http://www.newsweek.com/robert-phalen-epa-air-too-clean-700143
QuoteRobert Phalen, an air pollution researcher at the Irvine campus of the University of California, said in 2012 that children need to breathe irritants so that their bodies learn how to ward them off.
“Modern air,†he told the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “is a little too clean for optimum health.â€
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/wthayta.gif)
Also, learn to ward them off? Ward off...air?!
This isn't an open question. The science is clear - air pollution kills thousands of Americans each year (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/06/28/534594373/u-s-air-pollution-still-kills-thousands-every-year-study-concludes). Conversely, we could save 12,000 Americans' lives each year by cleaning up our energy sector. But we won't because we have "leaders" who care more about oil executives and their money than American lives.
And it gets worse. This appointee is part of Scott Pruitt's scheme to replace scientists (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/11/a_list_of_expertise_scott_pruitt_is_removing_from_the_epa.html) (biased by that sweet, sweet gov grant money) with industry execs (presumably unbiased)
Forget Russia, the Trump administration's most damaging collusion against America is right here.
In the future, all science is done by the guys that brought us unbiased tobacco research from RJR ;-(
See, when you go Lysenko, the scientific truth will be determined by a bullet to the head, not by a refereed journal. For Marxists, everything is politics. For Capitalists, everything is money. They are both extinction events.
The government has no interest in extending or saving lives. They have squirreled away too much of social security for themselves.
Quote from: aitm on November 05, 2017, 03:41:01 PM
The government has no interest in extending or saving lives.
Aside from basic ethics, there's self-interest. Healthy citizens don't require as much healthcare. Citizens who live longer pay more taxes. Places with better air/water quality get more tourism dollars. Any rational actor would pursue smart energy/environmental policy because it's a win-win for everyone except the worst polluters.
But those aren't the sort of people in charge right now. Right now, we have an administration of denialists in bed with polluters. And an army of sycophants cheering on policies that actively hurt them.
Just as I think they can't get any stupider. How anyone can continue to defend Drumph and his staff is beyond me.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 05, 2017, 04:46:18 PM
How anyone can continue to defend Drumph and his staff is beyond me.
He says it like it is.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 04, 2017, 09:18:29 PM
Forget Russia, the Trump administration's most damaging collusion against America is right here.
Back in the 60s, I read an article about trees causing pollution and brought it up to my ecology professor, who mumbled under his breath something about industry paid "scientists." Although, the too clean air pitch does outdo the polluting trees in absurdity.
But I won't forget Russia. The Trump Administration's collusion with Russia is disgusting, even if Republican constituents think it's just fine and dandy and really nothing to concern ourselves over.
Quote from: SGOS on November 06, 2017, 08:04:55 AMBack in the 60s, I read an article about trees causing pollution and brought it up to my ecology professor, who mumbled under his breath something about industry paid "scientists." Although, the too clean air pitch does outdo the polluting trees in absurdity.
You're talking about volatile organic compounds (VOCs), right? They're also produced by human activity, including (drumroll please) fossil fuels. And yeah, they can be bad for people, but it's not nearly as bad as clearcutting or ruining the ecosystems on which we depend to survive (climate change). So, it's not much of an argument.
The air being "too clean" argument essentially tries to confuse/dupe the American public (who are easy marks for these sorts of slimeballs) by taking the observation that people living in too sterilze environments can have weaker immune systems as a result (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/well/family/too-clean-for-our-childrens-good.html) and replacing germs with pollution. Obviously, it's a bullshit comparison because people don't "ward off" or otherwise adapt to pollution like they can to disease. He's banking on people being too dumb to notice the swap or stupidly agreeing with it because it makes "intuitive" sense based on its superficial resemblance to the hygiene hypothesis.
He also doesn't expect you to take his argument back through time for a smell test and imagine whether or not our cavemen ancestors had it rough when it comes to air quality compared to our industrial age ancestors - who frequently held handkerchiefs to their mouths from all the smog.
QuoteBut I won't forget Russia. The Trump Administration's collusion with Russia is disgusting, even if Republican constituents think it's just fine and dandy and really nothing to concern ourselves over.
Of course. I was being a bit hyperbolic in an attempt to stress the seriousness of this development, not to dismiss the Russia allegations. Energy/environmental policy is seriously important - this isn't a save the cute bunnies sort of issue that conservatives tend to dismiss it as, American lives are hanging in the balance - and this administration has failed the American people big time.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 05, 2017, 04:46:18 PM
Just as I think they can't get any stupider. How anyone can continue to defend Drumph and his staff is beyond me.
Read a bit from Chilli's post.
Quote from: Mike Cl on November 06, 2017, 11:28:17 AM
Read a bit from Chilli's post.
What else would you expect from a guy who gets his news from Alex "fogman" Jones? Of course a lot of the Trumpsters are still backing him - they've effectively walled themselves off from reality for years now and the 2016 election is partly a manifestation of that. Everyone else - people who aren't delusional or mad - are simply going to have outvote them in the next election and force a return to sanity.
Well, I've heard of having kids grow up in a non-sterile environment in order to "educate" their immune systems, but I'm not sure it works the same way with air pollution. It certainly doesn't seem to me that the air is "too clean" given how much pollution is spewed out every single day.
But what the hell do I know?
Quote from: SGOS on November 06, 2017, 08:04:55 AM
Back in the 60s, I read an article about trees causing pollution and brought it up to my ecology professor, who mumbled under his breath something about industry paid "scientists." Although, the too clean air pitch does outdo the polluting trees in absurdity.
But I won't forget Russia. The Trump Administration's collusion with Russia is disgusting, even if Republican constituents think it's just fine and dandy and really nothing to concern ourselves over.
Obama collusion with Russia was just fine ;-)
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 05, 2017, 04:44:49 PM
Aside from basic ethics, there's self-interest. Healthy citizens don't require as much healthcare. Citizens who live longer pay more taxes. Places with better air/water quality get more tourism dollars. Any rational actor would pursue smart energy/environmental policy because it's a win-win for everyone except the worst polluters.
But those aren't the sort of people in charge right now. Right now, we have an administration of denialists in bed with polluters. And an army of sycophants cheering on policies that actively hurt them.
They don't intend to provide you with healthcare. And they don't need your taxes, they can print as much as they want. They don't tourist in Newark .. but in the Caymans.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 06, 2017, 11:23:38 AM
this isn't a save the cute bunnies sort of issue that conservatives tend to dismiss it as, American lives are hanging in the balance - and this administration has failed the American people big time.
It's hard to understand why people would believe the tripe that is being pedaled here. It's complex psychology, but I think part of it is people who are of a party feel compelled to support the party. So if something really stupid is done, they think or act like they believe it's some kind of cutting edge discovery (he/they tell it like it is).
But I think far more powerful is the basic ignorance of people. I hate to think people are that ignorant, but I think in reality they are. By definition, the average IQ is 100. That means that half of everyone is below 100. I've been in a job where I have had access to IQ scores, and knew the people those scores belonged to very well. Some people with lower than 100 are nice people, and some are hard working, but they all struggle with concepts that you and I could grasp with modest effort.
I can readily understand that people could be taught without too much effort that breathing dirty air with a high degree of toxins and particulates would build their immune systems. There is kind of a paradoxical quality in the idea that is tempting.
Mankind on average just isn't that bright. The advancements in knowledge and science come mostly from the highly gifted, but everyone wants to think they are part of a superior species and tend to put themselves on the same level as the ones that make the big discoveries.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/wthayta.gif)
Oddly, I just watched that old movie a couple nights ago. Truman doesn't realize he's been on a reality TV program his entire life, and the anxiety and confusion of Truman trying to understand what's going on around him is causing him great anguish. His wife has just cut him off by doing a product placement add for a Kitchen Handy Slicer. I always get a kick out of that scene.
Quote from: Baruch on November 06, 2017, 07:50:54 PM
Obama collusion with Russia was just fine ;-)
Most Republicans have a Hillary card, but it seems you have an Obama card as well.
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/hillary-card-deflect-bad-news-away-from-trump-switch-to-26270916.png)
Quote from: SGOS on November 06, 2017, 08:34:50 PMI can readily understand that people could be taught without too much effort that breathing dirty air with a high degree of toxins and particulates would build their immune systems.
Technically, this guy's claim has nothing to do with toxins or immune systems. The claim is that breathing in irritants somehow helps people "ward them off". This is kinda what I'm talking about. It's easy to get confused or link it to something else because it just sounds so bafflingly stupid on its own. It's almost as if one subconsciously wants to change it to make it make some sort of sense.
QuoteSome people with lower than 100 are nice people, and some are hard working, but they all struggle with concepts that you and I could grasp with modest effort.
That's the thing. I've never claimed to be some sort of genius, in truth I'm fairly average - and even I can recognize this guy's BS as BS. If anything, it should be more obvious to most other people.
I've talked to people who are well above me in a lot of ways and it's really scary for me to learn that they harbor pseudoscientific beliefs or beliefs that are fairly obviously empirically untrue. I just don't get how someone can do literal rocket science one day and then say that sharks don't get cancer the next. I couldn't figure out the former if my life depended on it, but I can figure out the latter with google and a couple minutes of free time.
This shouldn't be something people struggle with, it should be a foundational skill like being able to tie your shoes or find your house.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 06, 2017, 08:56:04 PM
Most Republicans have a Hillary card, but it seems you have an Obama card as well.
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/hillary-card-deflect-bad-news-away-from-trump-switch-to-26270916.png)
Bill Clinton ... Bill is Great
Barak Obama ... Barak is Great
Hillary Clinton ... Hillary is Great
There is your true holy Trinity of D party Islam. But not mine.
You assume too much, that I even care what Trump does, that I even care what the government does. I should want to be a nihilist like Unbeliever or MikeCL .. that the US is better dead than alive, that everything is better dead than alive, because death is simple, not messy like living.
The more "Republican" the Republicans get, the crazier they seem. They HAVE to wear out eventually, don't they?
Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 03:39:04 AM
The more "Republican" the Republicans get, the crazier they seem. They HAVE to wear out eventually, don't they?
You forgot the "sarc" tag, Comrade Bear. They haven't worn out in 200 years (if you count the Wigs).
Quote from: Baruch on November 07, 2017, 06:34:54 AM
You forgot the "sarc" tag, Comrade Bear. They haven't worn out in 200 years (if you count the Wigs).
It wasn't sarcasm.
Quote from: Baruch on November 07, 2017, 06:34:54 AM
You forgot the "sarc" tag, Comrade Bear. They haven't worn out in 200 years (if you count the Wigs).
If I'm not mistaken, Republicans and Democrats used to have much more common ground. The polarization of the two parties is a somewhat recent thing in American history, and it's only getting worse. Somehow, Republicans managed to err almost exclusively on the extremes of stupidity and bigotry.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 07, 2017, 12:02:34 PM
If I'm not mistaken, Republicans and Democrats used to have much more common ground. The polarization of the two parties is a somewhat recent thing in American history, and it's only getting worse.
Correct (http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/section-1-growing-ideological-consistency/#interactive).
QuoteSomehow, Republicans managed to err almost exclusively on the extremes of stupidity and bigotry.
Tell me about it. Abortion, Intelligent Design, gay marriage, abstinence-only education, trickle-down economics, torture, etc. It must be nice to be lose the argument consistently and still be ushered into power.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 07, 2017, 12:02:34 PM
If I'm not mistaken, Republicans and Democrats used to have much more common ground. The polarization of the two parties is a somewhat recent thing in American history, and it's only getting worse. Somehow, Republicans managed to err almost exclusively on the extremes of stupidity and bigotry.
Right On! Or should that be Left On? Neither actually. My political roots go back to the time you described. When both parties had liberals and conservatives. When (usually) both parties paid attention to the middle. When there were liberal Republicans (socially liberal and fiscally conservative) and conservative Democrats (socially conservative and fiscally liberal) and all flavors in between.
I miss that. And I hold to that idea of both parties having candidates you had to think to choose between.
Today it is all automatic. You pick a side and there isn't really much other choice. You aren't allowed nuance in the voting booth anymore. The voting booths are advanced; the choices aren't. They might as well just have 23 buttons. Republican, Democrat and Any Other (you dumb loser).
There are times when I wish there could be a test to pass for voters, but I know why there can't be. There are times when I wish we could vote for 2 candidates a 1st choice and a 2nd, so 3rd parties got more recognition. THAT would make me think. 2nd choice Libertarian, Green, other?
I would like the Presidential debates to be more open. The top 4 or 5 regardless of polls. That would pull the top 2 into some informative discussions. And it would tell us who is waiting in the wings with interesting ideas. It might kill some of the negative advertising, too. It is harder to "negative" 4 people than one.
Might that cause the top 2 to sort of join against the others? Maybe. But it would reveal a lot about them too. And the other 2 or 3 would have a chance to respond.
There are many good possibilities in expanded debates and few negatives. A crazy candidate would be laughed off, but good one would have a chance to suggest new ideas.
Ah, but I'm just one old poly-sci major who has some ideas...
Quote from: Baruch on November 07, 2017, 06:34:54 AM
You forgot the "sarc" tag, Comrade Bear. They haven't worn out in 200 years (if you count the Wigs).
I request you stop calling me "Comrade Bear". I am not a communist. I'm not even socialist. I am probably Libertarian/Progressive/Atheist.
It is just that when my only 2 voting choices are a crazy theistic conservative and a slightly less crazy liberal, I go liberal with hope of the future rather than hope in the past.
OK?
Quote
Robert Phalen, an air pollution researcher at the Irvine campus of the University of California, said in 2012 that children need to breathe irritants so that their bodies learn how to ward them off.
“Modern air,†he told the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “is a little too clean for optimum health.â€
Imagine if the NRA released a statement saying that a couple of grams of lead were good for you....
Quote from: Jason78 on November 07, 2017, 01:09:12 PM
Imagine if the NRA released a statement saying that a couple of grams of lead were good for you....
"Well, what a gram or 2 of lead among the underlings", said the Republican drinking his filtered water...
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 07, 2017, 12:02:34 PM
If I'm not mistaken, Republicans and Democrats used to have much more common ground. The polarization of the two parties is a somewhat recent thing in American history, and it's only getting worse. Somehow, Republicans managed to err almost exclusively on the extremes of stupidity and bigotry.
Last 5 years, 50 years, 150 years? Depends on the time frame. No, in my lifetime (last 50+ years) they have everything in common ... criminal behavior. I don't see that as a good thing. Some people prefer X criminal behavior over Y criminal behavior. I don't care what the differences are between them. Irish mafia, Italian mafia ... it is just criminal all around. There is nothing good in the US, since 1960 ... and I am not sure about 1960.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 12:34:31 PM
I request you stop calling me "Comrade Bear". I am not a communist. I'm not even socialist. I am probably Libertarian/Progressive/Atheist.
It is just that when my only 2 voting choices are a crazy theistic conservative and a slightly less crazy liberal, I go liberal with hope of the future rather than hope in the past.
OK?
So OK, just a Democrat. Same thing to me. But then I think Capitalists are evil too. There is no good in the political world.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 08:04:08 AM
It wasn't sarcasm.
Then keep petulantly holding your breath while clicking your ruby slippers together and return to Kansas ;-) The Republicans nor the Democrats won't go anywhere, without CIA say so ... and I suspect they say no. The system is too useful to cointelpro.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 07, 2017, 12:02:34 PM
If I'm not mistaken, Republicans and Democrats used to have much more common ground. The polarization of the two parties is a somewhat recent thing in American history, and it's only getting worse. Somehow, Republicans managed to err almost exclusively on the extremes of stupidity and bigotry.
I don't think you're mistaken, I think the polarization of America has been an intentional, "divide and conquer" strategy by the wealthy elite. They've got us pretty well divided, so how will they accomplish the actual conquering phase?
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 08, 2017, 04:07:58 PM
I don't think you're mistaken, I think the polarization of America has been an intentional, "divide and conquer" strategy by the wealthy elite. They've got us pretty well divided, so how will they accomplish the actual conquering phase?
They are winning as we speak. They get the tax breaks, the bailouts, and our taxes pay for the tax breaks.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 07, 2017, 12:26:38 PMThere are times when I wish we could vote for 2 candidates a 1st choice and a 2nd, so 3rd parties got more recognition.
What you're describing is Instant-runoff voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) (aka alternative vote, aka transferable vote). Imo, it would reduce a lot of the problems associated with first-past-the-post problems like a spoiler effect, negative campaigning, and voter apathy due to dislike of the two major contenders.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
I'm very supportive of alternative vote.
Quote2nd choice Libertarian, Green, other?
Green for me, provided they don't run horrible candidates.
QuoteI would like the Presidential debates to be more open. The top 4 or 5 regardless of polls.
Amen to that.
Quote from: SGOS on November 08, 2017, 04:17:24 PM
They are winning as we speak. They get the tax breaks, the bailouts, and our taxes pay for the tax breaks.
And it is bipartisan.
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 08, 2017, 04:07:58 PM
I don't think you're mistaken, I think the polarization of America has been an intentional, "divide and conquer" strategy by the wealthy elite. They've got us pretty well divided, so how will they accomplish the actual conquering phase?
Everyone starts riding in autonomous cars ... and like that Toyota in San Diego a few years ago ... a glitch happens. Fortunately the wealthy have taken out life insurance policies on the 99%, with them as the beneficiaries. Yes, that is legal.
Quote from: Baruch on November 08, 2017, 07:25:14 PM
Everyone starts riding in autonomous cars ... and like that Toyota in San Diego a few years ago ... a glitch happens. Fortunately the wealthy have taken out life insurance policies on the 99%, with them as the beneficiaries. Yes, that is legal.
How does that work???
In theory you can take out life-insurance on any old person about to die and name yourself as a beneficiary...
O.P. Its not just the EPA!!! The Department of the Interior is also in on this mess. Besides the damage already done to our National Parks by Trump henchmen we got another crime reported today:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/08/chaco-canyon-national-park-new-mexico-drilling
Fucked up in the head Sec of Interior has been approving drilling on or near sacred Native American lands
Quote from: fencerider on November 09, 2017, 12:59:35 AM
How does that work???
In theory you can take out life-insurance on any old person about to die and name yourself as a beneficiary...
Companies take out policies on their own employees, with the company as beneficiary. If an insurance company is willing to contract the policy, it is legal. So as part of the non-disclosure-binding-arbitrarion agreement you sign when using a driverless taxi ... you get the equivalent of flight insurance, except your family doesn't get the money. Then you have made a positive feedback loop that encourages the corporations so crash you.
What Baruch is oh-so-conveniently forgetting is that the insurance company is a greedy SOB, too, and they don't want to pay out benefits they don't need to, and if they do, they are as sure as hell going to make sure that the benefits they expect pay out do not exceed the amount of money they collect in premiums on those policies. That is, after all, how insurance companies make their money, and it is the reason why insurance companies are willing to make these contracts in the first place â€" they want to make money, too.
As such, no driverless taxi company could take out life-insurance on the entire population of its customer base and expect to make a net profit off of them â€" the insurance companies are only going to be willing to play if there is a net profit for them, and that automatically means there's a net loss for the driverless taxi company. Sure, they can pass off that cost to the consumer, but that just means that their driverless taxi service is more expensive than it needs to be, and that's even before we factor in the fact that, because their taxis are deliberately hazardous on top of the normal hazard level, the driverless fleet will be overall have higher repair and replacement costs, and will cause more collateral damage. This will result in higher legal costs as more people sue them for damages.
And the insurance companies are going to quickly notice this. They're going to notice that the taxi company's fleet incurs higher-than-normal amounts for incidental damage and injury, and is sued more often. They will respond to that by upping their premiums until they are making net profit off of the taxi company again. While this might not completely wipe out the additional profit, it does make the option much less attractive. Especially, if one of the insurance companies decides that the taxi company is too far out of whack to be believed and investigates. They're going to find out, and sue to get their benefits returned with interest.
This scheme you've dreamed up requires insurance companies to simply take it up the ass and accept a net loss, which companies are very adverse to doing. The insurance company is going to be a greedy SOB too, you know, and if it can hang on to its profits by exposing a heartless scheme to kill people and collect their insurance money, all the better for them.
That’s what happens when you get greedy... but if you get one policy on say: your uncle or your grandmaðŸ¤"
Quote from: fencerider on November 09, 2017, 12:29:50 PM
That’s what happens when you get greedy... but if you get one policy on say: your uncle or your grandmaðŸ¤"
I have a coworker, who in a previous job, even though they were not a critical management employee (she was in software testing for pre-shipment) ... they took out a contract on her. So of course the company is an immoral monster, as is the insurance company that lets such a contract out. Let the monsters battle it out ... but you are dead, your corpse is what they are fighting over. Now my model is hypothetical. People who believe that there is no such thing as evil, or that human beings generally mean well (even when in organization mode) can believe in the tooth fairy for all I care. Another thing for sure, car liability will be modified, so that the owner and manufacturer of the autonomous vehicle, is never held liable (see banks responsible for 2008). It had to have been an act of G-d.
Yes, in specific cases with enough specific information, you can get it to work, especially if you have a hand in when Uncle Ben or Grandma Joan die. Otherwise, most people who take out an insurance policy on those people can expect to lose money, because actuaries are a thing â€" the policy will only be cheap compared to payout if your uncle is likely to live through the period.
On the scale that Baruch expects companies to make money by taking out insurance? No. Too many people have to be insured to provide a reliable income.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 09, 2017, 01:07:11 PM
Yes, in specific cases with enough specific information, you can get it to work, especially if you have a hand in when Uncle Ben or Grandma Joan die. Otherwise, most people who take out an insurance policy on those people can expect to lose money, because actuaries are a thing â€" the policy will only be cheap compared to payout if your uncle is likely to live through the period.
On the scale that Baruch expects companies to make money by taking out insurance? No. Too many people have to be insured to provide a reliable income.
Government mandated insurance. It is a thing now. No anti-trust ... so the car company can own its own insurance company, to cut the mandated insurance. GM owned its own car finance company, and it made better money than the manufacturing. CVS is trying to buy Aetna ... my god! Yes, pure capitalism, with no collusion.
Quote from: Baruch on November 09, 2017, 12:56:56 PM
I have a coworker, who in a previous job, even though they were not a critical management employee (she was in software testing for pre-shipment) ... they took out a contract on her.
Any employee can still represent a non-trivial investment in time and money, and as such may be an asset that it might be worth insuring even if they are not critical. Insurance protects against risk/expected loss. It has nothing to do with criticallity, except where that criticallity intersects with expected loss.
QuoteSo of course the company is an immoral monster, as is the insurance company that lets such a contract out. Let the monsters battle it out ... but you are dead, your corpse is what they are fighting over.
No, the companies are both
amoral. That's a critical distinction that makes your screed an unhinged rant. The insurance company doesn't want you to die, because it doesn't want to pay out money. It's betting on your
survival. The company taking out the insurance is simply covering its ass in case you may need to be replaced, because it knows that in any period she may be insured for, the expected payout is going to be
less than the premiums paid over that time â€" the company fully expects to lose money off the policy.
Unless you have evidence otherwise, your coworker was in no more danger for having life insurance taken out on her. It's not a jinx, for fuck's sake.
QuoteNow my model is hypothetical. People who believe that there is no such thing as evil, or that human beings generally mean well (even when in organization mode) can believe in the tooth fairy for all I care. Another thing for sure, car liability will be modified, so that the owner and manufacturer of the autonomous vehicle, is never held liable (see banks responsible for 2008). It had to have been an act of G-d.
Baruch, there's evil, and then there's just silliness. This is the latter. Insurance companies will set up the game so that
they win. Also, an act of God is outside of human control. If driverless taxis are provably more dangerous than drivered taxis for any reason, it's not an act of god, but a distinct, recognizable and very
controllable risk.
Quote from: Baruch on November 09, 2017, 01:09:41 PM
Government mandated insurance. It is a thing now. No anti-trust ... so the car company can own its own insurance company, to cut the mandated insurance.
So the company is paying itself? How is this the secret to unlimited riches? You still have to pay for repairs to your cars and replacements, and you're still going to get sued for damages. The only way that your life insurance policy scam is going to make net profit is if it's another company supplying it, and all the previous objections attach; if the insurance company is held by the car company, then there's no net profit to the insurance â€" it's zero-sum.
QuoteGM owned its own car finance company, and it made better money than the manufacturing. CVS is trying to buy Aetna ... my god! Yes, pure capitalism, with no collusion.
You
do know that a car fiance company makes money is when the customers successfully pay off their loans, right? Even if GM owned it, it was still independently successful.
Again, there's evil, and then there's just silliness.
Quote from: fencerider on November 09, 2017, 12:59:35 AM
How does that work???
In theory you can take out life-insurance on any old person about to die and name yourself as a beneficiary...
That's stranger-originated life insurance (STOLI). It's ethically dubious at best since the policyowner has a vested interest in the insured's death. It also violates insurable interest (you're not a blood relative, spouse, or business partner of the insured) Afaik, it's also in some legally pretty murky waters. Imo, probably not the kind of thing you could easily get an insurance company to sign off on.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 09, 2017, 11:57:09 AMWhat Baruch is oh-so-conveniently forgetting is that the insurance company is a greedy SOB, too, and they don't want to pay out benefits they don't need to, and if they do, they are as sure as hell going to make sure that the benefits they expect pay out do not exceed the amount of money they collect in premiums on those policies. That is, after all, how insurance companies make their money, and it is the reason why insurance companies are willing to make these contracts in the first place â€" they want to make money, too.
I haven't been following this segway too closely, so I apologize in advance if I misunderstand the conversation.
But
if when autonomous cars become the norm, insurance will still continue as normal (after all, there are still vehicles getting wrecked and people getting hurt) but there will be much less risk of an accident. Depending on the exact nature of the autonomous system, the human driver may have little to no control over the vehicle and thus driving habits are much less of a factor in accidents - risk can now be calculated without human variables like driver age. Since the likelihood of a crash has decreased across the board, insurance companies will not have to pay out as often, so auto insurance premiums will decrease.
TL;DR: lower premiums, insurance companies are still making a profit. Nothing much new there.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 09, 2017, 02:16:32 PM
I haven't been following this segway too closely, so I apologize in advance if I misunderstand the conversation.
But if when autonomous cars become the norm, insurance will still continue as normal (after all, there are still vehicles getting wrecked and people getting hurt) but there will be much less risk of an accident. Depending on the exact nature of the autonomous system, the human driver may have little to no control over the vehicle and thus driving habits are much less of a factor in accidents - risk can now be calculated without human variables like driver age. Since the likelihood of a crash has decreased across the board, insurance companies will not have to pay out as often, so auto insurance premiums will decrease.
TL;DR: lower premiums, insurance companies are still making a profit. Nothing much new there.
The legalities ... the autonomous car must be designed to allow the passenger(s) to take control themselves in the even of a mishap. So that also protects the owner/manufacturer. The victims weren't fast enough to correct Seri.
Some people here ... will defend any corporation, any time ;-) How much are they paid for this? Who knows?
Reminds me of Christian apologetics ;-)) And tobacco company scientists ;-((
And sorry, I won't believe anyone's prediction that policy X will reduce premiums ... ACA much?
Quote from: Baruch on November 09, 2017, 07:56:33 PM
Some people here ... will defend any corporation, any time ;-) How much are they paid for this? Who knows?
Is this some sort of shot at me? Some days, you insinuate that a dirty commie. Some days, you insinuate that I'm shilling for corporate America. You can't even keep your story straight, let alone your facts. I sincerely doubt your barely coherent ramblings impress anybody anymore, so I don't have to address this bul--
But what the hell, just for kicks, let's address this because I want to get something through to you. Descriptive =/= normative. Describing what will happen given a certain scenario = descriptive. Advocating for what I think ought to be the case = normative. In case my post was entirely lost to you (which seems to be the case), I was clearly engaged in the former.
QuoteAnd sorry, I won't believe anyone's prediction that policy X will reduce premiums ... ACA much?
1) You don't have believe anything. That's be beauty of reality, it doesn't depend on anybody's perceptions.
2) I'm not describing any policy. I'm describing a scenario where autonomous cars are in widespread use and auto accidents occur at a significantly reduced rate.
3) It's a truism in the insurance industry that as risks change, insurance premiums also change to reflect those risks. But don't take my word for it, this principle is demonstrably true. How hazardous your job is affects life insurance premiums. Whether you're a smoker or non-smoker affects health insurance premiums. Insurance companies compute the risk of loss (chances of a claim occurring and predicting how much they'd have to pay out) and calculate premiums based off of that. If the former changes, so does the latter. This is a fact, not an opinion.
OK. Yes, descriptive vs prescriptive. I don't prescribe, I describe ... in horror. But not someone in particular, but the general herd, unless someone specific is pointed out.
I, too, was engaged in description, not advocacy. The scenario you describe is not supported by how insurance companies work. Companies are not out to kill you. They're out to make money. That is the end-all and be-all of their operation. Even if you can't trust them to do anything else, you can trust them to do that, and dead customers do not give a company repeat business.
Thank you.
I think that people who think that driverless cars will have less accidents have too much faith in technology. I went to school for computer information and computer science. I dun seen the old man behind the curtain. I’ve seen how thin the veneer of the greatness of our technology really is. ( of course we’ve already had several driverless car fatalities) Now because I drove an 18 wheeler for 5 years I would say that anybody who thinks a computer geek can make a driverless truck safe should be put in the pokey fir public endangerment. 5 years just gets you comfortable. and there are people been driving 20-30 years still learning something new everyday.
There are other reasons for a car company to own its own insurance besides trying to increase profits. I drove a Weiner Mobile. They are self insured. The owner of the biz also owns the insurance company and the mech shop. Because its a big company 7,000+ trucks and 9,500 drivers there is at least one serious accident every day of the year. No insurance company would give them insurance or the price would be ridiculous
Quote from: fencerider on November 11, 2017, 01:26:54 AM
I think that people who think that driverless cars will have less accidents have too much faith in technology. I went to school for computer information and computer science. I dun seen the old man behind the curtain. I’ve seen how thin the veneer of the greatness of our technology really is. ( of course we’ve already had several driverless car fatalities) Now because I drove an 18 wheeler for 5 years I would say that anybody who thinks a computer geek can make a driverless truck safe should be put in the pokey fir public endangerment. 5 years just gets you comfortable. and there are people been driving 20-30 years still learning something new everyday.
There are other reasons for a car company to own its own insurance besides trying to increase profits. I drove a Weiner Mobile. They are self insured. The owner of the biz also owns the insurance company and the mech shop. Because its a big company 7,000+ trucks and 9,500 drivers there is at least one serious accident every day of the year. No insurance company would give them insurance or the price would be ridiculous
If it is computer-controlled, it is computer hackable. I will never own a "self-driving car".
I'm looking at a restored 1986 Ford Taurus Wagon... But I may just try to keep the 2005 Toyota Highlander running a few more years.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 11, 2017, 01:49:30 AM
If it is computer-controlled, it is computer hackable. I will never own a "self-driving car".
I'm looking at a restored 1986 Ford Taurus Wagon... But I may just try to keep the 2005 Toyota Highlander running a few more years.
Self driving cars will be expensive ... fleet cars only. And since corporations are people now, and beyond the law ... connect the dots. Yes, trust Big Brother.
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2017, 02:16:01 AM
Self driving cars will be expensive ... fleet cars only. And since corporations are people now, and beyond the law ... connect the dots. Yes, trust Big Brother.
Having not had even the most minor accident driving a car myself for 40 years, but having some real idiots hitting me a few times, I am slightly intrigued by self driving cars. FOR OTHER PEOPLE!
Quote from: fencerider on November 11, 2017, 01:26:54 AM
I think that people who think that driverless cars will have less accidents have too much faith in technology. I went to school for computer information and computer science. I dun seen the old man behind the curtain. I’ve seen how thin the veneer of the greatness of our technology really is. ( of course we’ve already had several driverless car fatalities) Now because I drove an 18 wheeler for 5 years I would say that anybody who thinks a computer geek can make a driverless truck safe should be put in the pokey fir public endangerment. 5 years just gets you comfortable. and there are people been driving 20-30 years still learning something new everyday.
There are other reasons for a car company to own its own insurance besides trying to increase profits. I drove a Weiner Mobile. They are self insured. The owner of the biz also owns the insurance company and the mech shop. Because its a big company 7,000+ trucks and 9,500 drivers there is at least one serious accident every day of the year. No insurance company would give them insurance or the price would be ridiculous
Driverless cars will fail because of mechanical errors. People fail because of idiot errors, misjudgments, driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol, inexperience, losing concentration (distractions or just zoning out), exhaustion, as well as unpredictable mechanical problems in the vehicle. The question is which are more likely to make fatal mistakes, computers or humans? I don't know exactly how many driverless cars there are on the road right now, or the current rate of accidents caused by them per mile driven, but I did find this article from 2016: https://www.wired.com/2016/02/googles-self-driving-car-may-caused-first-crash/
This was, apparently, the first accident caused by the autonomous car. At the time, "Google’s cars have driven more than 1.3 million miles since 2009." That sounds pretty damn safe to me. Even this one accident was responsible for only minor damage. Both cars were moving 15mph or less, and no one was injured. The cause of the accident was also not entirely on the autonomous car. The Google car assumed that the bus driver would drive responsibly and slow down. If both vehicles were driverless, their common logic would not have likely resulted in a collision. The root of the problem was clearly the human element.
Google cars have been in other accidents before this one, but all have reportedly been the fault of the human drivers involved in the accidents, not the autonomous car. I absolutely think that driverless cars will be the norm soon, and I have every reason to suspect the number of both fatal and minor accidents will drop significantly because of it.
Quote from: Baruch on November 11, 2017, 02:16:01 AM
Self driving cars will be expensive ... fleet cars only. And since corporations are people now, and beyond the law ... connect the dots. Yes, trust Big Brother.
Yes, the first self-driving cars will be expensive. They will be expensive to repair and replace if they get into accidents. You can trust that the companies who own them are going to protect that asset by assuring that they will not get into many accidents, enough to make running a fleet of cars a net gain for the company and not a net loss. Follow the money.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 11, 2017, 10:14:31 PM
Yes, the first self-driving cars will be expensive. They will be expensive to repair and replace if they get into accidents. You can trust that the companies who own them are going to protect that asset by assuring that they will not get into many accidents, enough to make running a fleet of cars a net gain for the company and not a net loss. Follow the money.
Today money isn't money. Amazon is a huge company, that has never made a profit ... thanks to government subsidy. Once you leave cash-based-accounting, it is too easy to fraud the books.
Which is more likely to make a mistake a driver or a computer programmed by humans? A computer programmed by humans has no ability to adjust to a previously unencountered situation. A computer can be programmed to respond to what the driver of the other car is supposed to do but it can never be programmed for a driver that does something unscripted. Drivers make mistakes all the time, but they can adjust. Most of the time they correct their mistakes before they become a problem. and a drivercan deal with unexpected behavior that a computer can’t.
Amazon is a really big clearing house. Anybody who wants to start a business can sell their stuff on Amazon. For some small businesses the only store they have is Amazon. We know that all the shipping cost ends up in the hands of UPS or FedEx... and then you have some actual Amazon employees working in an Amazon warehouse.... maybe Baruch. They wouldn’t be the only biz that figured out how to get their taxable income to zero;-)
I worked as a temp employee, for an early competitor to Amazon, in books. They preferred illegals ... and for me it was a tempting as to an alcoholic working in a brewery.
Computers are magic, just ask the so called rationalists. They even think that computers are Vulcan, inherently logical. Couldn't be further from the truth.
I'll be happy to just have a circuit in cars that forces them to fucking well stop at the white line at a stop sign or red light. I'm sick of assholes who think a red light means "Oh, okay, just one more", or if they do bother stopping, blocking the crosswalk.
Quote from: fencerider on November 13, 2017, 01:30:14 AM
Which is more likely to make a mistake a driver or a computer programmed by humans? A computer programmed by humans has no ability to adjust to a previously unencountered situation. A computer can be programmed to respond to what the driver of the other car is supposed to do but it can never be programmed for a driver that does something unscripted. Drivers make mistakes all the time, but they can adjust. Most of the time they correct their mistakes before they become a problem. and a drivercan deal with unexpected behavior that a computer can’t.
Amazon is a really big clearing house. Anybody who wants to start a business can sell their stuff on Amazon. For some small businesses the only store they have is Amazon. We know that all the shipping cost ends up in the hands of UPS or FedEx... and then you have some actual Amazon employees working in an Amazon warehouse.... maybe Baruch. They wouldn’t be the only biz that figured out how to get their taxable income to zero;-)
I just told you that Google's self-driving cars drove 1,300,000 miles in seven years, with only one minor accident where the cause was the unpredictability of human drivers. How many miles do we typically go without accidents? About 165,000, according to this article: http://mashable.com/2012/08/07/google-driverless-cars-safer-than-you/#ccGiDPvHjgqw
Google cars are already better drivers than humans are. I don't give a shit how adaptable and intelligent we are when we actively throw our intelligence out the window to drive our 4,000 pound hunk of metal down the free way at 20mph or more over the speed limit, cutting in front of other drivers with no more than an inch to spare, basically acting like we WANT to get in a fucking wreck. Not only do human drivers make honest mistakes, we knowingly ignore safe driving practices just to save ourselves five minutes.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 13, 2017, 11:47:43 AMNot only do human drivers make honest mistakes, we knowingly ignore safe driving practices just to save ourselves five minutes.
And automated cars also have the huge advantage of updates and retaining learned information. A single software update and vast amounts of automated cars instantly develop better driving techniques across the board.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 13, 2017, 11:47:43 AM
I just told you that Google's self-driving cars drove 1,300,000 miles in seven years, with only one minor accident where the cause was the unpredictability of human drivers. How many miles do we typically go without accidents? About 165,000, according to this article: http://mashable.com/2012/08/07/google-driverless-cars-safer-than-you/#ccGiDPvHjgqw
Google cars are already better drivers than humans are. I don't give a shit how adaptable and intelligent we are when we actively throw our intelligence out the window to drive our 4,000 pound hunk of metal down the free way at 20mph or more over the speed limit, cutting in front of other drivers with no more than an inch to spare, basically acting like we WANT to get in a fucking wreck. Not only do human drivers make honest mistakes, we knowingly ignore safe driving practices just to save ourselves five minutes.
You can have a perfect driving record ... by banning all cars. A fleet car won't go where I want, when I want. Biodegradable transportation is called horses and mules. On the other hand, dystopia is the natural end of humanity, because we are the most self hating species known.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 13, 2017, 02:52:53 PM
And automated cars also have the huge advantage of updates and retaining learned information. A single software update and vast amounts of automated cars instantly develop better driving techniques across the board.
Thanks to hacking, Omar and Ivan will be pleased. Software makes us into superman. This is why every laptop my daughter has had, has turned into infected junk. Because it was networked. In order for autonomous cars to work, they have to be networked. Bwahaha.
To be fair we are all going to die anyway. God put pollution on earth for a reason you know..
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 13, 2017, 09:43:57 PM
To be fair we are all going to die anyway. God put pollution on earth for a reason you know..
Yes, we will all die. That isn't the question. The question is ... were you ever alive, ever a human being, before you reach your end?
Quote from: aitm on November 05, 2017, 03:41:01 PM
The government has no interest in extending or saving lives. They have squirreled away too much of social security for themselves.
I've been telling this to anyone who mistakenly thinks that the government gives exactly one old turd about your health ESPECIALLY when it comes to the so called 'war on drugs '. It is and has always been about money, who makes it and who keeps it.
If you happen to own your own for profit prison they care about your health. If you are just some poor schmuck suffering with any kind of addiction issues, well tough luck asswipe..
Quote from: Baruch on November 13, 2017, 09:47:21 PM
Yes, we will all die. That isn't the question. The question is ... were you ever alive, ever a human being, before you reach your end?
It's not even a question of humanity. If you're a fucking duck with a billion dollars stashed away your life is eminently more important than any mere human with no money.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on November 14, 2017, 03:15:20 AM
It's not even a question of humanity. If you're a fucking duck with a billion dollars stashed away your life is eminently more important than any mere human with no money.
If he who has the gold makes the rules, why has so much gold been sold and shipped to China?
Because ducks make the gold. That should tell you why they let it go to china.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 14, 2017, 03:08:42 PM
Because ducks make the gold. That should tell you why they let it go to china.
Goose who lays golden eggs? Well you can always put all your money into a handful of magic beans, Jack ;-)
BeanCoin ... the synthetic private currency for when you want to "fart in their general direction".
or we could have automated cars that dont work unless you feed them a gold coin ;-)
Quote from: fencerider on November 14, 2017, 11:06:15 PM
or we could have automated cars that dont work unless you feed them a gold coin ;-)
That is the general idea. Don't allow breathing or drinking water freely, make it all a profit center. This is the mania called capitalism.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 11, 2017, 10:14:31 PM
Yes, the first self-driving cars will be expensive. They will be expensive to repair and replace if they get into accidents. You can trust that the companies who own them are going to protect that asset by assuring that they will not get into many accidents, enough to make running a fleet of cars a net gain for the company and not a net loss. Follow the money.
It IS always good to "follow the money" when trying to understand corporate strategies. In the case of driverless cars, I ignore the claims of safety and watch how they explain the accidents.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 11, 2017, 10:14:31 PM
Yes, the first self-driving cars will be expensive. They will be expensive to repair and replace if they get into accidents. You can trust that the companies who own them are going to protect that asset by assuring that they will not get into many accidents, enough to make running a fleet of cars a net gain for the company and not a net loss. Follow the money.
You can trust the companies up to a point, but companies are about profit, not about the saleable product. I worked in the timber industry and was always confounded why they ran the chain faster than workers could keep up. The faster it went, the more waste that was generated. Useable wood would get missed and end up falling off the end of chain into the wood chipper to be eventually burned in the teepee burner. That was years ago.
Why abuse a resource by wasting it? For that matter, why cut it down faster than it will regenerate? Why scrape the National Forests down to rock until the supply is exhausted? It's because there is a huge mill worth millions of dollars, the whole point being to turn those millions into billions. It's not about putting out a continual supply to meet demand. It's about profit, as much and as quickly as the original investment can be turned into a maximized gain.
I intuitively knew that the resource was exhaustible, and the good times would eventually come to an end. Many disagreed and believed we would never run out. The Forest Service instituted a "sustained yield" form of management. Sustained yield, as pointed out in a local newspaper, turned out to be a scam, and outright lie, which was never intended to do sustain a renewable resource. It had a hidden agenda to sustain a certain quantity of wood fiber to the local mills for as long as the resource lasted until it was gone, and NOTHING more. This was not an effort to combine management with conservation. It was the US Government supplying as much resource to the mills as they needed. And my plant ran 24 hours a day 6 days a week along with others, constantly churning out product and profit until it was gone.
The shut down of the mills happened quickly when the end of the resource finally arrived, mostly unexpected by the work force, but foreseen by the mill owners, who were minding the accounts. Mills were first sold at pennies on the dollar to the carpet bagger companies who knew the end was near but that a short term profit was still to be had when buying a big mill at a bargain. It's not about the resources. It's about the profit/expense columns. But the mills eventually closed, given away to something called the "Port Authority", whose job was to dismantle and scrap the industry. Eventually, the two hundred acres of the land where the physical plant stood was broken up into smaller parcels and sold to individual buyers. The public clear cuts were left to remain a festering bruise on the land scape, and the workers were told to "fuck off and quit whining."
The previous owners were already engaged at turning the profits toward new investments. Why not diamond mines in South Africa? The money there is just as good as profiteering from the National Forests. It's really not about the product or the service. Waste it without a second thought if that adds to the bottom line. If a few cars get smashed in a passenger service, just make sure it results in more profit. Too much care in running a business without waste is not necessarily good for a capitalistic outcome.
Quote from: SGOS on November 15, 2017, 07:37:19 AM
You can trust the companies up to a point, but companies are about profit, not about the saleable product. I worked in the timber industry and was always confounded why they ran the chain faster than workers could keep up. The faster it went, the more waste that was generated. Useable wood would get missed and end up falling off the end of chain into the wood chipper to be eventually burned in the teepee burner. That was years ago.
Why abuse a resource by wasting it? For that matter, why cut it down faster than it will regenerate? Why scrape the National Forests down to rock until the supply is exhausted? It's because there is a huge mill worth millions of dollars, the whole point being to turn those millions into billions. It's not about putting out a continual supply to meet demand. It's about profit, as much and as quickly as the original investment can be turned into a maximized gain.
I intuitively knew that the resource was exhaustible, and the good times would eventually come to an end. Many disagreed and believed we would never run out. The Forest Service instituted a "sustained yield" form of management. Sustained yield, as pointed out in a local newspaper, turned out to be a scam, and outright lie, which was never intended to do sustain a renewable resource. It had a hidden agenda to sustain a certain quantity of wood fiber to the local mills for as long as the resource lasted until it was gone, and NOTHING more. This was not an effort to combine management with conservation. It was the US Government supplying as much resource to the mills as they needed. And my plant ran 24 hours a day 6 days a week along with others, constantly churning out product and profit until it was gone.
The shut down of the mills happened quickly when the end of the resource finally arrived, mostly unexpected by the work force, but foreseen by the mill owners, who were minding the accounts. Mills were first sold at pennies on the dollar to the carpet bagger companies who knew the end was near but that a short term profit was still to be had when buying a big mill at a bargain. It's not about the resources. It's about the profit/expense columns. But the mills eventually closed, given away to something called the "Port Authority", whose job was to dismantle and scrap the industry. Eventually, the two hundred acres of the land where the physical plant stood was broken up into smaller parcels and sold to individual buyers. The public clear cuts were left to remain a festering bruise on the land scape, and the workers were told to "fuck off and quit whining."
The previous owners were already engaged at turning the profits toward new investments. Why not diamond mines in South Africa? The money there is just as good as profiteering from the National Forests. It's really not about the product or the service. Waste it without a second thought if that adds to the bottom line. If a few cars get smashed in a passenger service, just make sure it results in more profit. Too much care in running a business without waste is not necessarily good for a capitalistic outcome.
I understand, and agree. One solution would be to limit lumber companies to existing acerage and force them to renewable trees. Another would be to define all forestable acerage and force companies to bid on site with minimum bidss. Another would be to forbid importation of trees beyond limited species.
I don't pretend my ideas are sufficient, but a start.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 15, 2017, 02:52:55 AM
It IS always good to "follow the money" when trying to understand corporate strategies. In the case of driverless cars, I ignore the claims of safety and watch how they explain the accidents.
One of the early ones, was teleoperated there was a human driver, just not in the car. Another was another vehicle, not the autonomous car. But eventually we will get statistics on fully autonomous vehicles ... giant trucks on highways will be the first. Must kill all Teamster union members first.
Quote from: Baruch on November 15, 2017, 06:59:40 PM
One of the early ones, was teleoperated there was a human driver, just not in the car. Another was another vehicle, not the autonomous car. But eventually we will get statistics on fully autonomous vehicles ... giant trucks on highways will be the first. Must kill all Teamster union members first.
I suspect driverless trucks will be the first commercially viable vehicles, operated within speed limits and not changing lanes often. Maybe even having their own lane. It will be gradual...
Quote from: Cavebear on November 18, 2017, 12:37:35 AM
I suspect driverless trucks will be the first commercially viable vehicles, operated within speed limits and not changing lanes often. Maybe even having their own lane.
Sounds vaguely like a railroad.
Quote from: Cavebear on November 18, 2017, 12:37:35 AM
I suspect driverless trucks will be the first commercially viable vehicles, operated within speed limits and not changing lanes often. Maybe even having their own lane. It will be gradual...
Definitely their own lane. And if you cut one off, you dumb driver ... terrorism charge from DHS. The Spice must flow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGqdE1NdMTg
Trump is a Guild Navigator ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on November 18, 2017, 02:23:30 AM
Definitely their own lane. And if you cut one off, you dumb driver ... terrorism charge from DHS. The Spice must flow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGqdE1NdMTg
Trump is a Guild Navigator ;-)
EOL