The last century also brought us world wars and racism at all costs. The so called "great generation" (What a joke!), could very well have destroyed all of mankind. Then there's the "boomers". (my godforsaken generation) We have gone out of our way to politically ruin our nation, all for the sake of a lunatic, reality TV star who only cares about power and money. (A convicted felon was elected president?!?) Our vanity knows no bounds!
Now you're praising technologies that won't help the poor or make most people's lives more meaningful because they will be monetized to the point of uselessness. Sheesh!
If they become useless, they won't have a place in the market anymore. Do you really believe self-driving cars will never be useful because the companies controlling them will try to extract too much profit?
Yes, because poor people and others won't be able to afford the products. The more the underfunded people don't get to use the technology, the more it become useless.
Here, here! It's time for an operating system revolution, nothing too radical, just enough to secure up company info. I realize this would be really difficult, but don't businesses see that MS wants even more control over their computers? How can any company trust their secret communications about an innovation that could be a boon for profits and expansion ever trust MS not to be spying on them? (Surely MS doesn't collaborate with the feds, which could possibly use this info to sabotage a company they don't like?!?)
Trusting MS means being able to strip down your own security teams. Right now, MS invading everything saves money on experts. (Yes, short term vision. But that's normal.)
Business is usually willing to give up control if it directly increases profits.
Although I never went into one of these buildings, in the early 80's I was a sub-contractor burying cable for SWB. I was always amazed at all the property they controlled. I had access to all their construction yards, which were spread out all over the city, some of them in the suburbs. Protecting these yards from theft was always a nightmare for them.
I think most people get taken advantage of at a car dealership because they don't understand that they must do their homework on what the value is of the vehicle they're interested in, understand the financing, knowing what the extended warranty is worth and always walk away from pressure salesmanship.
If something is confusing, have them print out an offer on the vehicle and take it to someone for help. If they don't want to do that, walk! If the buyer remembers the dealership wants to make as much money as they can, then it's you against them. Since this is a given, what's on paper counts.
I've always been a list maker. It feels good to put a check mark next to a finished item. I once read an article declaring that list making can turn into a form of bondage. I thought this might have value, so I quit making lists. This was a mistake, because without the list I had problems prioritizing tasks. (And I'm a little forgetful.) Things get done when I list.
Yes, and the idea of separating from siblings and other relatives was a huge factor for us. We've visited SF several times, it would be awesome to live there, but man, the cost and family made the decision easy not to.
Almost anything, humane, to lower the earth's population, is fine by me. Do some people go a little overboard? Certainly. Are they having fun and not hurting anyone else at the same time? Excellent!
I think the only entity sabotaging the environment is we humans. Nature deals with what it's given by adapting. I do think the baby carriages are hilarious, unless it's a geriatric pet.
My spin, dogs, as an example pet, are a good way to practice empathy. It doesn't always translate, but if you can be loving and empathetic to a dog, you can surely began to be that way to humans.
we have a good relationship with the children we raised, along with their children. Our dog, however, is always with us and it just feels good to watch after her. We don't consider her a child, just a very good, non-verbal friend.
I would not necessarily call that friendship as your dog depends on you for its survival and is at your mercy. You are the one who defines the terms of the relationship. A friendship involves two individuals who are equally empowered to develop the friendship. A dog-human bond not so much. My two cents
I would not presume to define the parameters of friendship for others, as it can vary wildly between people and even between a given person’s friendships.
There is certainly an imbalance between dog and human authority/autonomy/agency, but that is not the only dynamic in the relationship. And it’s not necessarily the defining dynamic, nor is it consistently applicable.
If my attitude toward my dog is that she depends on my mercy to survive, then I am a monster with no feelings or morality. (Yes, I am responsible for her well being as a responsible owner, and rightfully so.)
Whether she understands how we feel about her isn't the point or the definition. She seems happy and doesn't live in any kind of fear, and that makes all the difference to us. Anything else is just picking fly scat out of pepper.
Your dad may have been your best friend, but that doesn't mean you were your dad's best friend.
The parent-child relationship is asymmetric in ways that are often not as visible to the child as they are a parent. There's a reason why for generations, parents have been responding to their childrens' arguments with "when you're a parent, you'll understand".
My wife and I got a puppy before we had kids and I will say it was an interesting "taste of things to come." Of course it's only superficially comparable, but the puppy experience definitely gave me practice in staying calm while sleep deprived and stressed.
Better quit eating food and drinking water, too - wouldn't want to associate yourself with Hitler and Putin, both famously known to regularly eat food and drink water.
You seem to be wrongly implying that I'm insinuating that loving dogs is correlated with being a ruthless killer.
My comment was another counter example to the GP's statement: "if you can be loving and empathetic to a dog, you can surely began to be that way to humans."
So the point is loving dogs doesn't necessarily correlate with being loving towards humans. That doesn't say anything about what loving dogs does correlate with.
That's very different from what you seem to be implying.
Now you're praising technologies that won't help the poor or make most people's lives more meaningful because they will be monetized to the point of uselessness. Sheesh!
reply