and has way better resolution. It also has a built in scanner.
Actually, the damage is not caused by expansion, but by crystallization. So you need to add something that creates an amorphous solid ice when mixed with water, or at least far smaller ice crystals.
Unlikely. This is another one of those amazing "breakthroughs" we see every week that goes nowhere.
Except that over the last decade we have seen dramatic battery improvements in cost, capacity, reliability, and charging speed, as a result of the very breakthroughs that you are denigrating.