In a perfect society, I'd have to agree with you. Challenging the status quo is how you avoid being either misled or stuck in an institutionalized rut.
But when the individuals involved and making decisions based on fear and other emotions and not on facts, there is only conflict, not resolution or improvement.
To argue the other side of your "ripped from today's headlines" approach: If the anti-vaxxer had not taken their child to the sports game, they would not have had a measles outbreak actually harming a large number of people.
Mob mentality is no substitute for rationally challenging the status quo.
Not to belabor the point, but TFA clearly states in the summary that they halted ALL vaccination results (Both for and against) until a panel of experts could decide what to do about the topic. They are not taking a stand and blocking anti-vaxxers, they are doing the single most reasonable thing possible at this moment which is to avoid spreading bad information, not painting either side as the hero of vicitim and trying to engage both medical and social media experts on a best solution.
If there's a better possible stance for them to take, I have not yet seen it.
So in this new utopia, the average re-use garbage can will have a few dozen stainless steel containers tossed into it. it'll get left at the street. A new special garbage truck will come by and dump the cans into the truck. Etc. etc.
So a lot of these things are going to get dented and dinged and otherwise marked up.
is the public ready to receive their jug of milk or pint of Ben and Jerry's in dented containers with worn labels? or will the containers all be unlabeled and instead we'll put them into plastic wrap to keep the lids on and everything fresh from tampering and put the branding on the plastic wrap? Of course the plastic wrap will have to be removed during cleaning and a new fresh one applied to seal the product and put a new "Best Used By XX/XX/XXXX" indicator on it before it goes back out...
R.S. "That sounds like using plastic containers but with more steps."
4 billion, divided by 13,000 employees is $307,692 per employee. At $15/hr, that's 20,513 hours of wages At 2080 work hrs per year that's a smidge under 10 years
So we're giving them tax breaks to make products and the tax breaks are as much as the factory would pay local labor over a 10 year period?
As Rick Sanchez might day: "That sounds like welfare but with extra steps"
I guess I have a harder time getting into full on tinfoil hat mode over it.
I think the public had a building irritation with FB's policies. It boiled over when the recent issues since the election started to surface Media companies see people clicking on FB stories because if pre-existing irritation Media companies make money.
I find that far more likely than an over arching conspiracy
I see it more as a case of yes you are right, FB has been doing things this way a while. Nothing new. But now some lights have been shined on their behavior and the unacceptable parts of it are on display.
The attention is not because suddenly they are doing worse things. It's because suddenly people are paying attention.
Step back and visualize the cyclic filtering nature of it.
1) N employees join an organization. 2) Organization is bad in some way. 3) Strong willed, hireable types leave. 4) Repeat until only those afraid to leave are left
Actually I just set my iphone to always be in Do Not Disturb mode and allow only calls from my contact list. So all of the rampant junk calls go straight to voicemail. I later check the transcripts of the calls and instantly dismiss the ones with no message or messages that start with obvious spam content.
Works great for me.
I actually sympathize with apple over this one. Allowing any third party direct access to call/sms/etc data on the phone is a security risk. We have enough privacy risk in our lives, we don't need government mandated apps that dig even deeper into our data and activities.
You make an excellent point. I'm not an Android user, but as I understand it, neither of the primary OS providers allow for alternate apps for core Phone functionality. I really wish they could break that paradigm.
We need a quantum leap in phone applications and the app dev market can deliver a highly competitive, feature driven set of products if they were just allowed to do so. I get that phone operation is a core operation and is a notable vector for abuse. But the mass of devs in the world can bring us phone features we cannot even conceive of yet, if given the chance. A million devs hungry to make an app will out innovate 2 lethargic behemoths.
Games on my phone today are light years ahead of mobile games pre-smartphone. Apps on my phone today are night and day different than the core apps provided by phone manufacturers when smartphones first arrived. My phone app... well, it has transcription for voicemail.
I was responding to the above comment about using what tools we have available. Not saying that we do not need intervention to stop the robocalls. The current phone infrastructure system seems "accidentally" designed to avoid responsibility and allow abuse. I have no qualms about enforcing some regulations to reduce that abuse.
I have my phone configured to send all calls to voicemail unless they are in my personal contacts. never even rings. If t's important I'll see the message in the auto transcription (iphone) in my voicemail box.
I no longer get 7 calls a day about student loans (not that I've ever had a student loan)
This has not been my experience. been a user since back in the iPhone 3 days and have had pads ranging from the mini to the normal to a Pro.
In all of those incarnations and all of the OS iterations, I've experienced very few app crashes. And when they do happen, it's nearly always a 3rd party app/game.
So no, I do not agree with you. I have found my iOS apps to be far superior to PC apps with regards to crash rates.
Everything you listed are valid cases where you would have to present your government issued ID card anyway. So what exactly is it that is a problem?
When you REQUIRE it to buy groceries that's a problem. But using it for official interactions with the government and healthcare? That's nothing new.
Ask yourself, if it was just an ID card, would you care? Re-read the entire story and replace "biometric" and "Aadhaar" with "Government ID card" and see if it still bothers you. If not, then perhaps it's just being concerned over one of "them there scary new computer thingys that a meme on Facebook said were bad"
I'll spend 15 minutes on a show on my DVR and decide if I like it. minimal investment on my part.
Movies:
10 minutes checking reviews
5 minutes buying tickets online
$30 spent
[mumble-mumble] minutes getting the wife ready and into the car
20 minutes driving to the theater
10 minutes getting snacks and seated
15 minutes of commercials and trailers
$20 spent
2-2 to 2.5 hours of time watching the movie
20 minute drive home
So yeah, movies are worth checking scores on and TV isn't. Why is this at all surprising to anyone, and why on earth did they think they needed to come up with 3 possibilities in the summary?
What they offer is not relevant to me. What I'd use is relevant to me. They can carry 20 million songs I won't listen to, and it does not change their value proposition to me in the slightest.
Speaking of the capacity of a product does not define it's value to a particular consumer. What portion of the service they would use, compared to other services prices, that is the relevant question.
Pandora One is $48 per year. I have no qualms about paying that and I do. Spotify asks $99 per year and I won't pay that. That's pretty close to half. I can do the math and be more precise but I feel that "should cost half" is a fair enough approximation.
Pandora subscription is $36 per year for the phone app. Pandora One Subscription is $48 per year. Spotify annual is $99 per year.
Yes, I know that they offer different types of service, primarily in specific list building, but 9.99 a month or 99 for yearly is over the price point I'll pay to stream music.
So the most I could see paying would be around $48 per year.
Then they need to cut their subscription cost by half.
There's no way I'll EVER subscribe at their current price point.
I know they are trapped in licensing fees, but the value proposition simply isn't well balanced yet. If it were, they could have as many subscribers as they want.
They seem to think they everyone would be happy to pay their fees if the free version caused more people to try it out. Good luck with that.
The market is speaking, it's too expensive. Listen or not.
Slashdot Mirror
In a perfect society, I'd have to agree with you. Challenging the status quo is how you avoid being either misled or stuck in an institutionalized rut.
But when the individuals involved and making decisions based on fear and other emotions and not on facts, there is only conflict, not resolution or improvement.
To argue the other side of your "ripped from today's headlines" approach: If the anti-vaxxer had not taken their child to the sports game, they would not have had a measles outbreak actually harming a large number of people.
Mob mentality is no substitute for rationally challenging the status quo.
Not to belabor the point, but TFA clearly states in the summary that they halted ALL vaccination results (Both for and against) until a panel of experts could decide what to do about the topic. They are not taking a stand and blocking anti-vaxxers, they are doing the single most reasonable thing possible at this moment which is to avoid spreading bad information, not painting either side as the hero of vicitim and trying to engage both medical and social media experts on a best solution.
If there's a better possible stance for them to take, I have not yet seen it.
Doesn't TFA make it clear that they stopped all vaccination results for now until a panel of experts decide what to do about the topic?
Here ya go:
Vaccinations and herd immunity in a nutshell by Penn and Teller
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
TLDW: In other words, yes, people refusing to vaccinate is actually harmful to the herd.
Comedy = Tragedy + Time
That seems prohibitively expensive to me.
So in this new utopia, the average re-use garbage can will have a few dozen stainless steel containers tossed into it. it'll get left at the street. A new special garbage truck will come by and dump the cans into the truck. Etc. etc.
So a lot of these things are going to get dented and dinged and otherwise marked up.
is the public ready to receive their jug of milk or pint of Ben and Jerry's in dented containers with worn labels? or will the containers all be unlabeled and instead we'll put them into plastic wrap to keep the lids on and everything fresh from tampering and put the branding on the plastic wrap? Of course the plastic wrap will have to be removed during cleaning and a new fresh one applied to seal the product and put a new "Best Used By XX/XX/XXXX" indicator on it before it goes back out...
R.S. "That sounds like using plastic containers but with more steps."
4 billion, divided by 13,000 employees is $307,692 per employee.
At $15/hr, that's 20,513 hours of wages
At 2080 work hrs per year that's a smidge under 10 years
So we're giving them tax breaks to make products and the tax breaks are as much as the factory would pay local labor over a 10 year period?
As Rick Sanchez might day: "That sounds like welfare but with extra steps"
I guess I have a harder time getting into full on tinfoil hat mode over it.
I think the public had a building irritation with FB's policies.
It boiled over when the recent issues since the election started to surface
Media companies see people clicking on FB stories because if pre-existing irritation
Media companies make money.
I find that far more likely than an over arching conspiracy
I see it more as a case of yes you are right, FB has been doing things this way a while. Nothing new. But now some lights have been shined on their behavior and the unacceptable parts of it are on display.
The attention is not because suddenly they are doing worse things. It's because suddenly people are paying attention.
Step back and visualize the cyclic filtering nature of it.
1) N employees join an organization.
2) Organization is bad in some way.
3) Strong willed, hireable types leave.
4) Repeat until only those afraid to leave are left
I rather enjoyed the first Jack Reacher movie as well
Actually I just set my iphone to always be in Do Not Disturb mode and allow only calls from my contact list. So all of the rampant junk calls go straight to voicemail. I later check the transcripts of the calls and instantly dismiss the ones with no message or messages that start with obvious spam content.
Works great for me.
I actually sympathize with apple over this one. Allowing any third party direct access to call/sms/etc data on the phone is a security risk. We have enough privacy risk in our lives, we don't need government mandated apps that dig even deeper into our data and activities.
You make an excellent point. I'm not an Android user, but as I understand it, neither of the primary OS providers allow for alternate apps for core Phone functionality. I really wish they could break that paradigm.
We need a quantum leap in phone applications and the app dev market can deliver a highly competitive, feature driven set of products if they were just allowed to do so. I get that phone operation is a core operation and is a notable vector for abuse. But the mass of devs in the world can bring us phone features we cannot even conceive of yet, if given the chance. A million devs hungry to make an app will out innovate 2 lethargic behemoths.
Games on my phone today are light years ahead of mobile games pre-smartphone.
Apps on my phone today are night and day different than the core apps provided by phone manufacturers when smartphones first arrived.
My phone app... well, it has transcription for voicemail.
I'm ready for seismic changes in phone apps.
Hi Mark.
I was responding to the above comment about using what tools we have available. Not saying that we do not need intervention to stop the robocalls. The current phone infrastructure system seems "accidentally" designed to avoid responsibility and allow abuse. I have no qualms about enforcing some regulations to reduce that abuse.
Cheers
I have my phone configured to send all calls to voicemail unless they are in my personal contacts. never even rings. If t's important I'll see the message in the auto transcription (iphone) in my voicemail box.
I no longer get 7 calls a day about student loans (not that I've ever had a student loan)
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/...
This has not been my experience. been a user since back in the iPhone 3 days and have had pads ranging from the mini to the normal to a Pro.
In all of those incarnations and all of the OS iterations, I've experienced very few app crashes. And when they do happen, it's nearly always a 3rd party app/game.
So no, I do not agree with you. I have found my iOS apps to be far superior to PC apps with regards to crash rates.
Everything you listed are valid cases where you would have to present your government issued ID card anyway. So what exactly is it that is a problem?
When you REQUIRE it to buy groceries that's a problem. But using it for official interactions with the government and healthcare? That's nothing new.
Ask yourself, if it was just an ID card, would you care? Re-read the entire story and replace "biometric" and "Aadhaar" with "Government ID card" and see if it still bothers you. If not, then perhaps it's just being concerned over one of "them there scary new computer thingys that a meme on Facebook said were bad"
I'll spend 15 minutes on a show on my DVR and decide if I like it. minimal investment on my part.
Movies:
10 minutes checking reviews
5 minutes buying tickets online
$30 spent
[mumble-mumble] minutes getting the wife ready and into the car
20 minutes driving to the theater
10 minutes getting snacks and seated
15 minutes of commercials and trailers
$20 spent
2-2 to 2.5 hours of time watching the movie
20 minute drive home
So yeah, movies are worth checking scores on and TV isn't. Why is this at all surprising to anyone, and why on earth did they think they needed to come up with 3 possibilities in the summary?
They client has a search function by song, artist, etc. It's not as intuiative as one might hope but it's there.
What they offer is not relevant to me. What I'd use is relevant to me. They can carry 20 million songs I won't listen to, and it does not change their value proposition to me in the slightest.
Speaking of the capacity of a product does not define it's value to a particular consumer. What portion of the service they would use, compared to other services prices, that is the relevant question.
Pandora One is $48 per year. I have no qualms about paying that and I do. Spotify asks $99 per year and I won't pay that.
That's pretty close to half. I can do the math and be more precise but I feel that "should cost half" is a fair enough approximation.
let's see...
Pandora subscription is $36 per year for the phone app.
Pandora One Subscription is $48 per year.
Spotify annual is $99 per year.
Yes, I know that they offer different types of service, primarily in specific list building, but 9.99 a month or 99 for yearly is over the price point I'll pay to stream music.
So the most I could see paying would be around $48 per year.
Then they need to cut their subscription cost by half.
There's no way I'll EVER subscribe at their current price point.
I know they are trapped in licensing fees, but the value proposition simply isn't well balanced yet. If it were, they could have as many subscribers as they want.
They seem to think they everyone would be happy to pay their fees if the free version caused more people to try it out. Good luck with that.
The market is speaking, it's too expensive. Listen or not.