No no, you're totally right. There's no way we could collect that information without you. Your dicks are totally bigger. You have the most freedom.
Except what you equate to "dicks" are actual capabilities that are expensive and take decades to build out. We've built that out. Biggest in the world.
Are you too jealous to even admit that US military data collection is actually bigger? Are you unable to say so, simply because you already compared it to dicks? LOLOL
Use US gear and the US will listen in. That's been shown. Use Chinese gear and the Chinese government will listen. 100% quaranteed. Use European equipment and.... well those governments are less likely to spy, but the gear will be billions more and years late. Not great choices, but.... well, we live in the real world. Pick your poison.
With the equipment in question, there are only 3 suppliers, and that is unlikely to change. One supplier is from China. The other two are from Europe.
The US doesn't make this equipment. The US is demanding that European countries buy from one of the European suppliers if they want to continue information sharing. It won't be late, it is already developed.
The funniest part is the Chinese shills who are pretending to be Very Superior European Bigots, while arguing against the idea that European governments should be able to trust European companies more than Chinese companies. Whuuuuu?
I agree; if they need "evidence" they're not a close military ally, they're an arms-length ally, and they should get their shared data at an arm's length.
If they want cheek-and-jowl access, they need to show cheek-and-jowl trust.
That's an oil company, are you sure it is about theft of technology?
I'm not going to click the link, but I already know that it is about a US investigation of financial donations made to known terrorist groups by a Petrobras executive, because there is a continuing propaganda misinformation effort around it.
I hope you got paid at least a couple rubles for you post, jeeze.
If it is called "right to repair" it sounds like it wouldn't cost anything, but if it requires making and selling replacement parts for 7 years, it could cost a lot to give that as a guarantee.
Like what if the product doesn't sell well and I stop selling it after 6 months. I still have to keep a factory open for 6 and a half extra years. Yikes!
You have to be pretty careful to avoid unintended consequences. I haven't seen any good suggestions yet, to be honest; you can't force companies to create high quality repair manuals, even if you force them to create repair manuals, you can't really force them to make parts if they discontinue a product, and you can't stop them from choosing a design that makes repair hard.
The idea is great, but when it comes to making rules, it is just not easy to use force for this while still having an economic system that includes personal business freedom. But if you tax the potential for e-waste you might encourage good behavior.
My community did that 100+ years ago, by voting. There is a known formula.
The city across the river has a totally different public utility. They have slightly lower rates, but also slightly older equipment; because their community is a little poorer and tells them to prioritize low rates first. My community tells them to prioritize uptime first, rates second.
The rural areas outside of town have a third public utility, with their own needs.
Other cities in the region have their own utilities. The public utilities always have lower rates, better uptime, and faster response to problems.
It's easy to say "avoid overly processed foods and get exercise", but when detailed questions come up like "how much dietary cholesterol should I eat each day?" you'll never get a satisfactory answer.
You're missing the simple and obvious answer that was already given to you.
"how much dietary cholesterol should I eat each day?" The answer is: That is the wrong question. "avoid overly processed foods and get exercise." That literally is the answer. Stop trying to count that shit. Counting the cholesterol will not somehow magically stop the cheeseburders and oreos from giving you heart disease. People who eat a traditional diet, made from whole ingredients instead of processed partial-ingredients, and including sufficient fruits and vegetables, already don't have the diet-related problems.
Imagine if the question was, "How can I fly by flapping my arms" and the answer was, "You can't fly by flapping your arms, but if you exercise you can jump higher." And you simply complained, "But that still doesn't tell me how to fly by flapping my arms!" Yeah, duh.
It has been well established, scientifically, that medicine currently has no useful advice to give you specifically to cholesterol intake, and yet, it does have lots of useful advice about which of those foods whose cholesterol you would measure are traditional healthy foods, and which are processed foods.
You probably just don't know much about traditional foods, or about all the many types of native trees that would be growing in the forest that would be where your house is if it was wild land.
For example, you're not both in North America, where California is, and also in a place that lacks wild nuts that were part of traditional diets.
You seem to be under the misconception that because factory farming makes specific locally produced nuts popular today, that somehow that means that there are no other nuts?
As for vegetables... you're either trolling by splitting a "stupid hair" that is actually "the exception that proves the rule," or completely unaware of the climate on the planet Earth. Kindof a tossup, I guess.
Did you know, when you dig up a skeleton, you never find out their exact age? Instead, you find out their general age category.
And lots of skeleton are dug up of people who died of natural causes in advanced age. None of them would have a "100 years old" label. If you go to a place called a "school," or merely find books of the appropriate sort, you can learn about anthropology and what the scientific beliefs about past aging are. If you do, you will find out what I already tried to tell you; humans had the same lifespan in the past as they do today. And much higher early mortality, leading to lowered mean average.
If they lived to adulthood, it was perfectly normal to then continue to live into old age. That is a fact. Adult burials of neolithic humans include individuals of all ages, including people who probably died of heart disease. Lifespan was not different. Aboriginal communities today do have individuals in their 90s. Everybody who is interested enough in anthropology to comment in a thread like this should already know that. How fucking ignorant are you, anyways?! Jeeze.
What sort of weird place are you from that has grains, and no nuts? That's just insane.
If you can't find a traditional diet... actually, no. If you say you can't figure out what it means, I say you're just lying. Flat out. There is no chance you're asking out of honest intellectual interest. Zip. Zilch. Food is just too big a part of human existence for there to be people who are capable of understanding words generally, but haven't ever encountered the idea of a traditional diet.
I'm perfectly willing to believe you were orphaned in the forest and raised by weasels, and you don't personally have any knowledge at all of the traditional diet within your own human family. But still, you've obviously transitioned to a civilized enough lifestyle to communicate using words, so I know that you've encountered other humans that don't eat recently created food items that come from factories, but instead purchase whole ingredients from the store and cook them at home. Or, for example, traditional regional ethnic cuisine such as "Italian food," "Greek food," "Japanese food," etc.
You don't have to eat nuts, but I doubt you'll find a traditional diet "with lots of fruits, vegetables, fiber, and whole grains" that doesn't normally include nuts.
on't confuse high infant and childhood mortality that gives a low "average lifespan at birth" number with the idea that people didn't live as long; people who survived to adulthood had a similar lifespan to hunter-gatherers today, and the oldest members of the community would be just as old as the oldest people today.
No, see, when you don't have information yet, but you're making conclusions, you're already wrong.
If the event ends up happening the way you guessed, you were still wrong when you made the conclusion without evidence.
I stand by everything I said; there was not yet enough information to judge. The only public information was eyewitness accounts. If you don't believe the eyewitness accounts, it is still true at that stage that they are the only information you have. So the realistic, rational choices about what to believe happened are: 1) I don't know 2) I don't know or 3) I don't know
Guessing is claiming you know, when you don't. You do that because you're an idiot. You even suspect it is true, which is why you hate anonymously. Come on, big boy, trim that neckbeard, make yourself presentable, and put your pseudonym next to your hate
No, there is never new advice. The advice is always the same; eat a traditional diet with lots of fruits, vegetables, fiber, and whole grains, limit sugars, fats, and highly processed foods.
The study is being misrepresented in the media to focus on eggs, even though it looked at total cholesterol not eggs. They're taking numbers for cholesterol, telling you how many eggs they think that is equivalent to, and then using wording that tricks the media into saying "eggs" in the headlines. This isn't even about eggs. And it contradicts a lot of past research. And it is based on what people report about their eating habits, which is not even scientific.
It may be, for example, that people who eat more than 1lb of breakfast sausage per week tend to under-report it. It may also be true that people who report eating 2 or more eggs per day are more likely to eat breakfast sausage. There is all sorts of problems like this when you go by what people report that they ate.
I don't see why "troll" or "flamebait" would be precluded by being true or factual.
Like, emacs is obviously superior to vim, but mentioning it might still be flamebait.
Or an opinionated rant about systemd might be entirely true, being indeed the opinion of the person claiming it is their own opinion, and yet they might still be trolling.
If I'm giving a -1 because something is merely untrue or incorrect, that is what Overrated is for. And I give out more flamebait or troll than overrated.
Do Slashdot people believe in the right to repair? Or should Tesla get to do all repairs on Teslas?
Let us know.
Tesla should not be restricted in repairing whatever cars people want them to repair, including cars they manufactured.
People should have the right to repair cars that they buy, including being protecting from being sued for doing it. Manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to take steps to stop people from repairing their cars, like including parts that self-destruct or stop working when you try to repair them. But at the same time, they shouldn't be forced to sell people spare parts. If they want to sell spare parts, that is up to them. But if the parts are patented, they should be required to license the patents to companies making aftermarket parts on a FRAND basis.
There is a waiting list to buy the cars. Your friends who insist they don't want things they can't afford or don't want anyways, doesn't even have the potential to be a loss in demand for them. You present it as if it is some mistake on their part. I know it is natural for you to feel you are important, and your friends are important, but you're not.
Other people, who do know how electricity works, do repair Teslas on their own. If you don't know how to do it, it makes sense they don't want to spend their time teaching you. They're trying to scale up production still. It also makes sense that they don't want to sell their parts retail; they're a new company, the parts frequently change, and their competitors would love to get ahold of the parts without having to buy the whole car; and then also get the updated parts whenever they come out and immediately see what to improve in their own designs. That just won't make sense for Tesla until they're one of the top car companies and are battling for even the low-margin sales.
You wave your hands and say things will go badly for them, and yet, their strategy is different than what you want in exactly the ways that they need it to be to have success.;)
Too bad you don't have machine shops or electronics in Canada, then you could repair a modern car.
It is just like building in a tent: a stupid idea that is needed because you need to be "Agile" (a.k.a haven't thought about things completely ahead of time). Tesla is moronic.
Wait, what? You think it matters if a building has soft walls, instead of hard walls?
Like some magical God of Snobbishness is going to cause your pants to fall down while you try to work, because the building is a mere tent. Or something something. You thought that you thought Tesla is moronic, but your trollish subconscious was merely demonstrating agility.
It just waves its hands saying all the states have these laws. My state doesn't. It doesn't explain that in any way.
The reason it is obviously blatant lies is that it gives a category for what laws it is talking about, but then doesn't define who is included in the category. So any state with any law that says anything about that category of situations is included.
It would seem from the wording they use that Tesla wouldn't be allowed to run their own dealships; except that there aren't any details that would let you judge that. And of course that's because they're simply using misleading wording to trick you. To trick you. Not to trick me; I knew they didn't give me details, simply because I didn't find any details. And I don't put any value in their conclusions, only in their arguments. And they didn't make any.
As an aside to this issue I could see insurance companies demanding the same thing as a condition to payment after an accident.
What a ridiculous idea.
There are two types of insurance that matter after an accident; liability, and collision coverage.
If the accident was your fault, liability insurance pays the other party. If it was the other party's fault, their insurance company can't demand anything from you. I don't know about Nevada, but in most states there are a bunch of standard rules for determining whose fault it was. Even if you end up in court, usually you're only arguing about the payment amount because the formula for who is at fault usually makes it really clear; one person was outside their lane, didn't obey the traffic control device, or they rear-ended somebody. Or somebody pulled out into a lane when it wasn't clear. These are all unambiguous situations regarding fault.
Or if it was your fault and you're using your collision coverage, they don't care what idiot mistake you made; that's the whole point of collision coverage, for when it was your fault. They're your insurance company. They know how often you do this. They don't really care why, they only care how often you're going to do it and how much damage you do when it happens!
The thing about distracted driving is that it makes you more likely to make the mistakes that cause an accident; and those accidents would all be your fault anyways! From an insurance perspective it isn't relevant unless they can detect it continually the whole time you're driving; then they could use it to set rates.
This is way more useful to the police than to the insurance, because if somebody died in the accident, being able to prove something like distracted driving is the difference between felony charges and a $135 ticket.
Slashdot Mirror
No no, you're totally right. There's no way we could collect that information without you. Your dicks are totally bigger. You have the most freedom.
Except what you equate to "dicks" are actual capabilities that are expensive and take decades to build out. We've built that out. Biggest in the world.
Are you too jealous to even admit that US military data collection is actually bigger? Are you unable to say so, simply because you already compared it to dicks? LOLOL
Use US gear and the US will listen in. That's been shown. Use Chinese gear and the Chinese government will listen. 100% quaranteed. Use European equipment and .... well those governments are less likely to spy, but the gear will be billions more and years late. Not great choices, but.... well, we live in the real world. Pick your poison.
With the equipment in question, there are only 3 suppliers, and that is unlikely to change. One supplier is from China. The other two are from Europe.
The US doesn't make this equipment. The US is demanding that European countries buy from one of the European suppliers if they want to continue information sharing. It won't be late, it is already developed.
The funniest part is the Chinese shills who are pretending to be Very Superior European Bigots, while arguing against the idea that European governments should be able to trust European companies more than Chinese companies. Whuuuuu?
I agree; if they need "evidence" they're not a close military ally, they're an arms-length ally, and they should get their shared data at an arm's length.
If they want cheek-and-jowl access, they need to show cheek-and-jowl trust.
The data includes information about international shipping and trade security, what is likely to happen at an upcoming OPEC meeting, etc.
Germany's need for the data is economic, not military.
Naw, they'll whine and cry, and then their next administration will pay the companies to replace all the devices.
That's an oil company, are you sure it is about theft of technology?
I'm not going to click the link, but I already know that it is about a US investigation of financial donations made to known terrorist groups by a Petrobras executive, because there is a continuing propaganda misinformation effort around it.
I hope you got paid at least a couple rubles for you post, jeeze.
In some industries, choosing not to do business with those companies implies choosing not to do business period.
Same with murder-for-hire, but it doesn't actually make for an impressive argument.
If it is called "right to repair" it sounds like it wouldn't cost anything, but if it requires making and selling replacement parts for 7 years, it could cost a lot to give that as a guarantee.
Like what if the product doesn't sell well and I stop selling it after 6 months. I still have to keep a factory open for 6 and a half extra years. Yikes!
You have to be pretty careful to avoid unintended consequences. I haven't seen any good suggestions yet, to be honest; you can't force companies to create high quality repair manuals, even if you force them to create repair manuals, you can't really force them to make parts if they discontinue a product, and you can't stop them from choosing a design that makes repair hard.
The idea is great, but when it comes to making rules, it is just not easy to use force for this while still having an economic system that includes personal business freedom. But if you tax the potential for e-waste you might encourage good behavior.
My community did that 100+ years ago, by voting. There is a known formula.
The city across the river has a totally different public utility. They have slightly lower rates, but also slightly older equipment; because their community is a little poorer and tells them to prioritize low rates first. My community tells them to prioritize uptime first, rates second.
The rural areas outside of town have a third public utility, with their own needs.
Other cities in the region have their own utilities. The public utilities always have lower rates, better uptime, and faster response to problems.
It's easy to say "avoid overly processed foods and get exercise", but when detailed questions come up like "how much dietary cholesterol should I eat each day?" you'll never get a satisfactory answer.
You're missing the simple and obvious answer that was already given to you.
"how much dietary cholesterol should I eat each day?"
The answer is: That is the wrong question. "avoid overly processed foods and get exercise." That literally is the answer. Stop trying to count that shit. Counting the cholesterol will not somehow magically stop the cheeseburders and oreos from giving you heart disease. People who eat a traditional diet, made from whole ingredients instead of processed partial-ingredients, and including sufficient fruits and vegetables, already don't have the diet-related problems.
Imagine if the question was, "How can I fly by flapping my arms" and the answer was, "You can't fly by flapping your arms, but if you exercise you can jump higher." And you simply complained, "But that still doesn't tell me how to fly by flapping my arms!" Yeah, duh.
It has been well established, scientifically, that medicine currently has no useful advice to give you specifically to cholesterol intake, and yet, it does have lots of useful advice about which of those foods whose cholesterol you would measure are traditional healthy foods, and which are processed foods.
You probably just don't know much about traditional foods, or about all the many types of native trees that would be growing in the forest that would be where your house is if it was wild land.
For example, you're not both in North America, where California is, and also in a place that lacks wild nuts that were part of traditional diets.
You seem to be under the misconception that because factory farming makes specific locally produced nuts popular today, that somehow that means that there are no other nuts?
As for vegetables... you're either trolling by splitting a "stupid hair" that is actually "the exception that proves the rule," or completely unaware of the climate on the planet Earth. Kindof a tossup, I guess.
You seem really confused about anthropology.
Did you know, when you dig up a skeleton, you never find out their exact age? Instead, you find out their general age category.
And lots of skeleton are dug up of people who died of natural causes in advanced age. None of them would have a "100 years old" label. If you go to a place called a "school," or merely find books of the appropriate sort, you can learn about anthropology and what the scientific beliefs about past aging are. If you do, you will find out what I already tried to tell you; humans had the same lifespan in the past as they do today. And much higher early mortality, leading to lowered mean average.
If they lived to adulthood, it was perfectly normal to then continue to live into old age. That is a fact. Adult burials of neolithic humans include individuals of all ages, including people who probably died of heart disease. Lifespan was not different. Aboriginal communities today do have individuals in their 90s. Everybody who is interested enough in anthropology to comment in a thread like this should already know that. How fucking ignorant are you, anyways?! Jeeze.
What sort of weird place are you from that has grains, and no nuts? That's just insane.
If you can't find a traditional diet... actually, no. If you say you can't figure out what it means, I say you're just lying. Flat out. There is no chance you're asking out of honest intellectual interest. Zip. Zilch. Food is just too big a part of human existence for there to be people who are capable of understanding words generally, but haven't ever encountered the idea of a traditional diet.
I'm perfectly willing to believe you were orphaned in the forest and raised by weasels, and you don't personally have any knowledge at all of the traditional diet within your own human family. But still, you've obviously transitioned to a civilized enough lifestyle to communicate using words, so I know that you've encountered other humans that don't eat recently created food items that come from factories, but instead purchase whole ingredients from the store and cook them at home. Or, for example, traditional regional ethnic cuisine such as "Italian food," "Greek food," "Japanese food," etc.
You don't have to eat nuts, but I doubt you'll find a traditional diet "with lots of fruits, vegetables, fiber, and whole grains" that doesn't normally include nuts.
on't confuse high infant and childhood mortality that gives a low "average lifespan at birth" number with the idea that people didn't live as long; people who survived to adulthood had a similar lifespan to hunter-gatherers today, and the oldest members of the community would be just as old as the oldest people today.
No, see, when you don't have information yet, but you're making conclusions, you're already wrong.
If the event ends up happening the way you guessed, you were still wrong when you made the conclusion without evidence.
I stand by everything I said; there was not yet enough information to judge. The only public information was eyewitness accounts. If you don't believe the eyewitness accounts, it is still true at that stage that they are the only information you have. So the realistic, rational choices about what to believe happened are:
1) I don't know
2) I don't know
or 3) I don't know
Guessing is claiming you know, when you don't. You do that because you're an idiot. You even suspect it is true, which is why you hate anonymously. Come on, big boy, trim that neckbeard, make yourself presentable, and put your pseudonym next to your hate
No, there is never new advice. The advice is always the same; eat a traditional diet with lots of fruits, vegetables, fiber, and whole grains, limit sugars, fats, and highly processed foods.
The study is being misrepresented in the media to focus on eggs, even though it looked at total cholesterol not eggs. They're taking numbers for cholesterol, telling you how many eggs they think that is equivalent to, and then using wording that tricks the media into saying "eggs" in the headlines. This isn't even about eggs. And it contradicts a lot of past research. And it is based on what people report about their eating habits, which is not even scientific.
It may be, for example, that people who eat more than 1lb of breakfast sausage per week tend to under-report it. It may also be true that people who report eating 2 or more eggs per day are more likely to eat breakfast sausage. There is all sorts of problems like this when you go by what people report that they ate.
I don't see why "troll" or "flamebait" would be precluded by being true or factual.
Like, emacs is obviously superior to vim, but mentioning it might still be flamebait.
Or an opinionated rant about systemd might be entirely true, being indeed the opinion of the person claiming it is their own opinion, and yet they might still be trolling.
If I'm giving a -1 because something is merely untrue or incorrect, that is what Overrated is for. And I give out more flamebait or troll than overrated.
Naw, they merely "trust" it to be a basic encyclopedia with basic information. They know that details will be incomplete or wrong
Is there any way both groups can die in a fire?
Yeah, just remember to savor your victory in the final moments when WWIII comes and everybody burns.
Do Slashdot people believe in the right to repair? Or should Tesla get to do all repairs on Teslas?
Let us know.
Tesla should not be restricted in repairing whatever cars people want them to repair, including cars they manufactured.
People should have the right to repair cars that they buy, including being protecting from being sued for doing it. Manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to take steps to stop people from repairing their cars, like including parts that self-destruct or stop working when you try to repair them. But at the same time, they shouldn't be forced to sell people spare parts. If they want to sell spare parts, that is up to them. But if the parts are patented, they should be required to license the patents to companies making aftermarket parts on a FRAND basis.
There is a waiting list to buy the cars. Your friends who insist they don't want things they can't afford or don't want anyways, doesn't even have the potential to be a loss in demand for them. You present it as if it is some mistake on their part. I know it is natural for you to feel you are important, and your friends are important, but you're not.
Other people, who do know how electricity works, do repair Teslas on their own. If you don't know how to do it, it makes sense they don't want to spend their time teaching you. They're trying to scale up production still. It also makes sense that they don't want to sell their parts retail; they're a new company, the parts frequently change, and their competitors would love to get ahold of the parts without having to buy the whole car; and then also get the updated parts whenever they come out and immediately see what to improve in their own designs. That just won't make sense for Tesla until they're one of the top car companies and are battling for even the low-margin sales.
You wave your hands and say things will go badly for them, and yet, their strategy is different than what you want in exactly the ways that they need it to be to have success. ;)
Too bad you don't have machine shops or electronics in Canada, then you could repair a modern car.
It is just like building in a tent: a stupid idea that is needed because you need to be "Agile" (a.k.a haven't thought about things completely ahead of time). Tesla is moronic.
Wait, what? You think it matters if a building has soft walls, instead of hard walls?
Like some magical God of Snobbishness is going to cause your pants to fall down while you try to work, because the building is a mere tent. Or something something. You thought that you thought Tesla is moronic, but your trollish subconscious was merely demonstrating agility.
That's a complete horse-shit article.
It just waves its hands saying all the states have these laws. My state doesn't. It doesn't explain that in any way.
The reason it is obviously blatant lies is that it gives a category for what laws it is talking about, but then doesn't define who is included in the category. So any state with any law that says anything about that category of situations is included.
It would seem from the wording they use that Tesla wouldn't be allowed to run their own dealships; except that there aren't any details that would let you judge that. And of course that's because they're simply using misleading wording to trick you. To trick you. Not to trick me; I knew they didn't give me details, simply because I didn't find any details. And I don't put any value in their conclusions, only in their arguments. And they didn't make any.
A war ant? Awesome! I think we can all agree on war ants. Are they red or black? Cause I think red is a lot scarier!
When the cops smash your door in with war ant you don't even have time to be scared.
All you can do is get your hands up as fast as you can, and hope you don't get shot or bit enough times to kill you.
It was the same way in the olden times when the police used dogs.
As an aside to this issue I could see insurance companies demanding the same thing as a condition to payment after an accident.
What a ridiculous idea.
There are two types of insurance that matter after an accident; liability, and collision coverage.
If the accident was your fault, liability insurance pays the other party. If it was the other party's fault, their insurance company can't demand anything from you. I don't know about Nevada, but in most states there are a bunch of standard rules for determining whose fault it was. Even if you end up in court, usually you're only arguing about the payment amount because the formula for who is at fault usually makes it really clear; one person was outside their lane, didn't obey the traffic control device, or they rear-ended somebody. Or somebody pulled out into a lane when it wasn't clear. These are all unambiguous situations regarding fault.
Or if it was your fault and you're using your collision coverage, they don't care what idiot mistake you made; that's the whole point of collision coverage, for when it was your fault. They're your insurance company. They know how often you do this. They don't really care why, they only care how often you're going to do it and how much damage you do when it happens!
The thing about distracted driving is that it makes you more likely to make the mistakes that cause an accident; and those accidents would all be your fault anyways! From an insurance perspective it isn't relevant unless they can detect it continually the whole time you're driving; then they could use it to set rates.
This is way more useful to the police than to the insurance, because if somebody died in the accident, being able to prove something like distracted driving is the difference between felony charges and a $135 ticket.