There are dicks everywhere. People of all religions, ethnicities, colors, and even financial backgrounds don't like and/or trust other people who are not like them.
Quoted For Truth.
However when you mention the M word... and people lose their shit.
A few weeks back a man robbed a convenience store in France wearing a Burka. This news erupted across the United Kingdom (which isn't in France for those playing along in Alabama) and people were shouting that the Burka should be banned and rational arguments pointing out that it wont stop convenience stores being taken for a few hundred Euro were being dismissed out of hand... I mean it was a national security issue and all that.
There as another robbery on that day, closer to home in Solihul near Birmingham. A small group of thieves not wearing Burkas stole 3 million pounds (Stirling, as in Doctor Who money) worth of Jaguar-Land Rover engines from the JLR factory. They did so by using a white Scania lorry. This was clearly a non issue as none of the major news papers reported it, I found out about it via the Car Memes facebook page that referenced a Car Throttle article the day after. My suggestion that this could be fixed by banning white Scania lorries was met with utter dumbfoundment by those who suggested banning Burkas would fix petty crime.
- in some countries (thailand, vietnam, probably more) they try to avoid using the meter if you don't know what you're doing
And you've pretty much outed yourself here as not knowing what you're doing. A Thai taxi or Tuk Tuk driver will only use the meter when they've spotted a fresh off the plane tourist. They do this because everyone else knows the meter is rigged to run at three times (or more) the normal speed and that you negotiate the rate. There are very few areas that are exceptions to this rule, in Thailand for example you'd never trust a meter in Phuket but a Bangkok taxi driver is fairly trustworthy. This is because the Bangkok taxi authority runs regular checks of taxi's and will strip the license from anyone caught with a dodgy meter whilst the Phuket drivers pay the politicians to look the other way.
Having lived in Thailand and the Philippines before, I can say with a great deal of certainty that the "over"-regulation of taxis in the west is much preferable to the violence, intimidation and scams that go on where taxi's are not regulated.
This comment does have merit. One of the really annoying things about traditional taxis is the uncertainty cost. - You almost never know beforehand because the cost is calculated en route
Did you travel here all the way from 1930? We've been estimating fares for years. The problem is that traffic and other conditions are so uncertain that you cant give an exact figure. Modern analysis is getting better, but it cant guarantee that a fixed fare will be profitable when Dopey Doris causes a jam on the M25. So we have two solutions for a stable business, make the fares large enough that you minimise the risk or charge per mile.
Remember that in the Uber situation, no-one is making money. The drivers are taking a loss and Uber themselves are haemorrhaging cash at an alarming rate (US$800,000,000 loss last year).
You might have guessed from the M25 reference that I live in England. Here what Uber has been doing is legal... and has been done for decades under the name "Mini-cabbing". Uber's problem isn't that it's illegal, it's that even when it's legal or at least ignored, it cant make money. That is, in a nutshell, why Uber is doomed.
- Tips add to the uncertainty.
I've been to five of the six settled continents and I've only been to one country where it's customary to tip. Optional in plenty of places but only one nation where it's expected.
If taxi cost uncertainty is making you that nervous, we already have solutions like private hire cars where they'll happily service you for a fixed fee. For the reasons I've mentioned above this is always going to be more expensive than a taxi. However that is not your problem, whatever issues you can give me about taxis and the taxi industry, they still look like saints compared to Uber. Cost apprehension is not the reason you're running into the arms of a company even worse than the industry you complain about.
Automatic knives (usually power tools, chainsaws, etc) have to have certain safety precautions built into them these days. If a manufacturer makes the tool so it hurts people and the issue wasn't pure user incompetence, or it can be shown that the tool was clearly lacking in safety features, you can damn well bet the manufacturer's going to be held responsible.
That is when the tool is shown to be faulty and dangerous, not for when the tool is used improperly.
Taking this attitude with autonomous cars will kill their development as you cant make something perfect and car manufacturers will not accept liability when they cant control how their vehicles are used.
At the very best, they will install sensors and systems to ensure the operator is liable for not stopping the vehicle in an accident.
Hey, but as someone who enjoys driving and loves a manual gearbox (even in peak hour traffic), I fully welcome your hardline stance that will ensure that I'll be able to drive for the rest of my expected lifespan.
No - not a misogynist....this story is about men mistreating women in a corporate culture.
It sounds from the summary that male and female employees are being mistreated, so why are you making this claim?
He's not, the AC did and that is really just a troll.
Most people who read the GP's first post simply read it as his manager was abusive and probably borderline incompetent and sociopathic. Doesn't matter about the gender. Sadly these people are good at covering their arse, the OP got out peacefully with his dignity intact, which is a good end to the story.
I've had similar treatments at a previous job. Bullied until I lashed back, then having that used to extend my probation. I was the highest performing member of the team. Best day of that job was handing in my notice to go work for a customer who was leaving that company. Then deleting all references that I ever worked there, a 9 month gap is nothing in a 15 year career.
so non dealer service or not paying for software updates = car manufacturers get's off.
So doing an jiffy lube vs paying dealer price for oil changes = unauthorized changes?
What if an software update needs a high cost CPU update or an new car as updates end after say 2-3 years? What if updates need an dealer install at dealer shop prices?
Actually its worse.
Cars will now come with a used by date. A date where they will fall out of support and stop working.
But this move will just stymie autonomous cars as the manufacturers do not want to accept the risk. So they'll install sensors in the steering wheel and in order to use the autonomous features the passenger will have to keep their hands on the wheel, thus pushing the onus back onto the passenger.
So I think this is the wrong move. Do we make knife manufacturers responsible for how people use them. No, then why do the same with car manufacturers.The owner and/or operator (depending on circumstance) needs to remain responsible for what they do, even if it is just ordering around a 1.5 ton machine.
So long as people are willing to lie and manipulate to get laid...
So long as people are people, it wont work... Right.
So instead of adapting the technology to the people, people should be adapting to the system. I bet you're thinking that in a few iterations people will change to fit the system.
As I understand it 5G *can* provide real-time haptic feedback. It's good for gaming, yes. But more important so that little things, such VR/AR surgeries, can be done remotely.
Is this BS? I don't know.
The problem with gaming isn't speed, its latency. You're better off gaming on a slower connection with lower latency. You dont really need to go much faster than 1 MBps, what you want is your latency server to client to be under 100 ms. Realistically, with good net code, you can play on 56K dialup as I did in the early 00's (Vietcong, BF1942 to local servers).
And due to the laws of physics and the inherent in wireless technologies, latency cannot be guaranteed. Hit some interference and lose some packets in the 2.5 miles between you and the tower and that'll kill your ping. Any gamer knows wired is much faster than wireless, even if it's crappy ADSL.
Besides, given Verizons history of marketing slow technologies as "next generation" like they did with calling WiMax 4G when it wasn't even a 3.5G tech like HSPA+ I'm willing to bet it wont even be as fast as the LTE I currently get from EE here in England.
Camera-based traffic enforcement is sort of the opposite of market forces,
Whilst it's not market based, its not the opposite.
I'd hate to think how bad market based enforcement would be, not only would they be required to make a profit, they'd be required to charge us as much as they could get away with as often as possible. Here in the UK you can get a maximum of 4 speeding fines over a 3 year period before its a holiday off the road, they are also pretty lenient with the speeding fines too compared to Australia (I.E. doing 55 in a 50 zone wont get you nicked, even 60 would be ignored by a copper, perhaps not an average speed camera).
Its almost as if they don't want to fine you, especially how clearly speed cameras are marked.
A market based approach would get rid of the endorsement/demerit point system because a customer off the road is a customer that cant rack up new fines. They would also put hidden speed cameras everywhere, camouflaged and make appealing a fine so painful that it's impossible. They would also make it low enough that you'd pay the fine rather than fight it... Much like they do with parking fines here in the UK (my council charges 70 quid, but reduces it to 35 if you pay within 2 weeks).
I'm not a big fan of the current enforcement system (too many people fail to indicate, tailgate, fail to keep a safe distance, don't know how to merge and other violations of the Highway Code are ignored when speeding is heavily enforced (relatively speaking)) but despite that, market based enforcement would suck a million times more.
If you need proof of this, look at market based solutions for car insurance here in the UK. Insurance is mandatory to drive on the road, so it costs an insane amount because the insurers are pretty much unregulated. For fully comprehensive insurance I went from paying in Australia A$900 (GBP 450) for a Nissan Silvia S15 (one of the most stolen cars in my state) to paying GBP 700 for a bog standard BMW Z4 3.0i that was worth about 1000 quid less in the UK.
Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands.
These countries (nor the ones GP listed) aren't socialist. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production. This means that the workers work directly for the government, and the government sells goods and services directly to consumers.
Whilst you're correct about these countries not being socialist, you're wrong about what socialism is. What you have described is fascism, the merger of corporate and state power. Socialism is not government ownership, but democratic ownership, where people get more of a say in what a service does. Socialism de-emphasises others owning things over you. Communism is state ownership, but not state corporatism.
To use a simple cow analogy,
Fascism = You have two cows, the government takes both and sells you some milk.
Communism = You have two cows, the government takes both and gives you some milk.
Socialism = You have two cows, you own them and milk them yourself. You share the unused milk with a your neighbour.
Capitalism = You have two cows, your neighbour owns them and all the other cows, you have to milk them and buy the milk from your neighbour.
And just so you know the difference,
Nazism = You have two cows, the government takes both, shoots the one it considers impure and sells you some milk. You are not permitted to be unhappy about the milk.
Most countries in the world use a mixture of socialist and capitalist systems, applying different systems to different needs as they see fit. The ideas are not mutually exclusive.
When the too-stupid-to-be-burger-flippers stop you in customs and demand your Facebook login they'll be drooling over this.
I get your point.
But you also haven't used any of these transfer services.
By and large they are pretty good but transfers take days to complete, partially as a security measure (and partially because it takes time for the money to clear). If I were to transfer money from UK account to a UK account it would still take a day to process (in the UK, I can transfer from account to account in a matter of seconds using Faster Payments). You have to transfer the money from your bank and specifiy the bank your sending it to, so it's hardly anonymous either.
You wont be able to send money via facebook, you'll still have to use your banks process, you will probably just get the quote via Facebook.
Personally I'd be more concerned about saved credit card info on your phone (which I try never to do).
Back when I was in school (when the Earth was still cooling) this was called, "Critical Thinking." It wasn't given its own dedicated program as it was intertwined with everything else being taught.
I'm a Gen Xer but not by much. However critical thinking was also taught to me at school.
However large tracts of the class completely ignored it, it was the same tract of class that said "when are we ever going to use this in real life" when being taught things like algebra.
But if you really want to know who is to blame, look at the news media. Most of the news media offer opinions rather than facts. Attention grabbing soundbites that support their political leanings instead of well researched articles. Inflammatory, cliche laden comments rather than neutral language that tries not to convey bias.
90% of the news media does not want its audience thinking critically about what it says because then they will lose all of their audience. News reports these days are deliberately designed to make the readers angry because this makes it harder for them to think critically and detect the falsifications in the article. It has the added bonus of making people more susceptible to advertising.
Its not just news, but all of western society has come to celebrate ignorance and despise an educated or balanced view.
It seems as though this basic skill stopped being taught in primary and secondary schools and replaced with ignorant structures that teach only to standardized tests.
Your blame is misplaced here. These are effects, not causes.
I've worked in education (fortunately as a sysadmin, not an educator given what I saw happen to educators), the problem isn't the admin, they're just reacting to the parents. Nowdays when precious Little Johnny gets an average grade their ignorant parents are barrelling down to the principals office to raise hell until that C is turned into an A. Lets not even think about what happens when a teacher dares to punish Little Johnny for their terrible behaviour, the principal wont be able to sit for a week.
Parents essentially have all the power. Have done for years (at least 15) so administrators have to pander to them or parents will go over their heads and dump crap on them until they do. Teachers would like nothing better than to say "Little Johnny is a right little shit and will remain so until his parents actually start to control his behaviour" however the absolute worst thing they are permitted to put on a report card is "Little Johnny needs to pay more attention in class". In fact, that has become teacher code for "hes an obnoxious little shit and knows he can get away with it".
You're right that kids are being taught to be ignorant and that throwing a tantrum is an effective way to get what they want... but they are learning this from their parents, not their school.
Basic comprehension and competency isn't really enough. A good education teaches you facts and provides knowledge. A GREAT education teaches you how to teach yourself. Having an open mind and being willing to admit being wrong in the face of new evidence is what separates the latter from the former.
Of course there's no science behind 95% (guess) of apps that really need science behind them.
I want you to define what apps need science behind them. Based on the universal concensus of exercise / movement / not sitting on your fat arse at the TV all day = good for you I would say every single fitness app has science behind it.
>
I think the GP used the wrong word, I think he meant apps that claim or directly imply that there is science behind them (when more often than not, there's none).
Most fitness apps are not even loosely based on science, even when they are its almost always using assumptions that are impossible to apply to most people, let alone everyone due to a large range of heights, builds, diets, habits, metabolic rates, environmental conditions and what not. Most of them are based on measurements that are turning out to be increasingly inaccurate to most people like BMI.
The thing that fitness apps are doing is gamification. Gamification is a short term only thing and in many way counter productive. It has to be designed to reward people on a plateau so people think they're making progress rather than actually making progress. Further more, people are only doing it for gratification, so when people stop getting likes on Facebook (because everyone and their dog has blocked the AttentionWhore(TM) fitness app ) they'll give up and move onto the next thing.
With Amazon, its not about the cost but the selection and convenience.
I live in the UK.
If I need something but don't need it right away (I.E. 90% of non-food items), it isn't necessarily much more expensive for the item at a store. The problem is that stores will only stock one or two brands and it takes time for me to get it. Not to mention the fuel I use going to the shop, every mile is another 30p to the price. However it's not even that.
The left low beam bulb went pop on my car yesterday. The selection at Halfords was limited to Halfords brand bulbs at £5 each, Amazon had OSRAM bulbs for £15 a pair with Prime. Even Euro Car Parts only had Chinese brand for £8 a pair or Phillips for £30. So I ordered the As it stands I've got the bulbs sitting on my desk as I type.
I got a better quality bulb than Halfords even offered and I didn't have to drive to the nearest ECP (which is a 3 mile detour though heavy traffic on my way home). OTOH, I needed a Molex to SATA power adaptor the other week, It was faster to drive to the nearest Currys and pay £4 for it (although parking was so shocking there, I may as well have walked).
Amazon isn't for cheap chinese crap any more (you've got Ebay and Alibaba for that), Amazon is for products you used to find in B&Q and Halfords before they all decided selling Chinese crap with UK pricetags. That being said, if I want 20 SATA cables, Amazon is as good a place as any.
I don't shop at Amazon because it's cheaper - it's usually not much, if any. But it's much less work for me. Get online, check inventory, make sure it's in stock, drive twenty minutes each way, hunt for the item while in the store, wait in checkout line... if I don't need it right now, I can get online, click "place order", and it appears on my doorstep two days later. Huge time-saver for me, as my work is intermittent - I have lots of three-to-five-minute idle periods, which means I can get personal stuff done during the day, instead of wasting that time and having to invest even more after work.
I tend to use Amazon because they actually have the products I'm after.
I needed bags for a vacuum cleaner, not a single supermarket or homewares store in 10 miles had them, but Amazon prime had them for less than 6 quid. I'm not even sure if a store beyond 10 miles had them. Prime delivery is 1 day and they delivered on a Sunday... but seriously, being a member of the 20 MPG club means that driving 10 miles there and back is 6 quid on it's own.
I live in a smallish town in Saskatchewan, Canada. All of the small shops closed up shortly after Walmart moved in 17ish years ago. I find Amazon to be the lesser of the two evils in this situation. Plus Amazon has a much bigger selection than the local Walmart, and I'm not really willing to drive an hour away to buy stuff in the next town over unless I desperately need something that day.
Not sure aboot sunny Canada, but here in cold and dreary England you can get a fair few things delivered from Amazon in 4 hours (for a delivery fee of course). I live in a smallish town about an hour outside of London and I've been able to get things delivered at 22:00 on a weeknight. Of course you don't get the full Amazon selection, but it's actually better than the 2-3 brands Tesco would have.
With that said, I do my best to support the local businesses I can. I buy meat from the local butcher, eggs and other produce from local farmers market, go to the smaller independent grocery store over the big box chain, pet food and supplies from the local pet store, etc.
I by and large agree with this.
But that doesn't mean that local vendors should get lazy. If you make it difficult to find and obtain services (I.E. no online presence, no Sunday trading, close at 12:00 sharp on a Saturday) then of course I'm going to go to Morrisons instead.
3. Apple pays Ireland seven billion dollars to leave the E.U.
And the EU starts invalidating patents, seizing property, issues arrest warrants for executives (yes, unlike the US, the EU is willing to jail tax evaders).
Just how much money do you think Apple has involved in Europe. Hell, they dont even have to start seizing property, they can just issue arrest warrants for execs and they'll find it hard doing anything in a country that you cant be extradited to the EU from.
Attempting to say "Fuck you EU, I'm taking my ball and going home" is just going to end badly for Apple.
As the old saying goes: Billions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!
Except Apple isn't defending themselves, Apple are trying to get away with breaking the law.
You're better off with the old line "I fought the law and the law won". All Apple can do from here is delay the inevitable, much the same as Microsoft spent billions doing in the early 00's.
The EU doesn't want those taxes, they want Ireland to collect them according to their tax schedule in order to create a level playing field in the EU. What local business wouldn't love a 0.005% effective corporate tax rate? Most pay 20-25%
The EU wants Ireland to stop being a money drain.
Brussels is simply forcing the Irish govt to do what they don't want to do, given that Ireland took the EU's money the EU has some entitlement to do this (which is why the EU cant dictate terms to the UK... well at least until we lose the ability to veto things after brexit).
Unless they are a Democratic President (see: Bill Clinton).
I was going to reply to the GP, but seeing as you bought up this nugget I have to point out how stupid it is.
It is actually OK for the boss to ask for consentual sex with a subordinate. Fuck, it happens all the time, forgive the pun, between successful middle aged men and young women in private companies. If GWB had consentual sex with an intern, he also would have done nothing wrong (legally speaking, of course his party would have crucified him for it, but that's besides the point). The key word is consent. Bill had it, this Uber twat didn't. However, what the twat at Uber did wrong was to continue to make sexual advances after it was made clear they were unwanted.
Then what Uber did wrong was refuse to sack the guy because he was too highly placed.
A manager in a position of power asking their subordinate to have sex with them is absolutely sexual harassment.
Even then, they have to force the issue for it to be considered discrimination.
There have been several cases in where the alleged perpetrator got off because after they were rebuffed, they dropped the incident completely. Mostly because they were smart enough to report the incident themselves (CYA). Discrimination and harassment has to be sustained in order for it to be considered discrimination or harassment.
If advances were clearly rebuffed, and the advancee dropped it, harassment cases fall on their arse.
Slashdot Mirror
There are dicks everywhere. People of all religions, ethnicities, colors, and even financial backgrounds don't like and/or trust other people who are not like them.
Quoted For Truth.
However when you mention the M word... and people lose their shit.
A few weeks back a man robbed a convenience store in France wearing a Burka. This news erupted across the United Kingdom (which isn't in France for those playing along in Alabama) and people were shouting that the Burka should be banned and rational arguments pointing out that it wont stop convenience stores being taken for a few hundred Euro were being dismissed out of hand... I mean it was a national security issue and all that.
There as another robbery on that day, closer to home in Solihul near Birmingham. A small group of thieves not wearing Burkas stole 3 million pounds (Stirling, as in Doctor Who money) worth of Jaguar-Land Rover engines from the JLR factory. They did so by using a white Scania lorry. This was clearly a non issue as none of the major news papers reported it, I found out about it via the Car Memes facebook page that referenced a Car Throttle article the day after. My suggestion that this could be fixed by banning white Scania lorries was met with utter dumbfoundment by those who suggested banning Burkas would fix petty crime.
In the 1900s (and earlier) people came here to work hard and succeed.
The murdered man was an engineer working for Garmin. It seems pretty obvious he came to the U.S. "to work hard and succeed".
Cant have him doing that, it'd make the local yokels look lazy.
- in some countries (thailand, vietnam, probably more) they try to avoid using the meter if you don't know what you're doing
And you've pretty much outed yourself here as not knowing what you're doing. A Thai taxi or Tuk Tuk driver will only use the meter when they've spotted a fresh off the plane tourist. They do this because everyone else knows the meter is rigged to run at three times (or more) the normal speed and that you negotiate the rate. There are very few areas that are exceptions to this rule, in Thailand for example you'd never trust a meter in Phuket but a Bangkok taxi driver is fairly trustworthy. This is because the Bangkok taxi authority runs regular checks of taxi's and will strip the license from anyone caught with a dodgy meter whilst the Phuket drivers pay the politicians to look the other way.
Having lived in Thailand and the Philippines before, I can say with a great deal of certainty that the "over"-regulation of taxis in the west is much preferable to the violence, intimidation and scams that go on where taxi's are not regulated.
This comment does have merit. One of the really annoying things about traditional taxis is the uncertainty cost.
- You almost never know beforehand because the cost is calculated en route
Did you travel here all the way from 1930? We've been estimating fares for years. The problem is that traffic and other conditions are so uncertain that you cant give an exact figure. Modern analysis is getting better, but it cant guarantee that a fixed fare will be profitable when Dopey Doris causes a jam on the M25. So we have two solutions for a stable business, make the fares large enough that you minimise the risk or charge per mile.
Remember that in the Uber situation, no-one is making money. The drivers are taking a loss and Uber themselves are haemorrhaging cash at an alarming rate (US$800,000,000 loss last year).
You might have guessed from the M25 reference that I live in England. Here what Uber has been doing is legal... and has been done for decades under the name "Mini-cabbing". Uber's problem isn't that it's illegal, it's that even when it's legal or at least ignored, it cant make money. That is, in a nutshell, why Uber is doomed.
- Tips add to the uncertainty.
I've been to five of the six settled continents and I've only been to one country where it's customary to tip. Optional in plenty of places but only one nation where it's expected.
If taxi cost uncertainty is making you that nervous, we already have solutions like private hire cars where they'll happily service you for a fixed fee. For the reasons I've mentioned above this is always going to be more expensive than a taxi. However that is not your problem, whatever issues you can give me about taxis and the taxi industry, they still look like saints compared to Uber. Cost apprehension is not the reason you're running into the arms of a company even worse than the industry you complain about.
Uber doing something unethical? This isn't news, it's business as usual.
Come on now, they're saving us money! They can do no wrong!
Given they aren't any cheaper than a minicab in my part of the world, I don't see what they are doing for me.
I also live in a place where they can operate legally... and they still cant even turn a profit here.
Automatic knives (usually power tools, chainsaws, etc) have to have certain safety precautions built into them these days. If a manufacturer makes the tool so it hurts people and the issue wasn't pure user incompetence, or it can be shown that the tool was clearly lacking in safety features, you can damn well bet the manufacturer's going to be held responsible.
That is when the tool is shown to be faulty and dangerous, not for when the tool is used improperly.
Taking this attitude with autonomous cars will kill their development as you cant make something perfect and car manufacturers will not accept liability when they cant control how their vehicles are used.
At the very best, they will install sensors and systems to ensure the operator is liable for not stopping the vehicle in an accident.
Hey, but as someone who enjoys driving and loves a manual gearbox (even in peak hour traffic), I fully welcome your hardline stance that will ensure that I'll be able to drive for the rest of my expected lifespan.
No - not a misogynist....this story is about men mistreating women in a corporate culture.
It sounds from the summary that male and female employees are being mistreated, so why are you making this claim?
He's not, the AC did and that is really just a troll.
Most people who read the GP's first post simply read it as his manager was abusive and probably borderline incompetent and sociopathic. Doesn't matter about the gender. Sadly these people are good at covering their arse, the OP got out peacefully with his dignity intact, which is a good end to the story.
I've had similar treatments at a previous job. Bullied until I lashed back, then having that used to extend my probation. I was the highest performing member of the team. Best day of that job was handing in my notice to go work for a customer who was leaving that company. Then deleting all references that I ever worked there, a 9 month gap is nothing in a 15 year career.
so non dealer service or not paying for software updates = car manufacturers get's off.
So doing an jiffy lube vs paying dealer price for oil changes = unauthorized changes?
What if an software update needs a high cost CPU update or an new car as updates end after say 2-3 years? What if updates need an dealer install at dealer shop prices?
Actually its worse.
Cars will now come with a used by date. A date where they will fall out of support and stop working.
But this move will just stymie autonomous cars as the manufacturers do not want to accept the risk. So they'll install sensors in the steering wheel and in order to use the autonomous features the passenger will have to keep their hands on the wheel, thus pushing the onus back onto the passenger.
So I think this is the wrong move. Do we make knife manufacturers responsible for how people use them. No, then why do the same with car manufacturers.The owner and/or operator (depending on circumstance) needs to remain responsible for what they do, even if it is just ordering around a 1.5 ton machine.
So long as people are willing to lie and manipulate to get laid...
So long as people are people, it wont work... Right.
So instead of adapting the technology to the people, people should be adapting to the system. I bet you're thinking that in a few iterations people will change to fit the system.
I take it you're a CS student.
As I understand it 5G *can* provide real-time haptic feedback. It's good for gaming, yes. But more important so that little things, such VR/AR surgeries, can be done remotely.
Is this BS? I don't know.
The problem with gaming isn't speed, its latency. You're better off gaming on a slower connection with lower latency. You dont really need to go much faster than 1 MBps, what you want is your latency server to client to be under 100 ms. Realistically, with good net code, you can play on 56K dialup as I did in the early 00's (Vietcong, BF1942 to local servers).
And due to the laws of physics and the inherent in wireless technologies, latency cannot be guaranteed. Hit some interference and lose some packets in the 2.5 miles between you and the tower and that'll kill your ping. Any gamer knows wired is much faster than wireless, even if it's crappy ADSL.
Besides, given Verizons history of marketing slow technologies as "next generation" like they did with calling WiMax 4G when it wasn't even a 3.5G tech like HSPA+ I'm willing to bet it wont even be as fast as the LTE I currently get from EE here in England.
Camera-based traffic enforcement is sort of the opposite of market forces,
Whilst it's not market based, its not the opposite.
I'd hate to think how bad market based enforcement would be, not only would they be required to make a profit, they'd be required to charge us as much as they could get away with as often as possible. Here in the UK you can get a maximum of 4 speeding fines over a 3 year period before its a holiday off the road, they are also pretty lenient with the speeding fines too compared to Australia (I.E. doing 55 in a 50 zone wont get you nicked, even 60 would be ignored by a copper, perhaps not an average speed camera).
Its almost as if they don't want to fine you, especially how clearly speed cameras are marked.
A market based approach would get rid of the endorsement/demerit point system because a customer off the road is a customer that cant rack up new fines. They would also put hidden speed cameras everywhere, camouflaged and make appealing a fine so painful that it's impossible. They would also make it low enough that you'd pay the fine rather than fight it... Much like they do with parking fines here in the UK (my council charges 70 quid, but reduces it to 35 if you pay within 2 weeks).
I'm not a big fan of the current enforcement system (too many people fail to indicate, tailgate, fail to keep a safe distance, don't know how to merge and other violations of the Highway Code are ignored when speeding is heavily enforced (relatively speaking)) but despite that, market based enforcement would suck a million times more.
If you need proof of this, look at market based solutions for car insurance here in the UK. Insurance is mandatory to drive on the road, so it costs an insane amount because the insurers are pretty much unregulated. For fully comprehensive insurance I went from paying in Australia A$900 (GBP 450) for a Nissan Silvia S15 (one of the most stolen cars in my state) to paying GBP 700 for a bog standard BMW Z4 3.0i that was worth about 1000 quid less in the UK.
Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands.
These countries (nor the ones GP listed) aren't socialist. Socialism is when the government owns the means of production. This means that the workers work directly for the government, and the government sells goods and services directly to consumers.
Whilst you're correct about these countries not being socialist, you're wrong about what socialism is. What you have described is fascism, the merger of corporate and state power. Socialism is not government ownership, but democratic ownership, where people get more of a say in what a service does. Socialism de-emphasises others owning things over you. Communism is state ownership, but not state corporatism.
To use a simple cow analogy,
Fascism = You have two cows, the government takes both and sells you some milk.
Communism = You have two cows, the government takes both and gives you some milk.
Socialism = You have two cows, you own them and milk them yourself. You share the unused milk with a your neighbour.
Capitalism = You have two cows, your neighbour owns them and all the other cows, you have to milk them and buy the milk from your neighbour.
And just so you know the difference,
Nazism = You have two cows, the government takes both, shoots the one it considers impure and sells you some milk. You are not permitted to be unhappy about the milk.
Most countries in the world use a mixture of socialist and capitalist systems, applying different systems to different needs as they see fit. The ideas are not mutually exclusive.
My cellphone doesn't "run my life", why does yours?
To be fair, my mobile phone is pretty useful. Far easier than carrying around all the stuff I'd need to do the same thing in paper format.
But much like paper format, I don't keep anything on my phone that I need to keep private or confidential.
When the too-stupid-to-be-burger-flippers stop you in customs and demand your Facebook login they'll be drooling over this.
I get your point.
But you also haven't used any of these transfer services.
By and large they are pretty good but transfers take days to complete, partially as a security measure (and partially because it takes time for the money to clear). If I were to transfer money from UK account to a UK account it would still take a day to process (in the UK, I can transfer from account to account in a matter of seconds using Faster Payments). You have to transfer the money from your bank and specifiy the bank your sending it to, so it's hardly anonymous either.
You wont be able to send money via facebook, you'll still have to use your banks process, you will probably just get the quote via Facebook. Personally I'd be more concerned about saved credit card info on your phone (which I try never to do).
Back when I was in school (when the Earth was still cooling) this was called, "Critical Thinking." It wasn't given its own dedicated program as it was intertwined with everything else being taught.
I'm a Gen Xer but not by much. However critical thinking was also taught to me at school.
However large tracts of the class completely ignored it, it was the same tract of class that said "when are we ever going to use this in real life" when being taught things like algebra.
But if you really want to know who is to blame, look at the news media. Most of the news media offer opinions rather than facts. Attention grabbing soundbites that support their political leanings instead of well researched articles. Inflammatory, cliche laden comments rather than neutral language that tries not to convey bias.
90% of the news media does not want its audience thinking critically about what it says because then they will lose all of their audience. News reports these days are deliberately designed to make the readers angry because this makes it harder for them to think critically and detect the falsifications in the article. It has the added bonus of making people more susceptible to advertising. Its not just news, but all of western society has come to celebrate ignorance and despise an educated or balanced view.
It seems as though this basic skill stopped being taught in primary and secondary schools and replaced with ignorant structures that teach only to standardized tests.
Your blame is misplaced here. These are effects, not causes.
I've worked in education (fortunately as a sysadmin, not an educator given what I saw happen to educators), the problem isn't the admin, they're just reacting to the parents. Nowdays when precious Little Johnny gets an average grade their ignorant parents are barrelling down to the principals office to raise hell until that C is turned into an A. Lets not even think about what happens when a teacher dares to punish Little Johnny for their terrible behaviour, the principal wont be able to sit for a week.
Parents essentially have all the power. Have done for years (at least 15) so administrators have to pander to them or parents will go over their heads and dump crap on them until they do. Teachers would like nothing better than to say "Little Johnny is a right little shit and will remain so until his parents actually start to control his behaviour" however the absolute worst thing they are permitted to put on a report card is "Little Johnny needs to pay more attention in class". In fact, that has become teacher code for "hes an obnoxious little shit and knows he can get away with it".
You're right that kids are being taught to be ignorant and that throwing a tantrum is an effective way to get what they want... but they are learning this from their parents, not their school.
Basic comprehension and competency isn't really enough. A good education teaches you facts and provides knowledge. A GREAT education teaches you how to teach yourself. Having an open mind and being willing to admit being wrong in the face of new evidence is what separates the latter from the former.
Couldn't agree more.
Of course there's no science behind 95% (guess) of apps that really need science behind them.
I want you to define what apps need science behind them. Based on the universal concensus of exercise / movement / not sitting on your fat arse at the TV all day = good for you I would say every single fitness app has science behind it.
>
I think the GP used the wrong word, I think he meant apps that claim or directly imply that there is science behind them (when more often than not, there's none).
Most fitness apps are not even loosely based on science, even when they are its almost always using assumptions that are impossible to apply to most people, let alone everyone due to a large range of heights, builds, diets, habits, metabolic rates, environmental conditions and what not. Most of them are based on measurements that are turning out to be increasingly inaccurate to most people like BMI.
The thing that fitness apps are doing is gamification. Gamification is a short term only thing and in many way counter productive. It has to be designed to reward people on a plateau so people think they're making progress rather than actually making progress. Further more, people are only doing it for gratification, so when people stop getting likes on Facebook (because everyone and their dog has blocked the AttentionWhore(TM) fitness app ) they'll give up and move onto the next thing.
With Amazon, its not about the cost but the selection and convenience.
I live in the UK.
If I need something but don't need it right away (I.E. 90% of non-food items), it isn't necessarily much more expensive for the item at a store. The problem is that stores will only stock one or two brands and it takes time for me to get it. Not to mention the fuel I use going to the shop, every mile is another 30p to the price. However it's not even that.
The left low beam bulb went pop on my car yesterday. The selection at Halfords was limited to Halfords brand bulbs at £5 each, Amazon had OSRAM bulbs for £15 a pair with Prime. Even Euro Car Parts only had Chinese brand for £8 a pair or Phillips for £30. So I ordered the As it stands I've got the bulbs sitting on my desk as I type.
I got a better quality bulb than Halfords even offered and I didn't have to drive to the nearest ECP (which is a 3 mile detour though heavy traffic on my way home). OTOH, I needed a Molex to SATA power adaptor the other week, It was faster to drive to the nearest Currys and pay £4 for it (although parking was so shocking there, I may as well have walked).
Amazon isn't for cheap chinese crap any more (you've got Ebay and Alibaba for that), Amazon is for products you used to find in B&Q and Halfords before they all decided selling Chinese crap with UK pricetags. That being said, if I want 20 SATA cables, Amazon is as good a place as any.
I don't shop at Amazon because it's cheaper - it's usually not much, if any. But it's much less work for me. Get online, check inventory, make sure it's in stock, drive twenty minutes each way, hunt for the item while in the store, wait in checkout line... if I don't need it right now, I can get online, click "place order", and it appears on my doorstep two days later. Huge time-saver for me, as my work is intermittent - I have lots of three-to-five-minute idle periods, which means I can get personal stuff done during the day, instead of wasting that time and having to invest even more after work.
I tend to use Amazon because they actually have the products I'm after.
I needed bags for a vacuum cleaner, not a single supermarket or homewares store in 10 miles had them, but Amazon prime had them for less than 6 quid. I'm not even sure if a store beyond 10 miles had them. Prime delivery is 1 day and they delivered on a Sunday... but seriously, being a member of the 20 MPG club means that driving 10 miles there and back is 6 quid on it's own.
I live in a smallish town in Saskatchewan, Canada. All of the small shops closed up shortly after Walmart moved in 17ish years ago. I find Amazon to be the lesser of the two evils in this situation. Plus Amazon has a much bigger selection than the local Walmart, and I'm not really willing to drive an hour away to buy stuff in the next town over unless I desperately need something that day.
Not sure aboot sunny Canada, but here in cold and dreary England you can get a fair few things delivered from Amazon in 4 hours (for a delivery fee of course). I live in a smallish town about an hour outside of London and I've been able to get things delivered at 22:00 on a weeknight. Of course you don't get the full Amazon selection, but it's actually better than the 2-3 brands Tesco would have.
With that said, I do my best to support the local businesses I can. I buy meat from the local butcher, eggs and other produce from local farmers market, go to the smaller independent grocery store over the big box chain, pet food and supplies from the local pet store, etc.
I by and large agree with this.
But that doesn't mean that local vendors should get lazy. If you make it difficult to find and obtain services (I.E. no online presence, no Sunday trading, close at 12:00 sharp on a Saturday) then of course I'm going to go to Morrisons instead.
3. Apple pays Ireland seven billion dollars to leave the E.U.
And the EU starts invalidating patents, seizing property, issues arrest warrants for executives (yes, unlike the US, the EU is willing to jail tax evaders).
Just how much money do you think Apple has involved in Europe. Hell, they dont even have to start seizing property, they can just issue arrest warrants for execs and they'll find it hard doing anything in a country that you cant be extradited to the EU from.
Attempting to say "Fuck you EU, I'm taking my ball and going home" is just going to end badly for Apple.
Except Apple isn't defending themselves, Apple are trying to get away with breaking the law.
You're better off with the old line "I fought the law and the law won". All Apple can do from here is delay the inevitable, much the same as Microsoft spent billions doing in the early 00's.
The EU doesn't want those taxes, they want Ireland to collect them according to their tax schedule in order to create a level playing field in the EU. What local business wouldn't love a 0.005% effective corporate tax rate? Most pay 20-25%
The EU wants Ireland to stop being a money drain.
Brussels is simply forcing the Irish govt to do what they don't want to do, given that Ireland took the EU's money the EU has some entitlement to do this (which is why the EU cant dictate terms to the UK... well at least until we lose the ability to veto things after brexit).
We don't have rednecks, that's an American Innovation (tm).
Yeah, in Britain they are called wetnecks.
No, they are called scallys
I thought they were Scousers.
Except the company president was the alpha. Company president. Has money. Is banging Hooters girls. Nobody's complaining about him.
If the hooters girls are consenting to it, what the fuck is the problem.
Yes, paying for sex is still consentual sex.
In this story, though, it's our boy's wife who's got no problem finding fresh cocks to hop
And this makes it OK to harass and coerce women into sex... how?
If he's having trouble getting chicks, it's his problem, not theirs. He either needs to up his game or start paying for it.
Unless they are a Democratic President (see: Bill Clinton).
I was going to reply to the GP, but seeing as you bought up this nugget I have to point out how stupid it is.
It is actually OK for the boss to ask for consentual sex with a subordinate. Fuck, it happens all the time, forgive the pun, between successful middle aged men and young women in private companies. If GWB had consentual sex with an intern, he also would have done nothing wrong (legally speaking, of course his party would have crucified him for it, but that's besides the point). The key word is consent. Bill had it, this Uber twat didn't. However, what the twat at Uber did wrong was to continue to make sexual advances after it was made clear they were unwanted.
Then what Uber did wrong was refuse to sack the guy because he was too highly placed.
I know, right? Communism never led to any abuses ever! Neither did theocracies, anarchy, or monarchies!
Of course there are never alternatives to strict capitalism or communism? It's one or the other, always, right?
A manager in a position of power asking their subordinate to have sex with them is absolutely sexual harassment.
Even then, they have to force the issue for it to be considered discrimination.
There have been several cases in where the alleged perpetrator got off because after they were rebuffed, they dropped the incident completely. Mostly because they were smart enough to report the incident themselves (CYA). Discrimination and harassment has to be sustained in order for it to be considered discrimination or harassment.
If advances were clearly rebuffed, and the advancee dropped it, harassment cases fall on their arse.