I know this is totally off topic. But it is so fucking depressing that you feel that you need to carry a gun or a knife to be safe.
The risks to my person are so low where i live that the hassle factor of carrying a weapon (as in the picking it up part) far exceed any benefit.
This, I live in the UK. The the most likely risk to my person is a drunk Chav on a late night train or having a glass thrown at me in a pub and even then, this is not something I'm overly concerned about.
Also, I practice Krav Maga, so in the extremely unlikely event of anything kicking off, I know how to defend against it. However the GP made a very good point in which a fight avoided is better than a fight won. Even if you win, you are still going to get hurt, I get enough injuries from training alone and these are predictable people. I've trained in tackling and disarming knife attackers (because if anyone is armed over here, it will either be with a pipe or a blade) but the number 1 rule is "you will get cut", training gives me the choice of where to get cut (arms are better than the head and torso). So for me, self defence has a simple four step plan.
1. Avoid - If you spot a potentially dangerous situation, stay out of it, go around it, and move on.
2. Egress - If you can get out of a dangerous situation by simply walking away, do so.
3. De-escalate - Because being an armchair police negotiator hurts a lot less than being a ninja.
4. Incapacitate and escape - This isn't a boxing match where you hang around for the post match interviews, whomever you're handing their arse to probably has mates and street fights have no rules, no gentlemanly conduct of pugilism. Get your opponent down and get the hell out of there. Hanging around and gloating is just going to end with you breaking some furniture with your back.
I'm reasonably confident I can beat most untrained opponents, but I still want to avoid step #4 because even winning hurts. Being reasonably alert about my surroundings and courteous of others avoids a lot of hassle.
As a side note, if you live somewhere where it's necessary to be packing for protection, you've halfway lost because if you're packing, then so is Mr Crim and when he gets the drop on you he wont patiently wait for you to get your piece out. BTW, I'm not anti-gun either, I fully support private ownership for recreational use but I can't see them as a useful tool for defence.
Been paying for stuff online since 1999, frequency of CC number changes is about the same pre and post... occasional bogus charge shows up, call the company, charge is reversed and we get new card numbers... no drama, minor hassle, way better than mailing checks.
My cards last 3-4 years... because that is when they expire.
I've only ever needed to replace one card before the expiry date, if you're frequently needing to dispute charges and replace cards, you're not being very safe with them.
How secure your online spending is, depends on how secure you are. If you put your card number into anything and everything, don't be surprised when someone else starts using it.
Some people may call me paranoid, but I wont use my card on any system I don't expressly trust. This includes my work computer, gaming computer and Windows OS on my laptop. I have a separate install of Linux Mint on my laptop I use exclusivity for purchases and sensitive operations. I don't use it for general media consumption or dicking around on the internet. I keep it patched and updated. I will also occasionally use my phone, but that's another device that is treated with care and runs a secure OS.
I'm of the firm belief that every traffic jam begins with one arsehole who refuses to follow the rules (whether these rules be the Highway code, courtesy or common sense).
Here in the UK, we're fairly intolerant of bad drivers. Even though, we still have people who think that the rules don't apply to them, Middle Lane Morons, the 40 Everywhere crowd, lane hoggers and rolling roadblocks (usually in a retirement spec Honda Jizz or Pug 208) and of course cyclists. I often imagine that these traffic impediments are somewhat organised, I call them SAGA, the Society Against Getting Anywhere (analogous to the US Anti-Destination League or ADL). Ultimately, traffic problems stem from selfishness, people refuse to merge properly (like a zip, so let the guy beside you in instead of riding up the trumpet of the car in front), fail to indicate, drive aggressively or fail to keep pace with the prevailing traffic.
Courtesy and the highway code stop a lot of traffic jams, in fact almost all of them but it only takes one arsehole to think "Fuck you, I got mine" or "I'm allowed to do 15 under, so everyone behind me can be dammed" to undermine all of it.
I recently went to the Goodwood Festival of Speed in southern England. As you can imagine, it was frequented mainly by motoring enthusiasts. Getting out of that car park was the smoothest operation of public vehicles I've ever seen. Everyone knew just what to do. Mr Ford, let in Mr Kia, Mr Subaru behind him let Mr Ford pass and Mr BMW let in Mr Subaru. A huge volume of departing cars flowed with a quick and measured pace because everyone knew the rules. It was order, however as soon as we were out on the public road with the members of SAGA, everything fell apart. We had to contend with people who didn't know how or want to drive with the flow of traffic, people who were too selfish to be courteous, cyclists who were too angry to permit faster traffic to pass them. Outside, outside of that car park of motoring enthusiasts, it was chaos.
India's problem is that there are no rules enforced, no highway code, no courtesy and no common sense. Combine that with the kind of fatalistic culture that comes with a reincarnation religion and you've got a traffic nightmare. I cant see that changing any time soon.
This problem is well solved if people want it solved. Just copy Singapore.
The ONLY reason artificially limiting cars works in Singapore is that Singapore has a world class public transport network. You can get almost anywhere on that island within 90 minutes. This system would not work almost anywhere else because nowhere else has the same standard of public transport. It wouldn't even work in London, despite the congestion charge, a lot of people still own cars and drive in London.
Singapore is full of solutions that work on the small scale, but will never be viable on a large scale.
Great opportunity for all those Americans who want to get away from the current government to leave. Of course, they have to have a useful skill.
There is only one skill you will ever need to get any job anywhere in the world that you want:
You need the skill to be willing to work for less than anyone else who wants the job.
Emphatically not true.
Many employers have learned the hard way about encouraging a race to the bottom. If you pay peanuts you'll get monkeys. Further more, it only takes one employer to break ranks and pay a better wage to create something called "competition" and when there's a quid to be made, someone will always break ranks.
As an immigrant, there are five magic words the employer needs to hear, "I already have my visa". As long as you've already sorted your right to work and live in the country, you're golden. I'm an Australian living and working in the UK, I got my visa myself, I have a path to citizenship with it. I need nothing from an employer and I've been earning more than the average for my position almost since I got here.
The problem with H1-B or 457 type visas isn't the intent of the program, but the abuse of them. It starts with the fact you need a company to endorse you for a visa. Get rid of that, make it so all applications have to be personal application, enforce that and most of the abuse will disappear overnight.
That's not what UBI is. And most humans will NOT want to stay at what qualifies for UBI housing.
Universal Basic Income isn't forcing people into tenements or housing camps, universal basic income is a system where every citizen, regardless of employment status revives a basic income. If you want more than the basic income, you can go out and work for it. UBI isn't providing basic services, it's providing a basic income. Trying to provide the same system piecemeal is wasteful and inefficient. The amount the US wastes trying to maintain dehumanising programs for welfare is astounding, and all of this so some constipated angry old conservative can feel better.
No, UBI is not a utopia, but it's far from a disaster.
.
This, UBI is what we envision will be required when most of the basic jobs are automated. Not just manufacturing and services but soft AI is starting to threaten jobs that are based on understanding rules and patterns like accounting and legal services. The problem wont be that people aren't unwilling to work, it will be a lack of opportunities.
And if there's some idiot homeless person who spent all their UBI money on drugs, well, you can't really feel sorry for them anymore. Lock 'em up
I'm sorry, but that is a very stupid suggestion.
The minimum wage in the UK is less than £15,000, to keep one prisoner locked up for a year is £65,0000. We'd end up spending more money trying to keep them incarcerated instead of trying to help them get clean. If you take that £45,000 per year and put it into a rehabilitation program there is a chance that next year, you wont have to pay that extra amount. Incarceration for minor crimes increases recidivism.
The answer to petty crime is never harsher sentencing, the answer is removing the motivation to commit it. This goes double for drug abuse, if you penalise someone for a bad habit they wont stop, they'll just become sneakier about it. If you send them to prison for it, they'll just learn even more bad habits.
77 per cent of EU consumers would rather repair their goods than buy new ones
And what percentage would be willing to pay significantly more for those repairable products than they are paying now for the non-repairable versions?
That wont happen as manufacturers will just take money out of the planned obsolescence department.
They do actually spend a lot of money trying to make products fail after the warranty period. Not fatally of course, but enough to encourage people to buy a new one.
The battery on $20,000 a car lasts, at best, about five years.
You're buying the wrong cars. I've pulled OEM batteries from an 8 year old Honda, 10 yr old Nissan and the one in my 12 yr old BMW is still going. Car batteries last a long time unless you're doing something to kill them (I.E. deep discharge and short recharge).
Its a classic case of a bait and switch. However the users have no recourse unless Photobucket uses their images without their consent.
Whilst Photobucket are legally and ethically correct (and it's important to remember the difference between ethics and morals, you can be ethical and still be a complete arse-wipe) we're about to see the true power of the internet at work here, the ability to route around damage.
Damage is effectively what this move is, its a form of poorly thought out extortion. Thousands of users are not going to pony up hundreds of dollars, I doubt even hundreds will, they'll just take their photos and move to another service, Photobucket will die and another service will take its place. Probably imgur. And should their successor start getting delusions of grandeur, the same will happen to them. This is the internet treating arseholes as damage and routing around them.
The people like these researchers see young men not as people, but merely as tools that exist to serve their ends.
Thus the researchers see any time young men spend on things that interest them rather than "being productive" as time being "stolen" from the society that owns them.
These aren't researchers, they're economists. Calling them researchers is an insult to everyone who has ever managed to pass a high school science class.
Viva Colombia was developed by Declan Ryan, one of the founders of Ryanair and has had a hand in developing many other low cost airlines. So it should be of little surprise that he's recycling the same tricks he used in Ryanair.
Obvious Trump nominated a Republican. Democrats nominate Democrats
This,
I dislike Trump as much as the next person with more than one brain cell to share amongst their 17 brother and/or cousins, but seriously, there is no surprise or overt foul-doing here.
Is there something wrong with the nominee? If not this is business as usual.
Aside of that, no. The airline industry would not disintegrate. Traveling by plane is about as uncomfortable, as inconvenient, as cumbersome and as fucked up as it ever was. Especially when traveling to, from or in the US.
You need to fly some better airlines. Not everyone crams people in like sardines, charges them for every little thing and then ignores them. Try flying an Asian airline like Singapore. I've flown LHR-SIN a few times and really, I'd hapily pay another $pound:100 over their competitors to fly them again. A standard seat is what other airlines call "premium", food is excellent, service is without peer and Changi-Singapore airport I would consistently rate as the worlds best... and this is a pale shadow of what you get in business.
Until sanity prevails, I shall be avoiding the US... Which is a shame it was once a nice place to visit and it would be a convenient stop over on the way to South America... however that is now Spain's gain.
I honestly don't know a single person who enjoys it. Not one.
I love flying. Its other people I cant stand. Even the narrowest of seats on the most budget of budget airlines is a lot more tolerable if you're not sandwiched in between two arseholes constantly elbowing you.
I swear the amount of elbows I get from some people, they must be practising the chicken dance. Hell isn't just other people, it's being stuck in a pressurised cigar tube with other people.
People already don't want to travel by plane. They pretty much have to.
Over here in Europe you've got options. You can take the train. I wouldn't fly from London to Manchester, I'd just hop on the next Virgin train heading up there. Then again, I'd fly to somewhere like Amsterdam because flying there is quicker. Air travel needs to compete with ground travel, here in Europe that's car, train and boat.
You do know that they aren't suspending laws about vehicular homicide and general liability with this, right?
This.
They're talking about laws permitting it, not laws that absolve the driver of their responsibility. As the recent Tesla crash report demonstrated, even when the car was in autonomous mode, the driver was still responsible for what it did.
No-one will be changing the highway code over autonomous cars because the highway code was built to comply with the laws of physics and autonomous cars will not violate those.
So to burst some bubbles...
- Autonomous cars will not automagically arrive next year, they're decades off.
- They wont drive themselves without input.
- You wont be able to hop in and watch movies for your journey, you'll be required to pay attention to the road.
- Manual controls will be required for some time due to the above point.
- These cars will not drive bumper to bumper at Eleventy bazillion miles per lepton because they'll be programmed to obey the highway code which as I said above, is based on physics. So they will keep to the speed limit, they will slow down in adverse conditions, they will keep to the inside lane even when traffic is going slower than the speed limit, it will maintain a safe distance at all times, it will avoid overtaking and many other behaviours some people dont know are in the highway code.
- Manual controls will be used quite often due to the above point.
- Cars will not be programmed to make ethical decisions. It doesn't care that the car ahead contains a Nobel laureate and the car beside contains a meth addicted home invader, it'll crash into the car in front because a nose-tail collision is safer for the occupants of both vehicles.
Right now, autonomous cars are nothing but a fancy marketing term for the kinds of adaptive cruise control and lane assist that's been available for years in high end cars and are now options on the low end Hyundais.
I can see a few here and there for functions you need or want but I can't see people spending 3x-10x more in apps in the future.
I cant even see that. Quite a lot of apps these days are just poor copies of a web portal with a cut down feature set.
And mobile devices are getting better and better at handling web content. I don't use my banks app because it's a pain in the backside, slower than the website and has half the features (including one I use regularly).
I think that the app craze is going to wane. Apps are only for companies that cant produce a decent website. Of course the artilce is a marketing fluff piece for an app metrics company so of course they're never going to say that and instead say "Apps are the thing(TM) buy all our shit".
We're talking about Australia here. In Australia, the courts place the burden of evidence on the accuser, this means the prosecution must present solid evidence for the case to be ruled in their favour.
They tend to haggle, reduce the fine, redefine the offense, etc In one case I had the fine reduced from $250 to $1 (one).
This does not happen in Australia. The penalty you're presented with is the minimum penalty that can be enforced. Going to court for a dismissal is an all or nothing affair. You either walk out with no ticket or a ticket plus court costs. The only way a judge can change the penalty is to increase it.
In fact, I'd consider a legal system where you can negotiate your penalties to be corrupt in the extreme, the kind of thing I see in developing nations.
With the right algorithms, the car should be much better than a human at detecting animals at night, and respond much quicker too.
Also much better at false positives as we're finding out. Many of these vehicles are unnecessarily slamming on the brakes over nothing. Not only is this dangerous, it's also expensive with increased congestion (and bad for the environment).
The car should be dramatically better at this than a human
Better than a human is good enough for now.
But they aren't. Computers are reactive, humans are predictive. A good driver avoids dangers before they happen. The only reason Google's autonomous car has been successful is because the human driver is predicting issues. Left to it's own devices it drove right in front of a bus.
Autonomous cars as you imagine them will not be a thing for some time now. Proponents of autonomous cars are counting on technology that doesn't exist at the moment and may not exist or be good enough for use within our life times. This technology does not simply need to be "better than a human", it needs to be so safe it can be given, with confidence, to the dumbest and riskiest humans imaginable. Sorry if this bursts some bubbles.
I expect that Volvo did most of the training with animals they find on the road in Sweden. The White Tailed Deer lives in North America.
But Moose live in Sweden. Moose are much larger than deer, but share the same basic body type (large body on relatively long and thin legs).
Special caution needs to be taken with moose, since their eyes don't glow in the dark, and they have tendencies to bite. In fact, a moose once bit my sister.
You see, moose or deer are not analagous to Kangaroos. Kangaroos are as fast as deer, as heavy as moose, as tall as a basketballer and not fucking afraid. Also they jump. Because they have a high centre of gravity, if you hit them they go over the bonnet, through the windscreen and into the occupants in quite a way that a deer or moose does not.
Dominance is still not a monopoly. They achieved dominance because they are the fastest and most comprehensive. That's how they took over the search engine market in the first place. Having the best product usually get's you into market dominance. That still does not equal a monopoly.
This is the EU crying everyone should be equal, even when they are not.
Monopolies are not illegal. Google is a monopoly and there's no arguing about that.
What Google has done wrong here is using their monopoly position to gain an unfair advantage, in this case to give favourable results to their paying customer's adverts.
The EU are not "crying" that everyone should be equal. You should be really ashamed of yourself for making up something that stupid. What the EU is saying is that everyone needs to start on a level playing field.
The problem is that a religion is not a country. If you are afraid of a religion, you should also kick out those that are already there.
You should perhaps start with closing their store. Have them wear a crescent moon on their outer clothing. Rally them up. Planes are dangerous, so put them on trains.
The problem with that is that it requires a police state to motivate the racists, erm.. sorry, Patriots(TM) with no backbone to have the Bravery(R) to round the undermech up and ship them off for internment and re-education.
Without this, you have organisations like the English Defence League who claim they hate the way the Ebil Mooseslims(TM) treat their women but cant do anything stronger than shout abuse at any woman they see wearing a hijab between beating their own wives.
Japan effectively blocks immigration and most travel from Islamic countries. Maybe you think that's wrong, but at the same time, Japan has never had to have some of the post-9/11 debates we've had that have warped our national morals and values.
Remember that Japan suffers from Domestic terrorism and a declining population. Right now they're in a protracted version of the GFC with an ageing workforce. A lot of Japanese companies are now outsoursing manufacturing to places like Thailand because there are few young Japanese to hire cheaply... Oh and subway gas attacks.
1. We don't have to surveil them.
2. We don't have to even have a debate about indefinite detention or torture.
Banning Evil Brown People(TM) wont do anything to stop terrorism because they'll just convince a person of the Correct Skin Colour(TM) to do their dirty work. As I eluded to above, a lot of terrorists are domestic or at least second generation. With the reach of the internet, disenfranchised youths can be recruited without ever leaving the country. Turning a blind eye to that and patting yourself on the back because you've Stopped Terr'ism(C) by banning the Evil Brown People(TM) is just stupid int he extreme.
3. We have less of a reason to worry about who is talking to who.
Only a fool stops being concerned about what is going on beyond their borders, only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of fools thinks its safe to ignore a potential enemy.
If you want to reduce the threat of terror there is one simple step:
1. Stop fucking around with the governments of other countries.
Following that little nugget of wisdom will stop 98% of most terrorist causes against you.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this is totally off topic. But it is so fucking depressing that you feel that you need to carry a gun or a knife to be safe.
The risks to my person are so low where i live that the hassle factor of carrying a weapon (as in the picking it up part) far exceed any benefit.
This, I live in the UK. The the most likely risk to my person is a drunk Chav on a late night train or having a glass thrown at me in a pub and even then, this is not something I'm overly concerned about.
Also, I practice Krav Maga, so in the extremely unlikely event of anything kicking off, I know how to defend against it. However the GP made a very good point in which a fight avoided is better than a fight won. Even if you win, you are still going to get hurt, I get enough injuries from training alone and these are predictable people. I've trained in tackling and disarming knife attackers (because if anyone is armed over here, it will either be with a pipe or a blade) but the number 1 rule is "you will get cut", training gives me the choice of where to get cut (arms are better than the head and torso). So for me, self defence has a simple four step plan.
1. Avoid - If you spot a potentially dangerous situation, stay out of it, go around it, and move on.
2. Egress - If you can get out of a dangerous situation by simply walking away, do so.
3. De-escalate - Because being an armchair police negotiator hurts a lot less than being a ninja.
4. Incapacitate and escape - This isn't a boxing match where you hang around for the post match interviews, whomever you're handing their arse to probably has mates and street fights have no rules, no gentlemanly conduct of pugilism. Get your opponent down and get the hell out of there. Hanging around and gloating is just going to end with you breaking some furniture with your back.
I'm reasonably confident I can beat most untrained opponents, but I still want to avoid step #4 because even winning hurts. Being reasonably alert about my surroundings and courteous of others avoids a lot of hassle.
As a side note, if you live somewhere where it's necessary to be packing for protection, you've halfway lost because if you're packing, then so is Mr Crim and when he gets the drop on you he wont patiently wait for you to get your piece out. BTW, I'm not anti-gun either, I fully support private ownership for recreational use but I can't see them as a useful tool for defence.
Been paying for stuff online since 1999, frequency of CC number changes is about the same pre and post... occasional bogus charge shows up, call the company, charge is reversed and we get new card numbers... no drama, minor hassle, way better than mailing checks.
My cards last 3-4 years... because that is when they expire.
I've only ever needed to replace one card before the expiry date, if you're frequently needing to dispute charges and replace cards, you're not being very safe with them.
How secure your online spending is, depends on how secure you are. If you put your card number into anything and everything, don't be surprised when someone else starts using it.
Some people may call me paranoid, but I wont use my card on any system I don't expressly trust. This includes my work computer, gaming computer and Windows OS on my laptop. I have a separate install of Linux Mint on my laptop I use exclusivity for purchases and sensitive operations. I don't use it for general media consumption or dicking around on the internet. I keep it patched and updated. I will also occasionally use my phone, but that's another device that is treated with care and runs a secure OS.
Somebody really wants to be a 'Space Cadet'.
Ahem, I'm on the other side of the pond, we call them Space Midshipmen.
until you can figure out how to fix india's drivers
This.
I'm of the firm belief that every traffic jam begins with one arsehole who refuses to follow the rules (whether these rules be the Highway code, courtesy or common sense).
Here in the UK, we're fairly intolerant of bad drivers. Even though, we still have people who think that the rules don't apply to them, Middle Lane Morons, the 40 Everywhere crowd, lane hoggers and rolling roadblocks (usually in a retirement spec Honda Jizz or Pug 208) and of course cyclists. I often imagine that these traffic impediments are somewhat organised, I call them SAGA, the Society Against Getting Anywhere (analogous to the US Anti-Destination League or ADL). Ultimately, traffic problems stem from selfishness, people refuse to merge properly (like a zip, so let the guy beside you in instead of riding up the trumpet of the car in front), fail to indicate, drive aggressively or fail to keep pace with the prevailing traffic.
Courtesy and the highway code stop a lot of traffic jams, in fact almost all of them but it only takes one arsehole to think "Fuck you, I got mine" or "I'm allowed to do 15 under, so everyone behind me can be dammed" to undermine all of it.
I recently went to the Goodwood Festival of Speed in southern England. As you can imagine, it was frequented mainly by motoring enthusiasts. Getting out of that car park was the smoothest operation of public vehicles I've ever seen. Everyone knew just what to do. Mr Ford, let in Mr Kia, Mr Subaru behind him let Mr Ford pass and Mr BMW let in Mr Subaru. A huge volume of departing cars flowed with a quick and measured pace because everyone knew the rules. It was order, however as soon as we were out on the public road with the members of SAGA, everything fell apart. We had to contend with people who didn't know how or want to drive with the flow of traffic, people who were too selfish to be courteous, cyclists who were too angry to permit faster traffic to pass them. Outside, outside of that car park of motoring enthusiasts, it was chaos.
India's problem is that there are no rules enforced, no highway code, no courtesy and no common sense. Combine that with the kind of fatalistic culture that comes with a reincarnation religion and you've got a traffic nightmare. I cant see that changing any time soon.
This problem is well solved if people want it solved. Just copy Singapore.
The ONLY reason artificially limiting cars works in Singapore is that Singapore has a world class public transport network. You can get almost anywhere on that island within 90 minutes. This system would not work almost anywhere else because nowhere else has the same standard of public transport. It wouldn't even work in London, despite the congestion charge, a lot of people still own cars and drive in London.
Singapore is full of solutions that work on the small scale, but will never be viable on a large scale.
Great opportunity for all those Americans who want to get away from the current government to leave. Of course, they have to have a useful skill.
There is only one skill you will ever need to get any job anywhere in the world that you want:
You need the skill to be willing to work for less than anyone else who wants the job.
Emphatically not true.
Many employers have learned the hard way about encouraging a race to the bottom. If you pay peanuts you'll get monkeys. Further more, it only takes one employer to break ranks and pay a better wage to create something called "competition" and when there's a quid to be made, someone will always break ranks.
As an immigrant, there are five magic words the employer needs to hear, "I already have my visa". As long as you've already sorted your right to work and live in the country, you're golden. I'm an Australian living and working in the UK, I got my visa myself, I have a path to citizenship with it. I need nothing from an employer and I've been earning more than the average for my position almost since I got here.
The problem with H1-B or 457 type visas isn't the intent of the program, but the abuse of them. It starts with the fact you need a company to endorse you for a visa. Get rid of that, make it so all applications have to be personal application, enforce that and most of the abuse will disappear overnight.
That's not what UBI is. And most humans will NOT want to stay at what qualifies for UBI housing.
Universal Basic Income isn't forcing people into tenements or housing camps, universal basic income is a system where every citizen, regardless of employment status revives a basic income. If you want more than the basic income, you can go out and work for it. UBI isn't providing basic services, it's providing a basic income. Trying to provide the same system piecemeal is wasteful and inefficient. The amount the US wastes trying to maintain dehumanising programs for welfare is astounding, and all of this so some constipated angry old conservative can feel better.
No, UBI is not a utopia, but it's far from a disaster.
. This, UBI is what we envision will be required when most of the basic jobs are automated. Not just manufacturing and services but soft AI is starting to threaten jobs that are based on understanding rules and patterns like accounting and legal services. The problem wont be that people aren't unwilling to work, it will be a lack of opportunities.
And if there's some idiot homeless person who spent all their UBI money on drugs, well, you can't really feel sorry for them anymore. Lock 'em up
I'm sorry, but that is a very stupid suggestion.
The minimum wage in the UK is less than £15,000, to keep one prisoner locked up for a year is £65,0000. We'd end up spending more money trying to keep them incarcerated instead of trying to help them get clean. If you take that £45,000 per year and put it into a rehabilitation program there is a chance that next year, you wont have to pay that extra amount. Incarceration for minor crimes increases recidivism.
The answer to petty crime is never harsher sentencing, the answer is removing the motivation to commit it. This goes double for drug abuse, if you penalise someone for a bad habit they wont stop, they'll just become sneakier about it. If you send them to prison for it, they'll just learn even more bad habits.
77 per cent of EU consumers would rather repair their goods than buy new ones
And what percentage would be willing to pay significantly more for those repairable products than they are paying now for the non-repairable versions?
That wont happen as manufacturers will just take money out of the planned obsolescence department.
They do actually spend a lot of money trying to make products fail after the warranty period. Not fatally of course, but enough to encourage people to buy a new one.
The battery on $20,000 a car lasts, at best, about five years.
You're buying the wrong cars. I've pulled OEM batteries from an 8 year old Honda, 10 yr old Nissan and the one in my 12 yr old BMW is still going. Car batteries last a long time unless you're doing something to kill them (I.E. deep discharge and short recharge).
This.
Its a classic case of a bait and switch. However the users have no recourse unless Photobucket uses their images without their consent.
Whilst Photobucket are legally and ethically correct (and it's important to remember the difference between ethics and morals, you can be ethical and still be a complete arse-wipe) we're about to see the true power of the internet at work here, the ability to route around damage.
Damage is effectively what this move is, its a form of poorly thought out extortion. Thousands of users are not going to pony up hundreds of dollars, I doubt even hundreds will, they'll just take their photos and move to another service, Photobucket will die and another service will take its place. Probably imgur. And should their successor start getting delusions of grandeur, the same will happen to them. This is the internet treating arseholes as damage and routing around them.
The people like these researchers see young men not as people, but merely as tools that exist to serve their ends.
Thus the researchers see any time young men spend on things that interest them rather than "being productive" as time being "stolen" from the society that owns them.
These aren't researchers, they're economists. Calling them researchers is an insult to everyone who has ever managed to pass a high school science class.
Viva Colombia was developed by Declan Ryan, one of the founders of Ryanair and has had a hand in developing many other low cost airlines. So it should be of little surprise that he's recycling the same tricks he used in Ryanair.
The word 'afternoon' does not exist in Spanish nor does the concept exist in Spanish minds. They eat between 3-5 p.m.
La palabra es "tarde"... that's pronounced tar-day not tard, which would be you.
Obvious Trump nominated a Republican. Democrats nominate Democrats
This,
I dislike Trump as much as the next person with more than one brain cell to share amongst their 17 brother and/or cousins, but seriously, there is no surprise or overt foul-doing here.
Is there something wrong with the nominee? If not this is business as usual.
Rape isn't supposed to pay a living wage. It's for kids to earn a bit of pocket money. I know because cayenne8 said so.
What do you expect from someone who's named them self after the shittest Porsche available.
Aside of that, no. The airline industry would not disintegrate. Traveling by plane is about as uncomfortable, as inconvenient, as cumbersome and as fucked up as it ever was. Especially when traveling to, from or in the US.
You need to fly some better airlines. Not everyone crams people in like sardines, charges them for every little thing and then ignores them. Try flying an Asian airline like Singapore. I've flown LHR-SIN a few times and really, I'd hapily pay another $pound:100 over their competitors to fly them again. A standard seat is what other airlines call "premium", food is excellent, service is without peer and Changi-Singapore airport I would consistently rate as the worlds best... and this is a pale shadow of what you get in business.
Until sanity prevails, I shall be avoiding the US... Which is a shame it was once a nice place to visit and it would be a convenient stop over on the way to South America... however that is now Spain's gain.
I honestly don't know a single person who enjoys it. Not one.
I love flying. Its other people I cant stand. Even the narrowest of seats on the most budget of budget airlines is a lot more tolerable if you're not sandwiched in between two arseholes constantly elbowing you.
I swear the amount of elbows I get from some people, they must be practising the chicken dance. Hell isn't just other people, it's being stuck in a pressurised cigar tube with other people.
People already don't want to travel by plane. They pretty much have to.
Over here in Europe you've got options. You can take the train. I wouldn't fly from London to Manchester, I'd just hop on the next Virgin train heading up there. Then again, I'd fly to somewhere like Amsterdam because flying there is quicker. Air travel needs to compete with ground travel, here in Europe that's car, train and boat.
You do know that they aren't suspending laws about vehicular homicide and general liability with this, right?
This.
They're talking about laws permitting it, not laws that absolve the driver of their responsibility. As the recent Tesla crash report demonstrated, even when the car was in autonomous mode, the driver was still responsible for what it did.
No-one will be changing the highway code over autonomous cars because the highway code was built to comply with the laws of physics and autonomous cars will not violate those.
So to burst some bubbles...
- Autonomous cars will not automagically arrive next year, they're decades off.
- They wont drive themselves without input.
- You wont be able to hop in and watch movies for your journey, you'll be required to pay attention to the road.
- Manual controls will be required for some time due to the above point.
- These cars will not drive bumper to bumper at Eleventy bazillion miles per lepton because they'll be programmed to obey the highway code which as I said above, is based on physics. So they will keep to the speed limit, they will slow down in adverse conditions, they will keep to the inside lane even when traffic is going slower than the speed limit, it will maintain a safe distance at all times, it will avoid overtaking and many other behaviours some people dont know are in the highway code.
- Manual controls will be used quite often due to the above point.
- Cars will not be programmed to make ethical decisions. It doesn't care that the car ahead contains a Nobel laureate and the car beside contains a meth addicted home invader, it'll crash into the car in front because a nose-tail collision is safer for the occupants of both vehicles.
Right now, autonomous cars are nothing but a fancy marketing term for the kinds of adaptive cruise control and lane assist that's been available for years in high end cars and are now options on the low end Hyundais.
I can see a few here and there for functions you need or want but I can't see people spending 3x-10x more in apps in the future.
I cant even see that. Quite a lot of apps these days are just poor copies of a web portal with a cut down feature set.
And mobile devices are getting better and better at handling web content. I don't use my banks app because it's a pain in the backside, slower than the website and has half the features (including one I use regularly).
I think that the app craze is going to wane. Apps are only for companies that cant produce a decent website. Of course the artilce is a marketing fluff piece for an app metrics company so of course they're never going to say that and instead say "Apps are the thing(TM) buy all our shit".
Not at all true. (West Coast US)
We're talking about Australia here. In Australia, the courts place the burden of evidence on the accuser, this means the prosecution must present solid evidence for the case to be ruled in their favour.
They tend to haggle, reduce the fine, redefine the offense, etc In one case I had the fine reduced from $250 to $1 (one).
This does not happen in Australia. The penalty you're presented with is the minimum penalty that can be enforced. Going to court for a dismissal is an all or nothing affair. You either walk out with no ticket or a ticket plus court costs. The only way a judge can change the penalty is to increase it.
In fact, I'd consider a legal system where you can negotiate your penalties to be corrupt in the extreme, the kind of thing I see in developing nations.
... control system is assisted by Clippy.
Imagine the timers.
Missile incoming! Impact in:
5 seconds.
2 seconds.
132 seconds.
1 second.
With the right algorithms, the car should be much better than a human at detecting animals at night, and respond much quicker too.
Also much better at false positives as we're finding out. Many of these vehicles are unnecessarily slamming on the brakes over nothing. Not only is this dangerous, it's also expensive with increased congestion (and bad for the environment).
The car should be dramatically better at this than a human
Better than a human is good enough for now.
But they aren't. Computers are reactive, humans are predictive. A good driver avoids dangers before they happen. The only reason Google's autonomous car has been successful is because the human driver is predicting issues. Left to it's own devices it drove right in front of a bus.
Autonomous cars as you imagine them will not be a thing for some time now. Proponents of autonomous cars are counting on technology that doesn't exist at the moment and may not exist or be good enough for use within our life times. This technology does not simply need to be "better than a human", it needs to be so safe it can be given, with confidence, to the dumbest and riskiest humans imaginable. Sorry if this bursts some bubbles.
I expect that Volvo did most of the training with animals they find on the road in Sweden. The White Tailed Deer lives in North America.
But Moose live in Sweden. Moose are much larger than deer, but share the same basic body type (large body on relatively long and thin legs). Special caution needs to be taken with moose, since their eyes don't glow in the dark, and they have tendencies to bite. In fact, a moose once bit my sister.
You see, moose or deer are not analagous to Kangaroos. Kangaroos are as fast as deer, as heavy as moose, as tall as a basketballer and not fucking afraid. Also they jump. Because they have a high centre of gravity, if you hit them they go over the bonnet, through the windscreen and into the occupants in quite a way that a deer or moose does not.
Dominance is still not a monopoly. They achieved dominance because they are the fastest and most comprehensive. That's how they took over the search engine market in the first place. Having the best product usually get's you into market dominance. That still does not equal a monopoly.
This is the EU crying everyone should be equal, even when they are not.
Monopolies are not illegal. Google is a monopoly and there's no arguing about that.
What Google has done wrong here is using their monopoly position to gain an unfair advantage, in this case to give favourable results to their paying customer's adverts.
The EU are not "crying" that everyone should be equal. You should be really ashamed of yourself for making up something that stupid. What the EU is saying is that everyone needs to start on a level playing field.
The problem is that a religion is not a country. If you are afraid of a religion, you should also kick out those that are already there.
You should perhaps start with closing their store. Have them wear a crescent moon on their outer clothing. Rally them up. Planes are dangerous, so put them on trains.
The problem with that is that it requires a police state to motivate the racists, erm.. sorry, Patriots(TM) with no backbone to have the Bravery(R) to round the undermech up and ship them off for internment and re-education.
Without this, you have organisations like the English Defence League who claim they hate the way the Ebil Mooseslims(TM) treat their women but cant do anything stronger than shout abuse at any woman they see wearing a hijab between beating their own wives.
Japan effectively blocks immigration and most travel from Islamic countries. Maybe you think that's wrong, but at the same time, Japan has never had to have some of the post-9/11 debates we've had that have warped our national morals and values.
Remember that Japan suffers from Domestic terrorism and a declining population. Right now they're in a protracted version of the GFC with an ageing workforce. A lot of Japanese companies are now outsoursing manufacturing to places like Thailand because there are few young Japanese to hire cheaply... Oh and subway gas attacks.
1. We don't have to surveil them.
2. We don't have to even have a debate about indefinite detention or torture.
Banning Evil Brown People(TM) wont do anything to stop terrorism because they'll just convince a person of the Correct Skin Colour(TM) to do their dirty work. As I eluded to above, a lot of terrorists are domestic or at least second generation. With the reach of the internet, disenfranchised youths can be recruited without ever leaving the country. Turning a blind eye to that and patting yourself on the back because you've Stopped Terr'ism(C) by banning the Evil Brown People(TM) is just stupid int he extreme.
3. We have less of a reason to worry about who is talking to who.
Only a fool stops being concerned about what is going on beyond their borders, only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of fools thinks its safe to ignore a potential enemy.
If you want to reduce the threat of terror there is one simple step:
1. Stop fucking around with the governments of other countries.
Following that little nugget of wisdom will stop 98% of most terrorist causes against you.