Constituents aren't part of the adversarial government triangle of checks and balances. At least, they're not supposed to be.
Then again, even congress (senators vs. representatives) was supposed to be adversarial (not necessarily, but they were supposed to represent different entities). Things have greatly changed in the U.S. (and elsewhere, of course). Our constitution has been subverted to the point where I guess the government does consider us "adversaries." Given that point, I say "bully for Uber."
I get it, but what's the alternative? As I mentioned in other posts, the Google search results seem like crap when I'm using my cellphone when I'm travelling. I don't know why. I swear I get different (better) results on a "real" computer.
You're calling him lazy for posting something rather than sitting back and mindlessly watching a 45 minute video that's 43 minutes too long? Maybe he just values his time. I rarely watch youtube videos anymore because the people waste too much of my time stretching the content in order to make more money.
As I mentioned in another post, my problem is when I'm travelling and only have my phone to look stuff up with, and it seems like Google gives me different results on my mobile than it does on my laptop. What I mean is that searching for "something near me" when I'm travelling often doesn't give me what I want from Google. I don't know why.... I'd give more details, but it's been a while because I started using Yelp more because of the problem.
I think in both cases you might get more sponsored results, but I think it seems worse with Google when I'm using my phone.
My problem is that, when I'm traveling, Googling things like "something near me" using the mobile version of chrome seemed to give different results than if I were on a desktop, an the results are not as useful. Things may have changed recently - I don't travel all that much, but a couple of times a year for work and the last few trips I had much better success finding good local restaurants than when I tried using Google.
It would be better to limit access to social media to X hours a day (or games or whatever). Maybe restrict network usage to that time, but always have voice available.
No, it hasn't. Some shareholders - you know, part owners of the company - made a request and Apple acquiesced. Nobody suggested it replaces parenting, but it's just another tool in the modern age to help parents. Make fun all you want, but many modern parents want their kids to be able to stay in contact and ALSO want to be able to limit time on social media, games, and other apps. My kids are past the age where I would use this, but I had a good set of rules about phone usage and hours they could use it, and I can still see how it could have been another useful, OPTIONAL, tool being made available to HELP parents (not replace them), and you certainly aren't required to use it - so I just don't get the backlash.
Yes, I don't get the whining about "nanny state" technology when it's an optional tool to add to the tools parents have to raise their children in the modern age.
Moreover, as a libertarian, this is EXACTLY how libertarianism is supposed to work... not the government intervening, but the stockholders making a request that some optional tool be made available to parents. Then you, as a consumer, can complain that $2 out of the $1000 you're paying for your phone went to create these controls you won't ever use, and you're free to buy something else.
Well, I did add "IMO." In my opinion, when people stop creating works of art, when they stop exercising and stop interacting socially in person, it's a problem. Have you seen the movie "surrogate?" I didn't think it was very prescient at the time.
The only comparable thing in your list is game addiction - and really, what is the problem with allowing a parent to set limits to the amount of time one of their own children can play games or use a phone? And if that's actually acceptable to you - you know, actually allowing a parent to parent - then what is the problem with giving them a technological tool to make it easier?
Idle hands are the devils playground.... but what if people are now not doing fruitful things they would otherwise have been doing? Creating works of art, reading, writing, getting exercise and developing meat space social skills? That is a problem that will rear it's ugly head in the future, IMO.
I'd mod you up, but have already posted in this thread. I'm not against giving kids phones (although there's a limit... I'm not talking about 5 and 6 year old kids - maybe double digits or older), but it's been shown that "online" socialization actually makes people more lonely and distanced from actual meat-space social life.
But while you can be addicted to anything, some things are more addicting than others. The gratification of ever increasing number of online "friends" and "thumbs ups" to posts feeds a cycle that encourages even more online socializing, which necessarily starts taking time away from other things.
I agree, I'd never give an 8 year old a phone - they actually have tablets geared for kids if I thought they needed some tech to watch Thomas the Tank Engine on a 10 inch screen instead of watching it on TV. But what about my 15 year old?
I'm a libertarian and don't see why anyone is complaining about this. OMG! Extra functionality that I wouldn't be required to use! It also doesn't take the place of parenting, it has the potential to make modern parenting easier. Why is that a problem? And if your problem is that you're paying a few extra cents for an iPhone because of "nanny state" software you don't want, then don't buy one - that's exactly the libertarian philosophy about stuff like this anyway.
I agree - I knew there'd be a bunch of people complaining about a company adding optional functionality that helps a parent (IOW, doesn't take over the job of parenting, just helps). It's just silly to complain about it. I had a great method - as long as my kids were involved in some sort of physical activity, and their grades were good, the only restriction was the phone gets left downstairs in the kitchen to charge overnight. They need to put it there themselves by bedtime, or they lose it the next day. But I can't see complaining about some added functionality that might let me, for example, limit facebook time to X hours a day.
No, no "need" for Apple to get involved, but it would just be another tool a parent had available. It's not like a nanny state solution where you have no choice, it's just another thing available to help parents. I don't see why this is a big story, or why people would be against having another optional tool available.
But you proved my point - when push comes to shove, you still resort to using a car. Do you ride your bicycle with your wife and two kids to go to a restaurant? The movies? Do you ride your bike to do the weekly grocery shopping? Do you use it when you've had 5 feet of snow? No, you resort to using a car.
Ahh.... open office plans... the problem with your post is that we've known the truth for at least half a decade or more, but you are absolutely right - as long as the work still gets done, it doesn't matter that it wasn't as good as it could have been. Quantity over quality. Actually, even that's not true. In my work environment, open concept didn't improve quantity - it simply reduced quality while also reducing expenses (cramming 4x as many people into the space), and I'm sure some accountant living 1000 miles away (the order came from the corporate overlords, after all) is patting him/herself on the back with the gold plated hand bought with the huge bonus they got.... all while sitting in their nice corner office in some nice office building somewhere.
Motorcycles are awesome, I agree, except when it's really hot, or really cold, or raining, or snowing, or when you're using it for grocery shopping (or most any kind of shopping).... so if you're only going to have one vehicle, a motorcycle is just dumb.
Yes, I suspect Disney, but aren't the characters created by Disney also trademarks of Disney, and thus still have protection even when copyright runs out? So you'd still be able to copy Sleeping Beauty, but you wouldn't be able to use Mickey Mouse as a character in your own video, nor would you be able to use "his" likeness in other products.
I like broccoli and spinach, but green beans literally make me want to vomit (and I have vomited, being forced to eat green beans by my mom at one point). I am not kidding.
Slashdot Mirror
Constituents aren't part of the adversarial government triangle of checks and balances. At least, they're not supposed to be.
Then again, even congress (senators vs. representatives) was supposed to be adversarial (not necessarily, but they were supposed to represent different entities). Things have greatly changed in the U.S. (and elsewhere, of course). Our constitution has been subverted to the point where I guess the government does consider us "adversaries." Given that point, I say "bully for Uber."
I get it, but what's the alternative? As I mentioned in other posts, the Google search results seem like crap when I'm using my cellphone when I'm travelling. I don't know why. I swear I get different (better) results on a "real" computer.
You're calling him lazy for posting something rather than sitting back and mindlessly watching a 45 minute video that's 43 minutes too long? Maybe he just values his time. I rarely watch youtube videos anymore because the people waste too much of my time stretching the content in order to make more money.
As I mentioned in another post, my problem is when I'm travelling and only have my phone to look stuff up with, and it seems like Google gives me different results on my mobile than it does on my laptop. What I mean is that searching for "something near me" when I'm travelling often doesn't give me what I want from Google. I don't know why.... I'd give more details, but it's been a while because I started using Yelp more because of the problem.
I think in both cases you might get more sponsored results, but I think it seems worse with Google when I'm using my phone.
My problem is that, when I'm traveling, Googling things like "something near me" using the mobile version of chrome seemed to give different results than if I were on a desktop, an the results are not as useful. Things may have changed recently - I don't travel all that much, but a couple of times a year for work and the last few trips I had much better success finding good local restaurants than when I tried using Google.
But is that how it works?
It would be better to limit access to social media to X hours a day (or games or whatever). Maybe restrict network usage to that time, but always have voice available.
No, it hasn't. Some shareholders - you know, part owners of the company - made a request and Apple acquiesced. Nobody suggested it replaces parenting, but it's just another tool in the modern age to help parents. Make fun all you want, but many modern parents want their kids to be able to stay in contact and ALSO want to be able to limit time on social media, games, and other apps. My kids are past the age where I would use this, but I had a good set of rules about phone usage and hours they could use it, and I can still see how it could have been another useful, OPTIONAL, tool being made available to HELP parents (not replace them), and you certainly aren't required to use it - so I just don't get the backlash.
Yes, I don't get the whining about "nanny state" technology when it's an optional tool to add to the tools parents have to raise their children in the modern age.
Moreover, as a libertarian, this is EXACTLY how libertarianism is supposed to work... not the government intervening, but the stockholders making a request that some optional tool be made available to parents. Then you, as a consumer, can complain that $2 out of the $1000 you're paying for your phone went to create these controls you won't ever use, and you're free to buy something else.
Heaven forbid people actually be secure in their persons, papers, and effects!
Well, I did add "IMO." In my opinion, when people stop creating works of art, when they stop exercising and stop interacting socially in person, it's a problem. Have you seen the movie "surrogate?" I didn't think it was very prescient at the time.
The only comparable thing in your list is game addiction - and really, what is the problem with allowing a parent to set limits to the amount of time one of their own children can play games or use a phone? And if that's actually acceptable to you - you know, actually allowing a parent to parent - then what is the problem with giving them a technological tool to make it easier?
Idle hands are the devils playground.... but what if people are now not doing fruitful things they would otherwise have been doing? Creating works of art, reading, writing, getting exercise and developing meat space social skills? That is a problem that will rear it's ugly head in the future, IMO.
I'd mod you up, but have already posted in this thread. I'm not against giving kids phones (although there's a limit... I'm not talking about 5 and 6 year old kids - maybe double digits or older), but it's been shown that "online" socialization actually makes people more lonely and distanced from actual meat-space social life.
But while you can be addicted to anything, some things are more addicting than others. The gratification of ever increasing number of online "friends" and "thumbs ups" to posts feeds a cycle that encourages even more online socializing, which necessarily starts taking time away from other things.
I agree, I'd never give an 8 year old a phone - they actually have tablets geared for kids if I thought they needed some tech to watch Thomas the Tank Engine on a 10 inch screen instead of watching it on TV. But what about my 15 year old?
I'm a libertarian and don't see why anyone is complaining about this. OMG! Extra functionality that I wouldn't be required to use! It also doesn't take the place of parenting, it has the potential to make modern parenting easier. Why is that a problem? And if your problem is that you're paying a few extra cents for an iPhone because of "nanny state" software you don't want, then don't buy one - that's exactly the libertarian philosophy about stuff like this anyway.
Are they saying it's Apple's fault? Or are they saying there is a problem that Apple can address?
I agree - I knew there'd be a bunch of people complaining about a company adding optional functionality that helps a parent (IOW, doesn't take over the job of parenting, just helps). It's just silly to complain about it. I had a great method - as long as my kids were involved in some sort of physical activity, and their grades were good, the only restriction was the phone gets left downstairs in the kitchen to charge overnight. They need to put it there themselves by bedtime, or they lose it the next day. But I can't see complaining about some added functionality that might let me, for example, limit facebook time to X hours a day.
No, no "need" for Apple to get involved, but it would just be another tool a parent had available. It's not like a nanny state solution where you have no choice, it's just another thing available to help parents. I don't see why this is a big story, or why people would be against having another optional tool available.
But you proved my point - when push comes to shove, you still resort to using a car. Do you ride your bicycle with your wife and two kids to go to a restaurant? The movies? Do you ride your bike to do the weekly grocery shopping? Do you use it when you've had 5 feet of snow? No, you resort to using a car.
Ahh.... open office plans... the problem with your post is that we've known the truth for at least half a decade or more, but you are absolutely right - as long as the work still gets done, it doesn't matter that it wasn't as good as it could have been. Quantity over quality. Actually, even that's not true. In my work environment, open concept didn't improve quantity - it simply reduced quality while also reducing expenses (cramming 4x as many people into the space), and I'm sure some accountant living 1000 miles away (the order came from the corporate overlords, after all) is patting him/herself on the back with the gold plated hand bought with the huge bonus they got.... all while sitting in their nice corner office in some nice office building somewhere.
No, I'm not bitter.
Motorcycles are awesome, I agree, except when it's really hot, or really cold, or raining, or snowing, or when you're using it for grocery shopping (or most any kind of shopping).... so if you're only going to have one vehicle, a motorcycle is just dumb.
Yes, I suspect Disney, but aren't the characters created by Disney also trademarks of Disney, and thus still have protection even when copyright runs out? So you'd still be able to copy Sleeping Beauty, but you wouldn't be able to use Mickey Mouse as a character in your own video, nor would you be able to use "his" likeness in other products.
Yes.
Then I'd say it's problem solved.
I like broccoli and spinach, but green beans literally make me want to vomit (and I have vomited, being forced to eat green beans by my mom at one point). I am not kidding.