This seems like fear mongering, and potentially government agency funding generation. If this is as large of an issue as they think it is, why hasn't it been happening up til now? Government is always behind the curve. This sounds like a solution looking for a problem.
...and at the end of the day who cares? Weapons of war don't do anything without politicians who decide when and where they get used. It's like blaming guns and the NRA for school shootings instead of the individual who pulled the trigger.
I would strongly disagree with that sentiment. We have a right to defend our interests, and that's not always just our borders. When you have training camps where jihadists are being trained to kill American citizens it is in our best interests to put a stop to that. When you have brutal dictators who are using chemical weapons on their political opponents in violation of the Geneva conventions it's in the interests of the world at large to put a stop to that as well. There are degrees. By your logic it would be unethical to go into Nazi Germany and stop what Hitler was doing.
If I make a hammer how much responsibility do I bear if someone uses it to kill someone? I'd say about as much as if I make cars and someone kills someone with that. Or guns for that matter while we're on the subject. Making tools does not make you responsible for how those tools are used. Even nukes which are designed primarily to kill are also used to ensure peace through their disuse. Bad things would happen if we didn't have them making the fact that we have them a positive. If I were that I guy I would lose 0 sleep at night worrying about it. He says non-zero, but I would say it is zero. He has no control over how the things he has created are used. That's up to the people who hold them now.
That's just what I was thinking. If the IRS can target conservatives with the blessing of the opposing administration what about anything else. How long before we start having efforts to wipe out all opposition domestically? Certain religious groups? People with mental illness? The US government does not exactly have a long history of benevolence.
It's not that there is a lack of talent. Every time I see statements like this it comes down to there's no talent willing to work for peanuts. If you run a multi-million dollar operation you can afford to pay the people who actually make you profitable. That's what it really comes down to. The CEO can have a grand strategy, but without people who know what they're doing to implement it they might as well go fishing and drink beer all day. Part of the problem is there are still people willing to give away what they have for next to nothing just to barely survive. Corporations really only have the pull we give them. Kind of like the government. Quit working for them and quit buying their crap. See how long they last.
A government agency with no slack in their budget? Inability to remove third party software because it's embedded too deeply? This has all the look and feel of another tax payer shakedown.
There's typically two levels. There's the level for the user, and then there's the administrative level that's for your service provider. It's how they magically push updates to your equipment, and I'm not sure you can turn that off.
That's why all the programs you mention should just be scrapped. It was never about helping the people who need it anyway. Social security might have been a good idea until we started plundering what people paid in driving it to bankruptcy and giving it away to people who never paid in. Stop pulling the money out of my paycheck and let me put it in my 401k instead. It's not like they don't whack that every 10-15 years as well, but at least there'd be something left. The GPS program was originally paid for by taxes, but the ongoing costs is what they are talking about there. I agree about the cost shifting to a point, but if they don't charge for it our tax dollars are going to pay for it for sure.
You don't even have to go that far back. How many trips did Michelle Obama take with a complete security detail every time? These weren't trips for US interests. These were personal junkets. How about Obama's golf outings? What about all of his fundraisers for the democratic party, and campaigning to advance his agenda for years after he was already in office? Hillary Clinton's pay to play scam with her charity? Uranium One? Whitewater? Trump donates his annual salary to the US parks service. Just for a touch of contrast.
A strong military is what keeps this country safe. If you get rid of that we become vulnerable. The US military does protect our interests, and I'd say that's a good thing. What other country goes around doing things that aren't in their best interests? Government run healthcare is a disaster universally wherever it's been implemented. Ask someone in Canada how long it takes to get an audience with a doctor. People commonly die of very treatable causes simply because they can't get in soon enough. And the costs are astronomical. Their healthcare system is far more costly than ours it's just every Canadian has already paid for it before they even saw the money. They don't get the huge bill. England isn't any better. The answer to healthcare is to regulate the costs like we do with oil, gas, food, electricity and any other thing that most people need to survive. That should be the sum and total extent of government involvement with the majority of the burden falling on the industry that's making a killing rather than creating another bloated government agency. That was the big problem with the ACA. It's great to give everyone healthcare, but they did nothing to control costs. Require everyone to purchase healthcare and fine / tax them if they don't. Yep that'll fix it. Not.
That's the rub. They're talking about charging for distribution of the data, not the collection of data. So if they don't charge for it then it will be paid for with our tax dollars. It seems to me this would be small potatoes in terms of cost and the benefit provided is significant. I do like the idea of making these government projects justify their existence and be good stewards of our tax dollars. I'm all for that. There's far too much waste when you're always dealing in terms of no accountability and someone else's money.
They might call it autopilot, but on their web site where they describe the feature it says: "Every driver is responsible for remaining alert and active when using Autopilot, and must be prepared to take action at any time." How could anyone possibly interpret that as "I can take a nap while my car drives me home"?
https://www.tesla.com/autopilo...
I don't know. How come no one is focusing on the personal responsibility of the driver? It's well documented that this is assist technology. You can't just set it and let it go. So if someone does that, ultimately it's no different than driving under the influence, or falling asleep behind the wheel. Why is it up to the car company to ensure the driver is paying attention? No other car company does that.
Maybe it's because he knows it's all a bunch of nonsense having more to do with politics and money than any real threat. 10 million per year to monitor carbon? That's a lot of graft to the contractors. Political donations too I'm sure. One hand always washes the other.
I've been thinking a bit about the war on drugs and I think I have a pretty good solution. Make it all legal. You want to smoke pot? Great. You want to put chemicals into your body that destroy you slowly over time (including cigarettes and alcohol)? Sure. Go ahead. But you are now ineligible for any kind of public or government assistance including healthcare. You made the choice, you wear the consequences. Why should everyone else pick up the tab because you're too stupid to look at the existing evidence and make a rational decision? You want to commit crime to support your habit? Now you can go to prison. Over time the result although predictable will be so glaringly obvious that the problem should clear itself up within a decade or two.
Murder by definition is the killing of the innocent. When someone has clearly demonstrated the disregard for others to the point where they've committed rape or murder they are not innocent. There are clear provisions in the Bible for how this situation should be dealt with and there is no conflict with the death penalty. In those days it was death by stoning. Not exactly a humane punishment. Perhaps that was the point. Look back over the years at how society has become more and more violent as we've become more and more lenient on consequences as a society. I believe there's a correlation there. It costs 150k per year to lock people up because of the industrial prison complex. Which is a separate issue that we should address and yet for some reason don't.
I think the point is that in addition to protecting society there also exists (or should exist) a deterring component to dissuade others from acting on those same impulses. That being said I'm not all that concerned about how humane it is. In fact, I'd argue that the less concerned we are about that the more beneficial the death penalty might become for the good of society as a whole.
You might want to have a discussion with Neil Young. He explains in great detail what's wrong with CD, and if you run it to ground he's right. Admittedly, on your cell phone, or walmart stereo there is no distinguishable difference. When you get into higher end systems though the difference is night and day.
idk, if you're going to bring back poor media 8-tracks would be way better than cd. I own a Pioneer 909. It's beautiful, and it sounds just as good as it looks. Classical music really shines on it, but I've got punk rock, blues, classic rock on open reel. I've yet to run across something that doesn't sound good on it.
Slashdot Mirror
This seems like fear mongering, and potentially government agency funding generation. If this is as large of an issue as they think it is, why hasn't it been happening up til now? Government is always behind the curve. This sounds like a solution looking for a problem.
Git Files Your Self.
...and at the end of the day who cares? Weapons of war don't do anything without politicians who decide when and where they get used. It's like blaming guns and the NRA for school shootings instead of the individual who pulled the trigger.
I would strongly disagree with that sentiment. We have a right to defend our interests, and that's not always just our borders. When you have training camps where jihadists are being trained to kill American citizens it is in our best interests to put a stop to that. When you have brutal dictators who are using chemical weapons on their political opponents in violation of the Geneva conventions it's in the interests of the world at large to put a stop to that as well. There are degrees. By your logic it would be unethical to go into Nazi Germany and stop what Hitler was doing.
If I make a hammer how much responsibility do I bear if someone uses it to kill someone? I'd say about as much as if I make cars and someone kills someone with that. Or guns for that matter while we're on the subject. Making tools does not make you responsible for how those tools are used. Even nukes which are designed primarily to kill are also used to ensure peace through their disuse. Bad things would happen if we didn't have them making the fact that we have them a positive. If I were that I guy I would lose 0 sleep at night worrying about it. He says non-zero, but I would say it is zero. He has no control over how the things he has created are used. That's up to the people who hold them now.
That's just what I was thinking. If the IRS can target conservatives with the blessing of the opposing administration what about anything else. How long before we start having efforts to wipe out all opposition domestically? Certain religious groups? People with mental illness? The US government does not exactly have a long history of benevolence.
It's not that there is a lack of talent. Every time I see statements like this it comes down to there's no talent willing to work for peanuts. If you run a multi-million dollar operation you can afford to pay the people who actually make you profitable. That's what it really comes down to. The CEO can have a grand strategy, but without people who know what they're doing to implement it they might as well go fishing and drink beer all day. Part of the problem is there are still people willing to give away what they have for next to nothing just to barely survive. Corporations really only have the pull we give them. Kind of like the government. Quit working for them and quit buying their crap. See how long they last.
A government agency with no slack in their budget? Inability to remove third party software because it's embedded too deeply? This has all the look and feel of another tax payer shakedown.
Now we can identify who all those Nigerian princes really are.
There's typically two levels. There's the level for the user, and then there's the administrative level that's for your service provider. It's how they magically push updates to your equipment, and I'm not sure you can turn that off.
That's why all the programs you mention should just be scrapped. It was never about helping the people who need it anyway. Social security might have been a good idea until we started plundering what people paid in driving it to bankruptcy and giving it away to people who never paid in. Stop pulling the money out of my paycheck and let me put it in my 401k instead. It's not like they don't whack that every 10-15 years as well, but at least there'd be something left. The GPS program was originally paid for by taxes, but the ongoing costs is what they are talking about there. I agree about the cost shifting to a point, but if they don't charge for it our tax dollars are going to pay for it for sure.
You don't even have to go that far back. How many trips did Michelle Obama take with a complete security detail every time? These weren't trips for US interests. These were personal junkets. How about Obama's golf outings? What about all of his fundraisers for the democratic party, and campaigning to advance his agenda for years after he was already in office? Hillary Clinton's pay to play scam with her charity? Uranium One? Whitewater? Trump donates his annual salary to the US parks service. Just for a touch of contrast.
A strong military is what keeps this country safe. If you get rid of that we become vulnerable. The US military does protect our interests, and I'd say that's a good thing. What other country goes around doing things that aren't in their best interests? Government run healthcare is a disaster universally wherever it's been implemented. Ask someone in Canada how long it takes to get an audience with a doctor. People commonly die of very treatable causes simply because they can't get in soon enough. And the costs are astronomical. Their healthcare system is far more costly than ours it's just every Canadian has already paid for it before they even saw the money. They don't get the huge bill. England isn't any better. The answer to healthcare is to regulate the costs like we do with oil, gas, food, electricity and any other thing that most people need to survive. That should be the sum and total extent of government involvement with the majority of the burden falling on the industry that's making a killing rather than creating another bloated government agency. That was the big problem with the ACA. It's great to give everyone healthcare, but they did nothing to control costs. Require everyone to purchase healthcare and fine / tax them if they don't. Yep that'll fix it. Not.
That's the rub. They're talking about charging for distribution of the data, not the collection of data. So if they don't charge for it then it will be paid for with our tax dollars. It seems to me this would be small potatoes in terms of cost and the benefit provided is significant. I do like the idea of making these government projects justify their existence and be good stewards of our tax dollars. I'm all for that. There's far too much waste when you're always dealing in terms of no accountability and someone else's money.
They might call it autopilot, but on their web site where they describe the feature it says: "Every driver is responsible for remaining alert and active when using Autopilot, and must be prepared to take action at any time." How could anyone possibly interpret that as "I can take a nap while my car drives me home"? https://www.tesla.com/autopilo...
I don't know. How come no one is focusing on the personal responsibility of the driver? It's well documented that this is assist technology. You can't just set it and let it go. So if someone does that, ultimately it's no different than driving under the influence, or falling asleep behind the wheel. Why is it up to the car company to ensure the driver is paying attention? No other car company does that.
Maybe it's because he knows it's all a bunch of nonsense having more to do with politics and money than any real threat. 10 million per year to monitor carbon? That's a lot of graft to the contractors. Political donations too I'm sure. One hand always washes the other.
I've been thinking a bit about the war on drugs and I think I have a pretty good solution. Make it all legal. You want to smoke pot? Great. You want to put chemicals into your body that destroy you slowly over time (including cigarettes and alcohol)? Sure. Go ahead. But you are now ineligible for any kind of public or government assistance including healthcare. You made the choice, you wear the consequences. Why should everyone else pick up the tab because you're too stupid to look at the existing evidence and make a rational decision? You want to commit crime to support your habit? Now you can go to prison. Over time the result although predictable will be so glaringly obvious that the problem should clear itself up within a decade or two.
The death penalty is not typically handed down on circumstantial evidence or first time offenders.
Murder by definition is the killing of the innocent. When someone has clearly demonstrated the disregard for others to the point where they've committed rape or murder they are not innocent. There are clear provisions in the Bible for how this situation should be dealt with and there is no conflict with the death penalty. In those days it was death by stoning. Not exactly a humane punishment. Perhaps that was the point. Look back over the years at how society has become more and more violent as we've become more and more lenient on consequences as a society. I believe there's a correlation there. It costs 150k per year to lock people up because of the industrial prison complex. Which is a separate issue that we should address and yet for some reason don't.
I think the point is that in addition to protecting society there also exists (or should exist) a deterring component to dissuade others from acting on those same impulses. That being said I'm not all that concerned about how humane it is. In fact, I'd argue that the less concerned we are about that the more beneficial the death penalty might become for the good of society as a whole.
Why use it on animals? What'd they do? Use it on murderers, child molesters, and rapists. See how they respond.
You might want to have a discussion with Neil Young. He explains in great detail what's wrong with CD, and if you run it to ground he's right. Admittedly, on your cell phone, or walmart stereo there is no distinguishable difference. When you get into higher end systems though the difference is night and day.
idk, if you're going to bring back poor media 8-tracks would be way better than cd. I own a Pioneer 909. It's beautiful, and it sounds just as good as it looks. Classical music really shines on it, but I've got punk rock, blues, classic rock on open reel. I've yet to run across something that doesn't sound good on it.
Hey I was dropped on my head as a baby you insensitive clod!