Yeah...could you pick me up and drop me off at work everyday? That would be gre..at.
No problems, I start at $80 per hour plus fuel. I start charging from the moment I leave my house.
BTW, you'll be getting picked up in a 2001 Nissan Silvia S15 that has been modified for performance with comfort not being a factor. It gets about 12L/100KM.
In my car, you may not touch the stereo or the air-conditioner. If you have strong opinions on politics, religion or immigration you are well advised to keep them to yourself.
What, you dont want to pay me to drive you in my car under my conditions... Remember that I enjoy driving, if you dont want to pay to share in my joy that's your problem.
Modular? Yeah not so much. I run a company that makes wire harnesses for the auto industry.
I think he meant computer wise. Talking about electronics such as wiring harnesses and the like, yep you're completely right. Even for manufacturers that try to get as much commonality across models as they can (Kia, Huyundai, Ford, GM) there is still huge differences that cant be avoided.
However when it comes to microcontrollers like ECU's, ABS controllers and so forth, very few manufacturers make bespoke hardware, most ECU's are from well known manufacturers like Bosch. Software is another story however.
Umm, I think you are confusing the vehicle Registration with the vehicle Title. If you buy a car and have car payments, whatever institution you're paying that money to holds the Title for the vehicle until the loan is paid off. That means the institution actually OWNS the vehicle as they hold the Title. The Title is then transferred to you once the vehicle is paid off and you then own the vehicle.
I'm glad I dont live where you live.
In most civilised countries a loan does not give the lender ownership rights, it only places an encumbrance on the vehicle. This is certainly the case in most countries based on Common (British) law. This means you have the right to sell the vehicle but if the vehicle is being used as security for a loan, the lender must be paid first. The only rights the lender has in a sale is to demand that the purchaser pay the lender the remainder of the loan first but this is only done when the debtor is believed or known to be untrustworthy (this is very rare in Australia).
Hey, if you like to define yourself by your car, that's cool. For myself, the car is a box that goes from place to place.
And by extension you've defined yourself by your car.
You aren't a driver, you're a steering wheel attendant who sits in a boring, drab, uninteresting box being bored. You seem to like this. However that isn't the worst thing, your lack of care about your car only highlights your lack of care about your driving, this means you wont be a safe and considerate driver.
Driving is something most people do a lot. Having an interest, or better yet, a passion in your car shows that you aren't a drab boring person and have something you actually care about.
The argument isn't that old people don't buy cars now, it's that they won't buy cars in the future, because they'll be dead.
The argument is, that instead of competing using better engineering (which is expensive) car manufacturers want to compete using cheap gimmicks like infotainment systems (which are cheap).
Google didn't force them, Apple simply just didn't want to pay.
See what I did there?
It wasn't money at stake. It was user privacy. I'm glad Apple didn't "pay".
Keep telling yourself that, but it doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.
The sticking point that Apple had was that Google wanted Google branding on Google maps. Apple refused and released their woefully inferior Apple Maps. Apple maps was (and still is) so bad they had to break their own rules and approve a stand alone Google maps application.
This is what ShanghaiBill said:
"A pot on a stovetop needs to be watched and occasionally stirred. A rice cooker is fire-and-forget."?
Either you've never used a rice cooker or you don't understand that you just proved ShanghaiBill right.
Having watched people get burned rice out of a rice cooker, they are definitely not "fire and forget". Let them run for too long without water (or not enough water) and then you'll have problems.
Personally I prefer to use the adsorption method (stovetop) as a small pot is easier and faster to clean than an average sized rice cooker, gives me more control over the process and it's not much effort especially when I'm already cooking.
4 - Going cashless solves nothing..!!! Your cashless bank account still lists an amount of pesos and if you want to convert them to dollars the normal restrictions apply. People taking advantage of bitcoin and other schemes are simply operating in the black market... it could be bitcoin, it could be bonds or stock.
The problem here is that on./ there are a few people who have a hard on for going cashless despite the fact it will only increase costs (banks dont do things for free) and make every purchase you make traceable so whenever economic issues are mentioned they tout this as a magic solution to whatever economic problems are being mentioned. They're a lot like Libertarians in the way their solutions dont make sense. If Argentina went cashless, wouldn't everyone just start using US dollars given there's already a thriving black (more a darkish shade of grey) market for them?
There will never be a cashless society because cash is so useful, if the government tender becomes useless, people will adopt another form. We see this when a nations currency devalues to a point where it's useless, they simply adopt the currency of another nation. Even if every nation went cashless, we'd end up with a black market currency as an alternative.
Am I anti-men thinking this sounds really stupid or have I just internalized my philogyny?
Nope, its stupid.
Real men dont complain about things like this.
I fear more about the death of manliness from people who see feminist conspiracies in a harmless movie than from actual feminist conspiracies (mainly because feminist conspiracies, like most conspiracies only exist in the mind of a few nutcases). I haven't seen the new Mad Max yet, but I'm willing to bet this conspiracy is nothing more than a way to get screen time on a hot chick (because sex sells).
My biggest concern is that the actor who plays Max, Tom Hardy is English... then again, Mel Gibson isn't really Australian either.
Have you ever actually looked closely at a chicken? I did once and I am pretty sure that they are some sort of demon spawn and definitely not an animal, or at least not an animal of this earth.
I have listened to enough Coast to Cost in my life but have never heard anything about the chickens and now I want a good laugh at the reasoning behind this.
The idea is that Chickens are not a wild animal, therefore not a real animal.
As far as Ariana is concerned, I just can't watch her for too long
Might I suggest listening to music instead of watching it? I think you're doing it wrong....
I would also suggest listening to music, but Arianne Grande isn't music.
Its computer generated, mass produced crap.
They mime their concerts because the song people hear on the radio (or spotify or any other service) is altered post production beyond the dynamic range of the human voice. There is literally no way they can replicate it live. Arianne Grande is no exception and lets face it, the only reason she's popular is because she is easy on the eyes.
I recently went to a Foo Fighters concert, Dave Grohl screwed up a line in Big Me. That's how you tell if they're faking it or not. Someone can perform a song thousands of times and still make a mistake, when their miming a recording, they never make mistakes. Not that anyone cared that Dave Grohl made a mistake, least of all Dave Grohl, it was still an awesome concert.
MP3 players are superior in several ways to smart-phones. I just bought a new one. Sansa Clip+, excellent device, almost unchanged in the last 10 years, just larger memory. Can be clipped to T-shirt or jogging-pants, is entirely unimpressed by being dropped even on a hard floor, very light, long battery life, excellent sound quality.
This.
The problem you've got is the fact that most people think the "best" MP3 player is the Ipod when it is in fact, one of the worst. Smart phones tend to use the cheapest audio components they can get away with because its not the primary use of the device, people are happy to compromise on quality or simply dont know any better. As long as it works well enough people wont care. With dedicated MP3 players the audio components are the entire reason for the device, I went from an Ipod to a Creative Zen many many years ago and it was like chalk and cheese. After the Zen carked it, I bought a Cowon which was another step up.
I haven't bought a new MP3 player in 5 years, but I also dont use my phone for music. If I did I would buy a new MP3 player.
To be fair, Australia loves to emulate the US. A lot of our car culture comes from the US with our most popular cars having big American engines that produce stupidly low amounts of power for their displacement as well as handling that wouldn't be envied by a river barge.
The Ford Falcons used in the original Mad Max were basically American designs made in Australia.
I'm kind of curious how they consider it an assault on mens rights... but I'm worried that the kind of stupidity that comes up with things like this is infectious over the Internet.
Yes, it does. It doesn't matter what luck you get, being able to 'be' a character requires talent. If you don't believe me why don't you get on a microphone and do a passable impression of Mr. Burns reading a scene from Hamlet. There might be 14 million in it for you!
Being able to impersonate accents is a very difficult skill to master. Being able to do it on the fly like Harry Shearer can is a step above that (seen him a few times on live TV over the years).
Considering that most people cant re-intonate their voice at all it certainly is a difficult skill. Many people have the same accent until they die even when completely they live for decades in a new country.
Most people trying to read Hamlet in another voice, be it Mr. Burns, Jeremy Clarkson or a generic Mexican accent are nothing but cringe worthy because most people dont get that you dont sound the way you think you sound (I.E. record yourself and listen).
First, it IS an assault on religious freedom despite what proponents will tell you
No it isn't.
There is no religion I know of that says "Thou shalt recieveth government benefits".
This law only denies government funded benefits to those who refuse to vaccinate for whatever reason. Most private schools already refuse to accept children who aren't vaccinated, hell even Montessori and Steiner schools require a damn good reason to accept an unvaccinated child. Is this denying religious freedom? I dont see any difference between the government and private schools in this regard.
Being able to be stupid is not an inalienable right. Society has no reason nor responsibility to support anyone stupid enough to be an anti-vaxxer.
Claiming this law assaults religious freedom is like saying laws against assault religious freedom because they are trying to discourage god fearing people from burning witches and performing human sacrifices.
Australia has something similar. The government consulted with the major religions beforehand and none of them had problems with vaccinations.
To extend this, in Oz, anti-vaxxers aren't typically religious, definitely not one of the major religions (even going down to Judaism which is 0.5% of the Australian population). Anti vaxxers are typically anti-government types, the kind that believe in secret government run by lizard people and that chicken isn't a real animal (I'm not kidding about this).
I think we should go further and when unvaxed children come down with preventable diseases, their parents should be charged with child neglect.
They should be charged with endangering other people's Children as those few who cant be vaccinated depend on herd immunity.
We live in a world of empiricism, where the concepts of faith and religion are - if not outright mocked and denigrated - are under constant pressure.
No they aren't.
This is the defence I hear from the worst representatives of religion. The kind that need to pretend they're victimised in order to make their claims about society make sense.
If you go and ask a Buddhist monk if he's mocked and denigrated, he'll smile. If you ask a vicar in the CoE if their mocked and denigrated, they'll say "of course not, my child", if you ask a redneck Baptist preacher if they're mocked and denigrated, they'll say yes and give you a sermon about hell.
The only religions that are mocked and denigrated are those who make a nuisance of themselves. The Jehovah Witnesses that knock on your door, Scientoloists that sue people for criticising them and so forth.
I'm an Atheist, what one believes is one's own choice and should not be foisted on anyone else. I prefer to keep religion at arms length but that does not mean I'm offended by it. If a Buddhist monk or Christian priest were to offer me a blessing, I'd take it with the good intent it was given. If a preacher wants to give me a sermon, I'll ask them once, nicely to stop before telling them to naff off in a very unkind, faith shaking manner.
Check out the Nazi medical experimentation for starters.
So these experiments were done in the name of science?
Or were they done based on a different philosophy, say one about racial purity?
What you're describing is the co-opting of science to support a malicious philosophy. Science is not a philosophy in itself and does lend itself to whatever the user intends. In other words, science is like a hammer, you can use it to build a house or bash someone's skull in. Just because it can be used for evil purposes does not mean that it is evil in itself. This is why science is guided by ethics, not because science is evil, but because people can use it for evil purposes.
People fucking hate call centers because they have to traverse some hellish phone tree, wait too long to talk to a representative who is generally underinformed and insufficiently empowered to actually do anything about the problem.
This...
But people are half of the problem. They want champagne service at beer prices.
My car insurance is with RAC here in Western Australia. They aren't the cheapest but they have a local call centre that operates on Western Australian time, well trained staff and I've never spent more than 10 minutes on hold. Sure some cut price insurer might be $10-20 a month cheaper, but I know RAC wont give me the run-around during a claim as their policy is to pay out even under suspect circumstances (and if they think its suspect, they'll refuse to insure you again).
Also RAC were the only mainstream Australian insurer to give me an online quote for my Australian delivered Nissan 200sx (S15). There are companies that provide good service, but they aren't the cheapest and unfortunately, a lot of people only think about the bottom line when choosing an ISP, Insurer, bank and the like.
Lets compare this to a certain large global bank... You get on the phone and have to enter a 117 digit customer number, then a 6 digit passcode that I use maybe twice a year that I never remember. Beyond this when I talk to a person, for verification purposes I have to tell them my mothers maiden name, place of birth, how my ancestors were related to king Richard III, so and so forth. At least with my bank their call centre is in the Philippines where they have a good grasp of English (even if it's En_US, its still somewhat English) and an understandable accent. That being said, knowing what it's like receiving abuse over the phone I'm never rude or abusive to call centre staff.
That's not a bad thing. Cab Mafias are the same worldwide, and are in bad need of technological crushing.
First thing,
Taxi mafias are not the same world wide. The actual Mafia's operating in SE Asia that use violence, threats, intimidation, bribery and coercion are very different to regulated fake taxi "mafias" in the west where drivers must be trained, insured, licensed and customers have a means of addressing grievances.
Second thing, this is the Philippines.
There is a saying about the Philippines, "The Philippines has an excellent legal system, but a terrible justice system". It means that the legal framework is as good as any western country, in fact its based off US laws. However the laws are not applied equally, every level of the police and judiciary are corrupt, laws that people dont agree with are outright ignored (and the police are paid to look the other way) there is an unofficial bias to the system (locals and wealthy will have more rights than foreigners and poor) and the existing Mafia is too well entrenched.
That last point is important. The Jeepneys are not threatened by this. There's no way Uber is going to be cheaper than that, however the existing taxi/trike industry wont take kindly to competition, they never have and have never had any compunction against using violence as a first resort. Another unwritten rule in the Philippines (for foreigners) is that you never get between a man and his money. When I lived in the Phils, I knew two people who were shot because they forgot this rule. Uber drivers who aren't part of the taxi mafia will be taken out and beaten until they get the message.
Are they also going to throw out convertible and targa roofs on autos?
Geez, more and more I hope this driverless car thing doesn't take over and become *mandatory* my driving lifetime.
I've never owned anything but 2-seater sports cars, I don't think of driving as just a drudge, I actually have an adventure every time I fire up the engine and go for a drive!!!
Like you I enjoy driving, we don't need to worry about autonomous cars as adoption will be incredibly slow. The people thinking that their next car will drive itself are living in a fantasy. The technology will take decades to roll out and the steering wheel attendants wont be permitted to go to sleep or get drunk as they'll be required to monitor the vehicle. I imagine the people who see driving as a dreary task will find it even more tedious when they have to watch the car drive and I have no doubt this will be enforced (we have technologies that can tell if you're distracted already).
In the mean time, those of us who enjoy driving will continue to do it. There are a lot of people who will continue to buy manually operated cars because they like driving.
Credit cards were designed in the pre-internet era. It blows my mind that we haven't moved on to something more secure.
We haven't moved on from credit cards because most people will resist change.
Recently in Australia we elimination signing for purchases (a major source of fraud) so everyone who used to sign now has to use a PIN. Banks were flooded with calls complaining that using a PIN was too hard and if they had a choice they'd keep signing.
It takes at least 25 years for any new technology to integrate itself into our lives. For early adopters this may seem like a long time, but for the laggards its not enough time. A replacement for CC's will need to be implemented soon, but it will take decades for it to be accepted. Also knowing banks, it will probably be insecure until governments force them to secure it.
Every time you pay for dinner at a restaurant with your credit card, you're giving your waiter everything they need to steal your identity, especially if they ask to see your ID before serving you alcohol.
The only real defense against this is not to use your credit card so blithely.
The more you use a card, the more you open yourself up to fraud. This is the forth biggest reasons I use cash for most of my day to day transactions (cash is #1 cheaper, #2 faster, #3 a great way to proactively stick to a budget). Given how vulnerable credit cards are, people have to become more attentive as to where and when they use them. Realistically cards should never be let out of your sight, especially when in conjunction with with your ID which in many cases has your home address on it. Personally if I go for a night out, I'll pay in cash. A lot of pubs price drinks in whole dollars (instead of $X.99 like the supermarket) because they want to get paid in cash.
Slashdot Mirror
>> I love driving.
Yeah...could you pick me up and drop me off at work everyday? That would be gre..at.
No problems, I start at $80 per hour plus fuel. I start charging from the moment I leave my house.
BTW, you'll be getting picked up in a 2001 Nissan Silvia S15 that has been modified for performance with comfort not being a factor. It gets about 12L/100KM.
In my car, you may not touch the stereo or the air-conditioner. If you have strong opinions on politics, religion or immigration you are well advised to keep them to yourself.
What, you dont want to pay me to drive you in my car under my conditions... Remember that I enjoy driving, if you dont want to pay to share in my joy that's your problem.
I think he meant computer wise. Talking about electronics such as wiring harnesses and the like, yep you're completely right. Even for manufacturers that try to get as much commonality across models as they can (Kia, Huyundai, Ford, GM) there is still huge differences that cant be avoided.
However when it comes to microcontrollers like ECU's, ABS controllers and so forth, very few manufacturers make bespoke hardware, most ECU's are from well known manufacturers like Bosch. Software is another story however.
Umm, I think you are confusing the vehicle Registration with the vehicle Title. If you buy a car and have car payments, whatever institution you're paying that money to holds the Title for the vehicle until the loan is paid off. That means the institution actually OWNS the vehicle as they hold the Title. The Title is then transferred to you once the vehicle is paid off and you then own the vehicle.
I'm glad I dont live where you live.
In most civilised countries a loan does not give the lender ownership rights, it only places an encumbrance on the vehicle. This is certainly the case in most countries based on Common (British) law. This means you have the right to sell the vehicle but if the vehicle is being used as security for a loan, the lender must be paid first. The only rights the lender has in a sale is to demand that the purchaser pay the lender the remainder of the loan first but this is only done when the debtor is believed or known to be untrustworthy (this is very rare in Australia).
And by extension you've defined yourself by your car.
You aren't a driver, you're a steering wheel attendant who sits in a boring, drab, uninteresting box being bored. You seem to like this. However that isn't the worst thing, your lack of care about your car only highlights your lack of care about your driving, this means you wont be a safe and considerate driver.
Driving is something most people do a lot. Having an interest, or better yet, a passion in your car shows that you aren't a drab boring person and have something you actually care about.
The argument isn't that old people don't buy cars now, it's that they won't buy cars in the future, because they'll be dead.
The argument is, that instead of competing using better engineering (which is expensive) car manufacturers want to compete using cheap gimmicks like infotainment systems (which are cheap).
Google didn't force them, Apple simply just didn't want to pay.
See what I did there?
It wasn't money at stake. It was user privacy. I'm glad Apple didn't "pay".
Keep telling yourself that, but it doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.
The sticking point that Apple had was that Google wanted Google branding on Google maps. Apple refused and released their woefully inferior Apple Maps. Apple maps was (and still is) so bad they had to break their own rules and approve a stand alone Google maps application.
Nespresso is largely unknown outside Europe?
Australia is in Europe?
I've seen a few throughout SE Asia too (Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines).
That being said, I abhor pod coffee and given the choice, I'd rather instant (or a cup of tea, even Liptons).
This is what ShanghaiBill said:
"A pot on a stovetop needs to be watched and occasionally stirred. A rice cooker is fire-and-forget."?
Either you've never used a rice cooker or you don't understand that you just proved ShanghaiBill right.
Having watched people get burned rice out of a rice cooker, they are definitely not "fire and forget". Let them run for too long without water (or not enough water) and then you'll have problems.
Personally I prefer to use the adsorption method (stovetop) as a small pot is easier and faster to clean than an average sized rice cooker, gives me more control over the process and it's not much effort especially when I'm already cooking.
4 - Going cashless solves nothing..!!! Your cashless bank account still lists an amount of pesos and if you want to convert them to dollars the normal restrictions apply. People taking advantage of bitcoin and other schemes are simply operating in the black market... it could be bitcoin, it could be bonds or stock.
The problem here is that on ./ there are a few people who have a hard on for going cashless despite the fact it will only increase costs (banks dont do things for free) and make every purchase you make traceable so whenever economic issues are mentioned they tout this as a magic solution to whatever economic problems are being mentioned. They're a lot like Libertarians in the way their solutions dont make sense. If Argentina went cashless, wouldn't everyone just start using US dollars given there's already a thriving black (more a darkish shade of grey) market for them?
There will never be a cashless society because cash is so useful, if the government tender becomes useless, people will adopt another form. We see this when a nations currency devalues to a point where it's useless, they simply adopt the currency of another nation. Even if every nation went cashless, we'd end up with a black market currency as an alternative.
Am I anti-men thinking this sounds really stupid or have I just internalized my philogyny?
Nope, its stupid.
Real men dont complain about things like this.
I fear more about the death of manliness from people who see feminist conspiracies in a harmless movie than from actual feminist conspiracies (mainly because feminist conspiracies, like most conspiracies only exist in the mind of a few nutcases). I haven't seen the new Mad Max yet, but I'm willing to bet this conspiracy is nothing more than a way to get screen time on a hot chick (because sex sells).
My biggest concern is that the actor who plays Max, Tom Hardy is English... then again, Mel Gibson isn't really Australian either.
and that chicken isn't a real animal
Have you ever actually looked closely at a chicken? I did once and I am pretty sure that they are some sort of demon spawn and definitely not an animal, or at least not an animal of this earth. I have listened to enough Coast to Cost in my life but have never heard anything about the chickens and now I want a good laugh at the reasoning behind this.
The idea is that Chickens are not a wild animal, therefore not a real animal.
Yes, I facepalmed too when I first heard it.
I think older music (including classical) benefits from a survivor bias: the bad stuff has been forgotten, leaving only the good stuff.
The same thing will happen to the music we knew as kids, and the music we hear from pop artists today.
And this is a good thing(TM).
In 20-30 years things like Dubstep will be a complete joke whilst people still talk about Peal Jam in the same way we still talk about Sinatra...
I'm a rock and metal fan and I think Sinatra's work is good.
Mixing Country and Rap will get you Crap.
Mixing Rap and Electronica will get you Rape.
As far as Ariana is concerned, I just can't watch her for too long
Might I suggest listening to music instead of watching it? I think you're doing it wrong....
I would also suggest listening to music, but Arianne Grande isn't music.
Its computer generated, mass produced crap.
They mime their concerts because the song people hear on the radio (or spotify or any other service) is altered post production beyond the dynamic range of the human voice. There is literally no way they can replicate it live. Arianne Grande is no exception and lets face it, the only reason she's popular is because she is easy on the eyes.
I recently went to a Foo Fighters concert, Dave Grohl screwed up a line in Big Me. That's how you tell if they're faking it or not. Someone can perform a song thousands of times and still make a mistake, when their miming a recording, they never make mistakes. Not that anyone cared that Dave Grohl made a mistake, least of all Dave Grohl, it was still an awesome concert.
MP3 players are superior in several ways to smart-phones. I just bought a new one. Sansa Clip+, excellent device, almost unchanged in the last 10 years, just larger memory. Can be clipped to T-shirt or jogging-pants, is entirely unimpressed by being dropped even on a hard floor, very light, long battery life, excellent sound quality.
This.
The problem you've got is the fact that most people think the "best" MP3 player is the Ipod when it is in fact, one of the worst. Smart phones tend to use the cheapest audio components they can get away with because its not the primary use of the device, people are happy to compromise on quality or simply dont know any better. As long as it works well enough people wont care. With dedicated MP3 players the audio components are the entire reason for the device, I went from an Ipod to a Creative Zen many many years ago and it was like chalk and cheese. After the Zen carked it, I bought a Cowon which was another step up.
I haven't bought a new MP3 player in 5 years, but I also dont use my phone for music. If I did I would buy a new MP3 player.
To be fair, Australia loves to emulate the US. A lot of our car culture comes from the US with our most popular cars having big American engines that produce stupidly low amounts of power for their displacement as well as handling that wouldn't be envied by a river barge.
The Ford Falcons used in the original Mad Max were basically American designs made in Australia.
I'm kind of curious how they consider it an assault on mens rights... but I'm worried that the kind of stupidity that comes up with things like this is infectious over the Internet.
Being able to impersonate accents is a very difficult skill to master. Being able to do it on the fly like Harry Shearer can is a step above that (seen him a few times on live TV over the years).
Considering that most people cant re-intonate their voice at all it certainly is a difficult skill. Many people have the same accent until they die even when completely they live for decades in a new country.
Most people trying to read Hamlet in another voice, be it Mr. Burns, Jeremy Clarkson or a generic Mexican accent are nothing but cringe worthy because most people dont get that you dont sound the way you think you sound (I.E. record yourself and listen).
No it isn't.
There is no religion I know of that says "Thou shalt recieveth government benefits".
This law only denies government funded benefits to those who refuse to vaccinate for whatever reason. Most private schools already refuse to accept children who aren't vaccinated, hell even Montessori and Steiner schools require a damn good reason to accept an unvaccinated child. Is this denying religious freedom? I dont see any difference between the government and private schools in this regard.
Being able to be stupid is not an inalienable right. Society has no reason nor responsibility to support anyone stupid enough to be an anti-vaxxer.
Claiming this law assaults religious freedom is like saying laws against assault religious freedom because they are trying to discourage god fearing people from burning witches and performing human sacrifices.
Australia has something similar. The government consulted with the major religions beforehand and none of them had problems with vaccinations.
To extend this, in Oz, anti-vaxxers aren't typically religious, definitely not one of the major religions (even going down to Judaism which is 0.5% of the Australian population). Anti vaxxers are typically anti-government types, the kind that believe in secret government run by lizard people and that chicken isn't a real animal (I'm not kidding about this).
I think we should go further and when unvaxed children come down with preventable diseases, their parents should be charged with child neglect.
They should be charged with endangering other people's Children as those few who cant be vaccinated depend on herd immunity.
We live in a world of empiricism, where the concepts of faith and religion are - if not outright mocked and denigrated - are under constant pressure.
No they aren't.
This is the defence I hear from the worst representatives of religion. The kind that need to pretend they're victimised in order to make their claims about society make sense.
If you go and ask a Buddhist monk if he's mocked and denigrated, he'll smile. If you ask a vicar in the CoE if their mocked and denigrated, they'll say "of course not, my child", if you ask a redneck Baptist preacher if they're mocked and denigrated, they'll say yes and give you a sermon about hell.
The only religions that are mocked and denigrated are those who make a nuisance of themselves. The Jehovah Witnesses that knock on your door, Scientoloists that sue people for criticising them and so forth.
I'm an Atheist, what one believes is one's own choice and should not be foisted on anyone else. I prefer to keep religion at arms length but that does not mean I'm offended by it. If a Buddhist monk or Christian priest were to offer me a blessing, I'd take it with the good intent it was given. If a preacher wants to give me a sermon, I'll ask them once, nicely to stop before telling them to naff off in a very unkind, faith shaking manner.
Check out the Nazi medical experimentation for starters.
So these experiments were done in the name of science?
Or were they done based on a different philosophy, say one about racial purity?
What you're describing is the co-opting of science to support a malicious philosophy. Science is not a philosophy in itself and does lend itself to whatever the user intends. In other words, science is like a hammer, you can use it to build a house or bash someone's skull in. Just because it can be used for evil purposes does not mean that it is evil in itself. This is why science is guided by ethics, not because science is evil, but because people can use it for evil purposes.
This...
But people are half of the problem. They want champagne service at beer prices.
My car insurance is with RAC here in Western Australia. They aren't the cheapest but they have a local call centre that operates on Western Australian time, well trained staff and I've never spent more than 10 minutes on hold. Sure some cut price insurer might be $10-20 a month cheaper, but I know RAC wont give me the run-around during a claim as their policy is to pay out even under suspect circumstances (and if they think its suspect, they'll refuse to insure you again).
Also RAC were the only mainstream Australian insurer to give me an online quote for my Australian delivered Nissan 200sx (S15). There are companies that provide good service, but they aren't the cheapest and unfortunately, a lot of people only think about the bottom line when choosing an ISP, Insurer, bank and the like.
Lets compare this to a certain large global bank... You get on the phone and have to enter a 117 digit customer number, then a 6 digit passcode that I use maybe twice a year that I never remember. Beyond this when I talk to a person, for verification purposes I have to tell them my mothers maiden name, place of birth, how my ancestors were related to king Richard III, so and so forth. At least with my bank their call centre is in the Philippines where they have a good grasp of English (even if it's En_US, its still somewhat English) and an understandable accent. That being said, knowing what it's like receiving abuse over the phone I'm never rude or abusive to call centre staff.
That's not a bad thing. Cab Mafias are the same worldwide, and are in bad need of technological crushing.
First thing,
Taxi mafias are not the same world wide. The actual Mafia's operating in SE Asia that use violence, threats, intimidation, bribery and coercion are very different to regulated fake taxi "mafias" in the west where drivers must be trained, insured, licensed and customers have a means of addressing grievances.
Second thing, this is the Philippines.
There is a saying about the Philippines, "The Philippines has an excellent legal system, but a terrible justice system". It means that the legal framework is as good as any western country, in fact its based off US laws. However the laws are not applied equally, every level of the police and judiciary are corrupt, laws that people dont agree with are outright ignored (and the police are paid to look the other way) there is an unofficial bias to the system (locals and wealthy will have more rights than foreigners and poor) and the existing Mafia is too well entrenched.
That last point is important. The Jeepneys are not threatened by this. There's no way Uber is going to be cheaper than that, however the existing taxi/trike industry wont take kindly to competition, they never have and have never had any compunction against using violence as a first resort. Another unwritten rule in the Philippines (for foreigners) is that you never get between a man and his money. When I lived in the Phils, I knew two people who were shot because they forgot this rule. Uber drivers who aren't part of the taxi mafia will be taken out and beaten until they get the message.
What are they going to get rid of next....?
Are they also going to throw out convertible and targa roofs on autos?
Geez, more and more I hope this driverless car thing doesn't take over and become *mandatory* my driving lifetime.
I've never owned anything but 2-seater sports cars, I don't think of driving as just a drudge, I actually have an adventure every time I fire up the engine and go for a drive!!!
Like you I enjoy driving, we don't need to worry about autonomous cars as adoption will be incredibly slow. The people thinking that their next car will drive itself are living in a fantasy. The technology will take decades to roll out and the steering wheel attendants wont be permitted to go to sleep or get drunk as they'll be required to monitor the vehicle. I imagine the people who see driving as a dreary task will find it even more tedious when they have to watch the car drive and I have no doubt this will be enforced (we have technologies that can tell if you're distracted already).
In the mean time, those of us who enjoy driving will continue to do it. There are a lot of people who will continue to buy manually operated cars because they like driving.
Credit cards were designed in the pre-internet era. It blows my mind that we haven't moved on to something more secure.
We haven't moved on from credit cards because most people will resist change.
Recently in Australia we elimination signing for purchases (a major source of fraud) so everyone who used to sign now has to use a PIN. Banks were flooded with calls complaining that using a PIN was too hard and if they had a choice they'd keep signing.
It takes at least 25 years for any new technology to integrate itself into our lives. For early adopters this may seem like a long time, but for the laggards its not enough time. A replacement for CC's will need to be implemented soon, but it will take decades for it to be accepted. Also knowing banks, it will probably be insecure until governments force them to secure it.
Every time you pay for dinner at a restaurant with your credit card, you're giving your waiter everything they need to steal your identity, especially if they ask to see your ID before serving you alcohol.
The only real defense against this is not to use your credit card so blithely.
The more you use a card, the more you open yourself up to fraud. This is the forth biggest reasons I use cash for most of my day to day transactions (cash is #1 cheaper, #2 faster, #3 a great way to proactively stick to a budget). Given how vulnerable credit cards are, people have to become more attentive as to where and when they use them. Realistically cards should never be let out of your sight, especially when in conjunction with with your ID which in many cases has your home address on it. Personally if I go for a night out, I'll pay in cash. A lot of pubs price drinks in whole dollars (instead of $X.99 like the supermarket) because they want to get paid in cash.