Your assumption is that ad supported platforms cost nothing.
It's not an assumption, it's a fact.
Google and Facebook are selling *something* for billions of dollars. That *something* originates in Germany. So just because no money crosses the border into Germany, it's still obvious that Google and Facebook are selling a German resource.
The idea that your eyeballs are a resource belonging to your country is absolutely retarded. And more than a little creepy.
This assumption that ad supported platforms are *free* needs to end.
Again, not an assumption.
Your attention and your privacy are obviously very valuable as companies are willing to spend billions of dollars for it.
If this were true you could get authors to pay you to read their books instead of the other way around.
The fact of the matter is that YOUR attention and privacy aren't valuable in the slightest. You obviously don't value them since you are giving them away. Nobody else really values them either or they would offer to buy them from you directly. The only time they become at all valuable is as an aggregate of the attention and privacy of millions of other nobodies like you. As a group you become valuable because I know that if I hit you all with an advertisement, some of you will buy my shit. And yet despite this greater whole having value to advertisers, it still costs you nothing to use an ad supported platform.
Seriously though, just because we all grew up riding around in the back of a pickup truck doesn't mean it was safe.
Doesn't mean it needs to be banned, either.
Organophosphates (unlike roundup) actually are quite dangerous. It doesn't take a huge ammount to instantly kill you, and repeated exposure to lower doses definitely can lead to health problems. That doesn't mean they're a risk for the consumer, though; only for the agriculutrual workers who come into contact with the stuff. Better safety protocols during aplication/handling may be all that's really needed, as suggested by the fact that (as per the article) 99% of those who die from pesticide poisoning are in the developing world.
As for the "experts" in this article, when they try to blame autism on organophosphates that's a pretty big red flag. When they further say things like "We found no evidence of a safe level of organophosphate pesticide exposure for children" that pretty much confirms that they're not to be taken seriously. They then go on to tell you to "buy organic" and "wash your food", the latter of which is probably the only truly rational suggestion in the entire article.
I have the right to be protected from the subversive force of foreign governments. One of the central roles of government is to protect it's people.
So you think that, say, Mao's little red book should be banned in the USA?
If you honestly believe that it is the role of government to protect you from the thoughts and opinions of people in other nations... you may as well see if North Korea is accepting immigration applications.
You're supposed to be a responsible, intelligent human being, who understands that every source will have some bias. You're supposed to be capable of, and interested in, checking multiple sources in order to try and get a balanced perspective which can better inform your opinion and lead to a more nuanced understanding of the subject.
That's not easy, though, so most people just end up isolating themselves in an ideological bubble which reinforces what they want to believe.
Some Linux "interfaces" are just as shiny as the Mac. Some are more plain but efficient. You want to replicate a Mac, install something like Elementary OS, or just install Gnome 3 on any distro, with a Mac theme. You want something more widnows-like, try Cinammon or MATE. Hell even KDE is pretty decent these days. If after trying all that you still feel "shit on" then I would suggest that the problem lies with your own biases rather than with the "interface".
I believe the water cannot be drunk without adding some minerals.
That's an old urban legend which has gotten more and more silly with each retelling. No, there's nothing wrong with drinking distilled water. You get a lot more minerals via the food you eat than from the water you drink.
Not actually true (not even close) but they do apparently have a 27% obesity rate, which is more than I would have thought. Definitely the idea that they're "starving" is blatant nonsense.
The fact that the government has created special rules for some groups of people doesn't mean that they're not just groups of people. They used to do that based on skin colour too. You can do it based on any criteria you like. May as well legally classify all left handed people as lefties, create special laws for them, and then insist that they have their own special tax category on top of the taxes they're already paying. They're not just a group of people, they're lefties! And they're not paying their fair share!
I've thought about quitting smoking, but I always figured my lack of exercise would kill me long before the smoking did. Now I have scientific proof that my theory was sound! Thank you, JAMA, for setting my mind at ease!
Corporations benefit from society's existence, in fact they utterly depend on it. As such, they are required to pay to maintain it. This notion that they should be able to avoid paying as a "right", is unacceptable, and every society should be up in arms over it.
You speak about corporations as if they were living beings. They are not. Corporations don't benefit; people benefit. A corporation is just a bunch of people getting together, pooling resources, and working together. You are already taxing all of those people, some of them multiple times. You tax the employes with income tax. You tax the shareholders with capital gains taxes. You tax each purchase and sale with sales taxes and/or "value added" taxes. The idea that you need to have a second tax on top of those taxes is idiotic. Almost as idiotic as the idea that, after all of those other taxes have been collected, these groupings of people are still somehow "parasites" who aren't paying their fair share.
Of course it's not inelastic (but no, it's not a fallacy). Tax anything enough and as the price rises you're going to see a corresponding drop in demand. That doesn't change anything. Tax your people enough and there will likewise be a drop in demand for all sorts of things. People who are taxed to the point of starvation don't go out and buy iPhones. Congrats, you've lowered demand. They also won't be able to afford a lot of other stuff, though, so if you want to decrease demand for a specific product (or many products from a specific company) then taxing the corporations rather than the people is a great strategy to get there... as long as it's TARGETED taxation. Targeting apple specifically with ridiculous taxes would be a wonderful way to limit their market.
If, on the other hand, you aren't looking to limit Apples sales but rather just want to steal more money, then it makes very little difference whether you increase taxes on all corporations or increase taxes on all citizens. Same result.
Such revolts are never led by the poor; they're generally organized and led by some upper class cunts who wants to put themselves on top.
Yes, people with means can sometimes rouse up the dissatisfied rabble in order to overthrow the existing power structure. This is much easier in nations which are actually impoverished. In other places - like the USA - where you dont have any real poverty, you have to come up with different ways of dividing the people when you want a civil war. Things like race, politics, and religion are usually good for that.
So why should it be taxes? Facebook is costing German users literally nothing. It's providing them with a service they want at no cost, and paying for that service by selling advertisements to non-german companies. And Germany thinks its entitled to a piece of that? Why?
There's no rational way to justify it. The only reason they can give is "because we want that money". They can try to dress it up by talking about tax shelters and "big business" and shit, but at the end of the day it just boils down to the fact that they see someone out there in the world with money, and they want to take it for themselves. Just like bandits have always done.
The correct solution isn't a global tax but rather to charge taxes based on sales in that country.
Which will drive up the price of the product, meaning it's the European customer who pays the tax. Why not just skip all this retarded talk about "Making Teh Corporation$$$$ Pay" and just go ahead and raise the tax on your citizens. Same result.
This latest charge of a Russian "agent" charges a woman with "conspiracy to defraud the United States" - which isn't actually a crime.
Good one, Ivan!
923. 18 U.S.C. 371â"CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371, creates an offense "[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.
The hard right doesn't want to have their ideas compete in an open market of ideas. No they want to shutdown the market entirely, and make and keep people too uninformed to recognize that they are too uninformed
The only difference in that regard between the far right and the far left is that the far right wants to keep you so uninformed that you don't realize you're uninformed, while the far left wants to "reeducate" you to the point that you're convinced that you're informed. The end result is essentially the same.
No, jackass, the original claim was that it can drive for millions of miles without an issue. That's not the same as having no issues. It has now driven well over a billon miles. The data so far shows that after the autopilot feature became available accidents were reduced anywhere between 13 and 40 percent, depending on which numbers you go with. Even if you want to be a complete fucking pessimist and dismiss those numbers out of hand, we know for a fact that accidents haven't INCREASED. So yes, autopilot can drive for millions of miles without issues. If there was any truth to your rabid predictions of doom you would be able to present actual data to support your position rather than screaming about a handful of anecdotes.
Yes, moron, this is exactly why the adults here keep reminding morons like you that we rely on technology every day which has the potential to kill us. You think brakes never fail? Bolts never shear? Roofs never collapse? Aircraft computers never malfunction? Bridges never fall? Traffic lights never go out? GPS guidance never gives false directions?
You're surrounded by technology which could fail at any moment and kill you, but you either don't give it a second thought, or you understand the potential failure modes and are ready to compensate for them. The only time that fuckwits like you flip your lid is when the subject at hand is a technology which you are very passionate and completely ignorant about. Then you're suddenly super concerned and OMG it's the end of the fucking world.
Let's say both the EV and ICE car costs $35k upfront and use the same numbers before ($0.15c/mile ICE, $0.01/mile EV). At the 50,000 mile mark it's fair to say that you're saving $7,000, but that means that cost coming out of your pocket is $35,500 instead of $42,500. It's not fair to say that your out of pocket cost for an EV is $28,000 as it implies that you're somehow generating revenue driving an EV that is not present in an ICE.
Nobody is saying any of that. They're simply saying that the price of the car is X, the savings over a given time period are Y, and therefore if you factor in the savings then the effective price over that time period are X-Y. There's nothing unusual about that; I'm not sure why you're so confused about it.
It's the same math as if you're thinking about buying, say, solar panels. The panel costs X, the monthly savings will be Y, therefore the effective cost of the panel after number of months N will be X-(Y*N). Only difference being that, if all goes well, the panels will eventually pay for themselves so that your "cost" compared to the alternatives will be zero, or even negative. It's still costing you money to buy and maintain the panels, but eventually the savings are greater than the original purchase price.
Yes, congratulations dumbass, you've just discovered that every elecronic system in existence has some limitations. Pretty soon you might even figure out that the computer thingy you bought isn't actually powered by magic smoke.
Every driver assist system in existence has problems with stationary vehicles under some circumstances:
Wtf? And someone (or rather several someones) thought that "Zero-Day In Popular jQuery Plugin" was a good headline for a story about a crappy PHP script?
Slashdot Mirror
Your assumption is that ad supported platforms cost nothing.
It's not an assumption, it's a fact.
Google and Facebook are selling *something* for billions of dollars. That *something* originates in Germany. So just because no money crosses the border into Germany, it's still obvious that Google and Facebook are selling a German resource.
The idea that your eyeballs are a resource belonging to your country is absolutely retarded. And more than a little creepy.
This assumption that ad supported platforms are *free* needs to end.
Again, not an assumption.
Your attention and your privacy are obviously very valuable as companies are willing to spend billions of dollars for it.
If this were true you could get authors to pay you to read their books instead of the other way around.
The fact of the matter is that YOUR attention and privacy aren't valuable in the slightest. You obviously don't value them since you are giving them away. Nobody else really values them either or they would offer to buy them from you directly. The only time they become at all valuable is as an aggregate of the attention and privacy of millions of other nobodies like you. As a group you become valuable because I know that if I hit you all with an advertisement, some of you will buy my shit. And yet despite this greater whole having value to advertisers, it still costs you nothing to use an ad supported platform.
Seriously though, just because we all grew up riding around in the back of a pickup truck doesn't mean it was safe.
Doesn't mean it needs to be banned, either.
Organophosphates (unlike roundup) actually are quite dangerous. It doesn't take a huge ammount to instantly kill you, and repeated exposure to lower doses definitely can lead to health problems. That doesn't mean they're a risk for the consumer, though; only for the agriculutrual workers who come into contact with the stuff. Better safety protocols during aplication/handling may be all that's really needed, as suggested by the fact that (as per the article) 99% of those who die from pesticide poisoning are in the developing world.
As for the "experts" in this article, when they try to blame autism on organophosphates that's a pretty big red flag. When they further say things like "We found no evidence of a safe level of organophosphate pesticide exposure for children" that pretty much confirms that they're not to be taken seriously. They then go on to tell you to "buy organic" and "wash your food", the latter of which is probably the only truly rational suggestion in the entire article.
I have the right to be protected from the subversive force of foreign governments. One of the central roles of government is to protect it's people.
So you think that, say, Mao's little red book should be banned in the USA?
If you honestly believe that it is the role of government to protect you from the thoughts and opinions of people in other nations ... you may as well see if North Korea is accepting immigration applications.
You're supposed to be a responsible, intelligent human being, who understands that every source will have some bias. You're supposed to be capable of, and interested in, checking multiple sources in order to try and get a balanced perspective which can better inform your opinion and lead to a more nuanced understanding of the subject.
That's not easy, though, so most people just end up isolating themselves in an ideological bubble which reinforces what they want to believe.
I never get tired of watching APK argue with himself.
Some Linux "interfaces" are just as shiny as the Mac. Some are more plain but efficient. You want to replicate a Mac, install something like Elementary OS, or just install Gnome 3 on any distro, with a Mac theme. You want something more widnows-like, try Cinammon or MATE. Hell even KDE is pretty decent these days. If after trying all that you still feel "shit on" then I would suggest that the problem lies with your own biases rather than with the "interface".
I believe the water cannot be drunk without adding some minerals.
That's an old urban legend which has gotten more and more silly with each retelling. No, there's nothing wrong with drinking distilled water. You get a lot more minerals via the food you eat than from the water you drink.
Hard to believe that there are enough idiots on Slashdot for this to get nodded to +1.
Not actually true (not even close) but they do apparently have a 27% obesity rate, which is more than I would have thought. Definitely the idea that they're "starving" is blatant nonsense.
The fact that the government has created special rules for some groups of people doesn't mean that they're not just groups of people. They used to do that based on skin colour too. You can do it based on any criteria you like. May as well legally classify all left handed people as lefties, create special laws for them, and then insist that they have their own special tax category on top of the taxes they're already paying. They're not just a group of people, they're lefties! And they're not paying their fair share!
I've thought about quitting smoking, but I always figured my lack of exercise would kill me long before the smoking did. Now I have scientific proof that my theory was sound! Thank you, JAMA, for setting my mind at ease!
Corporations benefit from society's existence, in fact they utterly depend on it. As such, they are required to pay to maintain it. This notion that they should be able to avoid paying as a "right", is unacceptable, and every society should be up in arms over it.
You speak about corporations as if they were living beings. They are not. Corporations don't benefit; people benefit. A corporation is just a bunch of people getting together, pooling resources, and working together. You are already taxing all of those people, some of them multiple times. You tax the employes with income tax. You tax the shareholders with capital gains taxes. You tax each purchase and sale with sales taxes and/or "value added" taxes. The idea that you need to have a second tax on top of those taxes is idiotic. Almost as idiotic as the idea that, after all of those other taxes have been collected, these groupings of people are still somehow "parasites" who aren't paying their fair share.
Of course it's not inelastic (but no, it's not a fallacy). Tax anything enough and as the price rises you're going to see a corresponding drop in demand. That doesn't change anything. Tax your people enough and there will likewise be a drop in demand for all sorts of things. People who are taxed to the point of starvation don't go out and buy iPhones. Congrats, you've lowered demand. They also won't be able to afford a lot of other stuff, though, so if you want to decrease demand for a specific product (or many products from a specific company) then taxing the corporations rather than the people is a great strategy to get there ... as long as it's TARGETED taxation. Targeting apple specifically with ridiculous taxes would be a wonderful way to limit their market.
If, on the other hand, you aren't looking to limit Apples sales but rather just want to steal more money, then it makes very little difference whether you increase taxes on all corporations or increase taxes on all citizens. Same result.
Such revolts are never led by the poor; they're generally organized and led by some upper class cunts who wants to put themselves on top.
Yes, people with means can sometimes rouse up the dissatisfied rabble in order to overthrow the existing power structure. This is much easier in nations which are actually impoverished. In other places - like the USA - where you dont have any real poverty, you have to come up with different ways of dividing the people when you want a civil war. Things like race, politics, and religion are usually good for that.
So why should it be taxes? Facebook is costing German users literally nothing. It's providing them with a service they want at no cost, and paying for that service by selling advertisements to non-german companies. And Germany thinks its entitled to a piece of that? Why?
There's no rational way to justify it. The only reason they can give is "because we want that money". They can try to dress it up by talking about tax shelters and "big business" and shit, but at the end of the day it just boils down to the fact that they see someone out there in the world with money, and they want to take it for themselves. Just like bandits have always done.
The correct solution isn't a global tax but rather to charge taxes based on sales in that country.
Which will drive up the price of the product, meaning it's the European customer who pays the tax. Why not just skip all this retarded talk about "Making Teh Corporation$$$$ Pay" and just go ahead and raise the tax on your citizens. Same result.
People these days are more paranoid than the US during the cold war.
Not everything is about imaginary Russian bots.
Aha! Got you! That's exactly the kind of thing a Russian bot would say!
This latest charge of a Russian "agent" charges a woman with "conspiracy to defraud the United States" - which isn't actually a crime.
Good one, Ivan!
923. 18 U.S.C. 371â"CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES
The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371, creates an offense "[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.
https://www.justice.gov/jm/cri...
The far left are almost nonexistent
lol
The hard right doesn't want to have their ideas compete in an open market of ideas. No they want to shutdown the market entirely, and make and keep people too uninformed to recognize that they are too uninformed
The only difference in that regard between the far right and the far left is that the far right wants to keep you so uninformed that you don't realize you're uninformed, while the far left wants to "reeducate" you to the point that you're convinced that you're informed. The end result is essentially the same.
Irony.
No, jackass, the original claim was that it can drive for millions of miles without an issue. That's not the same as having no issues. It has now driven well over a billon miles. The data so far shows that after the autopilot feature became available accidents were reduced anywhere between 13 and 40 percent, depending on which numbers you go with. Even if you want to be a complete fucking pessimist and dismiss those numbers out of hand, we know for a fact that accidents haven't INCREASED. So yes, autopilot can drive for millions of miles without issues. If there was any truth to your rabid predictions of doom you would be able to present actual data to support your position rather than screaming about a handful of anecdotes.
Yes, moron, this is exactly why the adults here keep reminding morons like you that we rely on technology every day which has the potential to kill us. You think brakes never fail? Bolts never shear? Roofs never collapse? Aircraft computers never malfunction? Bridges never fall? Traffic lights never go out? GPS guidance never gives false directions?
You're surrounded by technology which could fail at any moment and kill you, but you either don't give it a second thought, or you understand the potential failure modes and are ready to compensate for them. The only time that fuckwits like you flip your lid is when the subject at hand is a technology which you are very passionate and completely ignorant about. Then you're suddenly super concerned and OMG it's the end of the fucking world.
Let's say both the EV and ICE car costs $35k upfront and use the same numbers before ($0.15c/mile ICE, $0.01/mile EV). At the 50,000 mile mark it's fair to say that you're saving $7,000, but that means that cost coming out of your pocket is $35,500 instead of $42,500. It's not fair to say that your out of pocket cost for an EV is $28,000 as it implies that you're somehow generating revenue driving an EV that is not present in an ICE.
Nobody is saying any of that. They're simply saying that the price of the car is X, the savings over a given time period are Y, and therefore if you factor in the savings then the effective price over that time period are X-Y. There's nothing unusual about that; I'm not sure why you're so confused about it.
It's the same math as if you're thinking about buying, say, solar panels. The panel costs X, the monthly savings will be Y, therefore the effective cost of the panel after number of months N will be X-(Y*N). Only difference being that, if all goes well, the panels will eventually pay for themselves so that your "cost" compared to the alternatives will be zero, or even negative. It's still costing you money to buy and maintain the panels, but eventually the savings are greater than the original purchase price.
Yes, congratulations dumbass, you've just discovered that every elecronic system in existence has some limitations. Pretty soon you might even figure out that the computer thingy you bought isn't actually powered by magic smoke.
Every driver assist system in existence has problems with stationary vehicles under some circumstances:
https://www.wired.com/story/te...
Wtf? And someone (or rather several someones) thought that "Zero-Day In Popular jQuery Plugin" was a good headline for a story about a crappy PHP script?
This place is really falling apart.