If you need access to everyone's internet devices in a rescue operation you are doing it wrong. I didn't jump to the nefarious extreme you did to come to a conclusion, I base my position on real life military rescue work.
Horse shit! Read US History from 1776 to Present. Since we began to track the _personal_ income tax, the through the first 70 years of so of the tax, anything over a million dollars in yearly income was taxed Federally at 90%. We had boom after boom in this country with a wealth cap, and Wealth Disparity in the US was one of the best in the world improving steadily year after year. Since we removed the cap (thanks Dick! Nixon that is) we have done nothing but go in the opposite direction. A _reasonable_ wealth cap does not give any disincentive for gaining wealth, it does however diminish the narcissistic behavior which has become commonplace.
So now you are 0 for 2 in references, and 2 for 2 in spreading bullshit. Care to provide an economist who backs your view sanely? If not, I assume you are just a troll.
"Rich" is a vague and subjective term that GP never used.
The story of the artisan from Plato's The Republic is interesting and rational. There are two failures with Gates. First, he has failed society by hoarding. Then again he has displayed a tremendous amount of sociopathic tendencies so we should not be too surprised. Second, the State has failed by allowing him to hoard that much personal wealth. I use Plato as my reference.
There should absolutely be a wealth cap. Sorry if you don't like it, but unless you can come up with something better than Plato for me to reference I think Socrates had it correct. To preempt someone saying something stupid, go read the book.
Like we saw with Solar panels, it's easy for China to subsidize products to cause irreparable harm to foreign manufacturers. I have no doubts that the current administration does not care, they only have to suffer the people's wrath for a few more months. The rest of us however should be demanding that the company has it's books wide open for review.
Do you really need to ask if US News agencies censored? The current media puts the old Pravda to shame. If they were merely protecting State secrets I'd give them a pass on this, at least in terms of discussing details. They should however discuss concerns with the operations in general terms so that the public can debate and direct the Government. They are not however interested in protecting the State and have no concern for truth and honesty. Have not had such concerns for literally decades now. The fact that media claims to have different names makes it less visible to the unwary.
Humor aside, people should never, ever, ever never type their real password into a site "checking strength". My humor has a whole lot of reality involved.
I would surely agree if this was some snooping software that neither party knew about. I would also agree if the person had to hack a device to add the software, or even trick their cheating spouse into using a Library computer or some crap which you installed the software on. In this case, the only malfeasance possibly being claimed is that the cheater was caught.
If you were right, every single home camera service is eligible for a lawsuit too. Hint: It's not the companies fault that people do immoral things and get caught. Don't do them and don't get caught, or do them and own up to your moral choices. That last part is a really big problem to many people.
Read the case: Suspicious person installs software (yeah, we all know if you suspect it's probably true but we are taught to live and love).
Catches husband meeting up with some other woman.
Expected marital troubles ensue.
Angry guy gets mad and files a suit against people because they got caught.
Now, take all that and replace it with a man catching his cheating wife. I wrote it in the opposite gender because some people are simply idiots and this makes it harder for them to be idiots.
Harm was not caused by the company, but harm was caused to the company. I'm fine with the company being sued but a counter for damages due to both litigation and libel are well within reason.
Time to wear the big boy pants and be responsible for your actions. Welcome to equality!
Instead of worrying about things like the democratic process being broken as demonstrated by the leaks, you are worried about the source of the leaks.
Yeah, I worry about the rest of society but more that they think like you do.
History is a pretty good crystal ball for everything going on. I won't give you any lessons here, you seem content or frightened so remain ignorant. I will simply state that all weapons through history, including espionage devices used for weaponry, have moved from place to place. All political systems have been full of corruption, and it never ends well for the populace. You are focusing on the first, instead of the latter. I have no confidence that you care given the point you are contending.
You are not seeing cases which were dropped, for which there are at least a few cases. You also can't measure the impact to sales because of the media coverage of those few suits. Given the landscape and tiny percentage of people driving Tesla's and using the Autopilot feature, you don't see this as a legal challenge as it gains adoption?
Yeah, there are rare occasions where companies do fuck people, but nobody is making people push the autopilot button in a Tesla now. The way you framed your question tells me more than I need to know about your political leanings, just in case you care.
How do we know that laws are in need of work? Because we have, and have had for decades, Lawyers who chase ambulances and nitpick to make money and cause harm to consumers and businesses in the process. Since I know you will attempt to fabricate reality by claiming nuh-uh, here is an easy citation.
Laws are a problem, as is rampant ignorance and cowardice.
I know we all want cool automation, but just like Tesla is seeing the litigators won't let it happen. Fix laws and maybe.
Simple fact: Google cars get into wrecks too, and they are not doing any Freeway driving. The cars are doing 10 miles under the speed limit on roads (probably to increase safety), which causes some of the wrecks. Try driving down El Camino at 25 MP/h because "Google Car" and you will become impatient too.
Yup, I'm a cynic but also a realist. Current laws are going to stop automakers long before anything is in widespread use.
Pretty much across the board you are wrong. Patents and Patent protection existed for a few hundred years, but it was a measurable patent award on real inventions. While the machine was patented ideas were not, so competition existed and people created competing products. They could not copy the exact machine, but the first run is not normally the best. Go look at how many variations of a Cotton Gin, automobile, motor bike, Steam engine, etc.. etc.. etc.. existed. People could see that something worked and smarter people got ideas on emulating and improving. We have thousands of years of innovation by improving whats there, which would and could not ever happen if people claimed to own idea like shitbag companies do today.
Amazingly the successful people did not normally starve to death because someone "stole" their idea.
People often point to Tesla and Edison and I agree that Tesla was shat upon, but he did not die broke because of the fued. Tesla decided to stop petitioning and building small things, and went to huge inventions costing boatloads of wealth, attempting build free power for everyone. It's a nice altruistic goal, but won't make any money or attract investors.
You would similarly lose the same arguments against Copyrights by using facts.
I don't get the point you are trying to make. GP stated that "The Press" is no longer performing it's function and that the solution is to move back to being journalists. Are you suggesting that the expectation should be to give up and/or commit suicide because the media has been consumed by corruption? Or are you advocating a positive change in a bad way?
The "Press" in the US today has become what we used to make fun of in other countries. Baghdad Bob telling people how Iraq was crushing the Americans is no different than every media outlet yesterday (I checked 8 networks and 2 independent radio stations who call themselves conservative) falsely claiming that Trump said to assassinate Hillary. The dishonesty we are seeing from the Press is what we saw in the Pravda in Russia.
Unfortunately the lack of media credibility is causing a secondary set of media problems. Certain people and third party media may provide better truths but include messages of their own which are not part of the truth. We can say that some of it is for money, but another aspect is to distort reality in the opposite direction of the broadcast media. Sadly I distrust _all_ media at the moment and check sources. There is a reason people extract 5-8 second sound bites and invent a narrative around it, and that reason has nothing to do with you, your country, your best interests, or concerns for your welfare.
When it comes to media it's probably about time to format and rebuilt. If you asked, I'd suggest the same for both major political parties.
Give people the ability to filter. One of the main purposes of Free Speech is to promote thought. Listening to other opinions is how we hone and change our own. Forcing everyone to live in a bubble results in what we have now in the College Snowflake (AKA SJW) class of people. Not only does this class of people live in an echo chamber, but they lash out at anyone telling them something not in their chamber. Ben Shapiro being banned from speaking at a campus instead of banning the people who don't want to hear him is insanity, not College.
Any time I hear speech I dislike I can walk away. Don't blame trolls for sites that make you see them, Slashdot for example allows browsing while ignoring them for the most part.
As for Twitter, they should have died long ago. Any company that bans and censors things they dislike while allowing death threats to the same people they claim are bad shows the hypocrisy their leadership. As an easy example, Milo receives death threats from all kinds of people who don't get banned from Twitter, yet he gets banned for mostly being obnoxious while defending his review of a movie. That was the last, not only, time he was punished by Twitter for having an opinion they didn't like. (Don't listen to the fabricated narrative, do the research and read his posts.)
Companies making aerosol cans switched to non-CFC propellant. This wasn't a case of consumers en masse deliberately buying non-CFC products that were more expensive and inferior.
Inferior? Hell no, in most cases there was no inferiority. More Expensive? There was a cost _benefit_ to Cardboard. McDonald's moving to Cardboard was an argument because "Will my food get home hot?", not that McDonald's would go broke buying Cardboard. Cardboard was cheaper to make, cheaper to ship, required much less storage space, and was easy to clean up (less trash on premises), so cheaper all the way around.
Now to the main issue: You admit that Tax can be used as behavior modification, see no problem using it that way, yet ignore the lack of Global compliance. So you ignore the fact that the people who are already willing and working to change to improve, would be punished. Meanwhile other countries with billions of people would not behave any differently so the world would not be better off. This will make the willing resentful, and you end up going nowhere.
Success will only come with a Globally obtainable set of plans and goals. Tax is not globally obtainable, not globally enforceable, and without global cooperation has no impact except to punish the people of highest morals.
Trying to create taxes (by your example surcharges) for China, or India, or Russia to pay a bill will not result in revenue to correct problems or change behavior. It will result in further trade imbalance because they don't need to purchase our goods. There is no way to create or enforce a Global carbon tax. Say that last statement over and over until it sinks in, because that is reality.
Last point, you have not demonstrated any need to distinguish between people that believe humans are responsible for Global warming and those who believe it's nature. You further have not demonstrated a graduated scale for the majority who sits between those two points. Such a distinction and scale would be necessary if it made any difference in what humans should be doing to keep the Earth habitable and sustainable. It simply serves as a red herring.
Bread and Circuses work pretty well, but you have also have to keep the service angry with each other or they turn on you. This is well known strategy dating back as far as we know. Plato and Aristotle hinted at it a bit, but "The Prince" laid it out in plain view. The politics of graphics is simply a narrative to keep the peons busy.
Sorry, I'm not inventing statements. I'm trying to understand yours, and see how they match the world.
Fair enough, and I explained what I believed the issue was: You did not consider tax as a tool for behavior modification. Historically tax has been used for exactly this way.
My observation is that there are a lot of people out there who don't believe global warming is going on, or don't think people caused it, and are willing to believe anything, how preposterous, as long as it agrees with these quasi-religious beliefs.
Full stop. First, ask yourself how rational it is to lump those who claim global warming is fake in with the group who question how much human impact is involved? It is preposterous, yet this is what the political class is doing. Next, consider why there needs to be a difference between "human caused" versus "not human caused" in terms of having a Carbon Tax as the only proposed solution? As with the first, it's irrational to do so.
In the meantime, there's other proposals being kicked around, by various people, including shading the planet and sequestering carbon dioxide. There was a Slashdot article recently about a proposal to use solar energy to create fuel from the atmosphere, and if that's practical it could be very useful. Heck, there are government subsidies for the development of renewable energy sources, and those exist right now and aren't carbon taxes. Your statement that carbon taxes are the only proposed government solution is false.
The biggest impact low hanging fruit would be: Clean up pollution, reduce fossil fuel use, reduce energy consumption overall, and most importantly do all of those things in every country across the globe. We lack a Global Government, Global Police force, and Global cooperation. Meaning, all of these things can happen but a Carbon Tax has zero chance of spurring them into action. I can propose that China gives up 100 billion dollars and stops developing more fossil fuel power plants today, and what chance do you give to them complying? If it's not zero, you are dishonest.
Your claim that Individuals will be heard over Government proposals is simply a fantasy. Good altruistic ideas are relatively common, yet the amount of global implementations of altruistic ideas are way less than a handful. Even in the case of Nuclear weaponry "fear" is the reason people don't use them and hide development, not "altruism". Any claim that our Government can demand another Government do something and therefor it will happen is preposterous.
What I don't remember is people going out and buying non-CFC products out of desire to preserve the environment.
I distinctly remember posters and banners all over our schools promoting non-CFC purchases, media spending time talking about how CFCs were causing ozone depletion. "Give a Hoot Don't Pollute" and the American Indian with the tear in his eye were icons started in the 70s. Go back and read the articles.
It's really strange to hear people claim Protectionism is bad for the US, but we are forced to compete against Countries who are protectionist. You can try to get them to compete openly, but at a point you get played for a sucker and lose your shirt. The US has lost it's wardrobe playing that game.
Slashdot Mirror
If you need access to everyone's internet devices in a rescue operation you are doing it wrong. I didn't jump to the nefarious extreme you did to come to a conclusion, I base my position on real life military rescue work.
Horse shit! Read US History from 1776 to Present. Since we began to track the _personal_ income tax, the through the first 70 years of so of the tax, anything over a million dollars in yearly income was taxed Federally at 90%. We had boom after boom in this country with a wealth cap, and Wealth Disparity in the US was one of the best in the world improving steadily year after year. Since we removed the cap (thanks Dick! Nixon that is) we have done nothing but go in the opposite direction. A _reasonable_ wealth cap does not give any disincentive for gaining wealth, it does however diminish the narcissistic behavior which has become commonplace.
So now you are 0 for 2 in references, and 2 for 2 in spreading bullshit. Care to provide an economist who backs your view sanely? If not, I assume you are just a troll.
"Rich" is a vague and subjective term that GP never used.
The story of the artisan from Plato's The Republic is interesting and rational. There are two failures with Gates. First, he has failed society by hoarding. Then again he has displayed a tremendous amount of sociopathic tendencies so we should not be too surprised. Second, the State has failed by allowing him to hoard that much personal wealth. I use Plato as my reference.
There should absolutely be a wealth cap. Sorry if you don't like it, but unless you can come up with something better than Plato for me to reference I think Socrates had it correct. To preempt someone saying something stupid, go read the book.
Like we saw with Solar panels, it's easy for China to subsidize products to cause irreparable harm to foreign manufacturers. I have no doubts that the current administration does not care, they only have to suffer the people's wrath for a few more months. The rest of us however should be demanding that the company has it's books wide open for review.
Do you really need to ask if US News agencies censored? The current media puts the old Pravda to shame. If they were merely protecting State secrets I'd give them a pass on this, at least in terms of discussing details. They should however discuss concerns with the operations in general terms so that the public can debate and direct the Government. They are not however interested in protecting the State and have no concern for truth and honesty. Have not had such concerns for literally decades now. The fact that media claims to have different names makes it less visible to the unwary.
populate_mah_rainbow_tables.js
Humor aside, people should never, ever, ever never type their real password into a site "checking strength". My humor has a whole lot of reality involved.
I would surely agree if this was some snooping software that neither party knew about. I would also agree if the person had to hack a device to add the software, or even trick their cheating spouse into using a Library computer or some crap which you installed the software on. In this case, the only malfeasance possibly being claimed is that the cheater was caught.
If you were right, every single home camera service is eligible for a lawsuit too. Hint: It's not the companies fault that people do immoral things and get caught. Don't do them and don't get caught, or do them and own up to your moral choices. That last part is a really big problem to many people.
Read the case: Suspicious person installs software (yeah, we all know if you suspect it's probably true but we are taught to live and love).
Catches husband meeting up with some other woman.
Expected marital troubles ensue.
Angry guy gets mad and files a suit against people because they got caught.
Now, take all that and replace it with a man catching his cheating wife. I wrote it in the opposite gender because some people are simply idiots and this makes it harder for them to be idiots.
Harm was not caused by the company, but harm was caused to the company. I'm fine with the company being sued but a counter for damages due to both litigation and libel are well within reason.
Time to wear the big boy pants and be responsible for your actions. Welcome to equality!
It's made of Rearden metal.
Instead of worrying about things like the democratic process being broken as demonstrated by the leaks, you are worried about the source of the leaks.
Yeah, I worry about the rest of society but more that they think like you do.
History is a pretty good crystal ball for everything going on. I won't give you any lessons here, you seem content or frightened so remain ignorant. I will simply state that all weapons through history, including espionage devices used for weaponry, have moved from place to place. All political systems have been full of corruption, and it never ends well for the populace. You are focusing on the first, instead of the latter. I have no confidence that you care given the point you are contending.
You are not seeing cases which were dropped, for which there are at least a few cases. You also can't measure the impact to sales because of the media coverage of those few suits. Given the landscape and tiny percentage of people driving Tesla's and using the Autopilot feature, you don't see this as a legal challenge as it gains adoption?
Yeah, there are rare occasions where companies do fuck people, but nobody is making people push the autopilot button in a Tesla now. The way you framed your question tells me more than I need to know about your political leanings, just in case you care.
How do we know that laws are in need of work? Because we have, and have had for decades, Lawyers who chase ambulances and nitpick to make money and cause harm to consumers and businesses in the process. Since I know you will attempt to fabricate reality by claiming nuh-uh, here is an easy citation.
Laws are a problem, as is rampant ignorance and cowardice.
I know we all want cool automation, but just like Tesla is seeing the litigators won't let it happen. Fix laws and maybe.
Simple fact: Google cars get into wrecks too, and they are not doing any Freeway driving. The cars are doing 10 miles under the speed limit on roads (probably to increase safety), which causes some of the wrecks. Try driving down El Camino at 25 MP/h because "Google Car" and you will become impatient too.
Yup, I'm a cynic but also a realist. Current laws are going to stop automakers long before anything is in widespread use.
The person intended to type FSB but didn't know how to spell it.
Pretty much across the board you are wrong. Patents and Patent protection existed for a few hundred years, but it was a measurable patent award on real inventions. While the machine was patented ideas were not, so competition existed and people created competing products. They could not copy the exact machine, but the first run is not normally the best. Go look at how many variations of a Cotton Gin, automobile, motor bike, Steam engine, etc.. etc.. etc.. existed. People could see that something worked and smarter people got ideas on emulating and improving. We have thousands of years of innovation by improving whats there, which would and could not ever happen if people claimed to own idea like shitbag companies do today.
Amazingly the successful people did not normally starve to death because someone "stole" their idea.
People often point to Tesla and Edison and I agree that Tesla was shat upon, but he did not die broke because of the fued. Tesla decided to stop petitioning and building small things, and went to huge inventions costing boatloads of wealth, attempting build free power for everyone. It's a nice altruistic goal, but won't make any money or attract investors.
You would similarly lose the same arguments against Copyrights by using facts.
I don't get the point you are trying to make. GP stated that "The Press" is no longer performing it's function and that the solution is to move back to being journalists. Are you suggesting that the expectation should be to give up and/or commit suicide because the media has been consumed by corruption? Or are you advocating a positive change in a bad way?
The "Press" in the US today has become what we used to make fun of in other countries. Baghdad Bob telling people how Iraq was crushing the Americans is no different than every media outlet yesterday (I checked 8 networks and 2 independent radio stations who call themselves conservative) falsely claiming that Trump said to assassinate Hillary. The dishonesty we are seeing from the Press is what we saw in the Pravda in Russia.
Unfortunately the lack of media credibility is causing a secondary set of media problems. Certain people and third party media may provide better truths but include messages of their own which are not part of the truth. We can say that some of it is for money, but another aspect is to distort reality in the opposite direction of the broadcast media. Sadly I distrust _all_ media at the moment and check sources. There is a reason people extract 5-8 second sound bites and invent a narrative around it, and that reason has nothing to do with you, your country, your best interests, or concerns for your welfare.
When it comes to media it's probably about time to format and rebuilt. If you asked, I'd suggest the same for both major political parties.
Honesty, you should try it sometime. Milo did not fake tweets, you are fabricating.
Give people the ability to filter. One of the main purposes of Free Speech is to promote thought. Listening to other opinions is how we hone and change our own. Forcing everyone to live in a bubble results in what we have now in the College Snowflake (AKA SJW) class of people. Not only does this class of people live in an echo chamber, but they lash out at anyone telling them something not in their chamber. Ben Shapiro being banned from speaking at a campus instead of banning the people who don't want to hear him is insanity, not College.
Any time I hear speech I dislike I can walk away. Don't blame trolls for sites that make you see them, Slashdot for example allows browsing while ignoring them for the most part.
As for Twitter, they should have died long ago. Any company that bans and censors things they dislike while allowing death threats to the same people they claim are bad shows the hypocrisy their leadership. As an easy example, Milo receives death threats from all kinds of people who don't get banned from Twitter, yet he gets banned for mostly being obnoxious while defending his review of a movie. That was the last, not only, time he was punished by Twitter for having an opinion they didn't like. (Don't listen to the fabricated narrative, do the research and read his posts.)
*woosh*
Yeah, you missed it completely.
Going to throw once part out of ordering.
Companies making aerosol cans switched to non-CFC propellant. This wasn't a case of consumers en masse deliberately buying non-CFC products that were more expensive and inferior.
Inferior? Hell no, in most cases there was no inferiority. More Expensive? There was a cost _benefit_ to Cardboard. McDonald's moving to Cardboard was an argument because "Will my food get home hot?", not that McDonald's would go broke buying Cardboard. Cardboard was cheaper to make, cheaper to ship, required much less storage space, and was easy to clean up (less trash on premises), so cheaper all the way around.
Now to the main issue: You admit that Tax can be used as behavior modification, see no problem using it that way, yet ignore the lack of Global compliance. So you ignore the fact that the people who are already willing and working to change to improve, would be punished. Meanwhile other countries with billions of people would not behave any differently so the world would not be better off. This will make the willing resentful, and you end up going nowhere.
Success will only come with a Globally obtainable set of plans and goals. Tax is not globally obtainable, not globally enforceable, and without global cooperation has no impact except to punish the people of highest morals.
Trying to create taxes (by your example surcharges) for China, or India, or Russia to pay a bill will not result in revenue to correct problems or change behavior. It will result in further trade imbalance because they don't need to purchase our goods. There is no way to create or enforce a Global carbon tax. Say that last statement over and over until it sinks in, because that is reality.
Last point, you have not demonstrated any need to distinguish between people that believe humans are responsible for Global warming and those who believe it's nature. You further have not demonstrated a graduated scale for the majority who sits between those two points. Such a distinction and scale would be necessary if it made any difference in what humans should be doing to keep the Earth habitable and sustainable. It simply serves as a red herring.
Bread and Circuses work pretty well, but you have also have to keep the service angry with each other or they turn on you. This is well known strategy dating back as far as we know. Plato and Aristotle hinted at it a bit, but "The Prince" laid it out in plain view. The politics of graphics is simply a narrative to keep the peons busy.
Sorry, I'm not inventing statements. I'm trying to understand yours, and see how they match the world.
Fair enough, and I explained what I believed the issue was: You did not consider tax as a tool for behavior modification. Historically tax has been used for exactly this way.
My observation is that there are a lot of people out there who don't believe global warming is going on, or don't think people caused it, and are willing to believe anything, how preposterous, as long as it agrees with these quasi-religious beliefs.
Full stop. First, ask yourself how rational it is to lump those who claim global warming is fake in with the group who question how much human impact is involved? It is preposterous, yet this is what the political class is doing. Next, consider why there needs to be a difference between "human caused" versus "not human caused" in terms of having a Carbon Tax as the only proposed solution? As with the first, it's irrational to do so.
In the meantime, there's other proposals being kicked around, by various people, including shading the planet and sequestering carbon dioxide. There was a Slashdot article recently about a proposal to use solar energy to create fuel from the atmosphere, and if that's practical it could be very useful. Heck, there are government subsidies for the development of renewable energy sources, and those exist right now and aren't carbon taxes. Your statement that carbon taxes are the only proposed government solution is false.
The biggest impact low hanging fruit would be: Clean up pollution, reduce fossil fuel use, reduce energy consumption overall, and most importantly do all of those things in every country across the globe. We lack a Global Government, Global Police force, and Global cooperation. Meaning, all of these things can happen but a Carbon Tax has zero chance of spurring them into action. I can propose that China gives up 100 billion dollars and stops developing more fossil fuel power plants today, and what chance do you give to them complying? If it's not zero, you are dishonest.
Your claim that Individuals will be heard over Government proposals is simply a fantasy. Good altruistic ideas are relatively common, yet the amount of global implementations of altruistic ideas are way less than a handful. Even in the case of Nuclear weaponry "fear" is the reason people don't use them and hide development, not "altruism". Any claim that our Government can demand another Government do something and therefor it will happen is preposterous.
What I don't remember is people going out and buying non-CFC products out of desire to preserve the environment.
I distinctly remember posters and banners all over our schools promoting non-CFC purchases, media spending time talking about how CFCs were causing ozone depletion. "Give a Hoot Don't Pollute" and the American Indian with the tear in his eye were icons started in the 70s. Go back and read the articles.
The discussion was about performance, not price. You just moved the goal post.
Hahaha!
It's really strange to hear people claim Protectionism is bad for the US, but we are forced to compete against Countries who are protectionist. You can try to get them to compete openly, but at a point you get played for a sucker and lose your shirt. The US has lost it's wardrobe playing that game.