Understanding is beyond the scope of what I'd like to see fixed in contract law. The idea is that if you have a 5 page contract, it should have taken at least 8 minutes[1] to read regardless of if it is legalease or written in a plain style.
It's a lower bound. Failure to satisfy that bound can then be seen as prima facie evidence that the has not been a "meeting of the minds", due to one party being given sufficient time to even read the contract.
As I tried to imply, there are various configurable details here that would need to be negotiated; I just believe that some sort of minimum bound should be established in law. The alternative is to allow the current trend of de facto contracts of adhesion to grow.
[1] or whatever the length of time is calculated to be - I just made up this number
So effectively, the individual signing must spend 8 minutes doing nothing but looking at the contract (even if they are daydreaming). I can see where this is would be a concrete improvement, even if just a minor one to a much larger problem.
Can I ask what you think happened to all those people who stopped getting Welfare after it was "reformed" in 1996? Did they all pull themselves up by their bootstraps and march off to Walmart to get minimum wage jobs?
javert's comment is patently false statement designed to create intense hatred of a vulnerable group for political ends.
A now deleted comment posted a link to a rambling diatribe as "evidence" (which just further proves my point). And mentioning any of this is described as a "personal attack". It's an interesting mixing of John Galt and Horst Wessel.
To answer your question, I presume eliminating aid to incapacitated people creates homelessness not walmart jobs.
Now can I ask you: what drives extremists to so thoroughly propagandize themselves that they derail their own ability to think clearly and do such demonstrable harm to their societies?
While javert's comment might have been un-sympathetic, its narrative is true. People have gotten on disability in proportion to the reduction of people on welfare. Check out this awesome Planet Money piece: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
This does not mean that these people are bad or that we should end disability aid. But it's true... people are becoming "disabled" as a means of surviving.
While your link is at least an intellectually honest attempt at analysis, the graph you link to shows that disability claims were flat just when welfare was falling the fastest (1996 – 99)
And were rising the fastest when welfare also rose the fastest (1990-94). This would run contrary to even correlation let alone a causal relationship.
While it is certainly an interesting theory, apparently the situation is even more complicated.
And mentioning any of this is described as a "personal
attack".
javert's post was based on his personal experience with his aunt. You said it was made up nonsense. This is essentially calling him a liar, which is probably why he took it as a personal attack.
I presume eliminating aid to incapacitated people
creates homelessness not walmart jobs.
You accused javert of making things up to support his political narrative, and then you proceed to simply "presume" that the facts instead support yours. Also, welfare was not for the incapacitated, it was for anyone with low income.
what drives extremists to so thoroughly propagandize
themselves that they derail their own ability to think
clearly and do such demonstrable harm to their
societies?
I don't know, but that's not what is happening here. Claiming that disability is the new welfare is not the same as claiming there shouldn't be disability or welfare. See for example the other reply to your comment. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9132570)
>javert's post was based on his personal experience with his aunt
No, the language "to get on welfare" you have to be "classified as disabled" but "doctors hand that out like candy" is not about anyone's aunt, it is designed to provoke hatred toward vulnerable people to further a political agenda.
Is the anecdotal evidence that uses the word "about" twice and is written to provoke yet more hate true? Well there are hate mongering anecdotes about Jews, priests and gays too. They are of equal value and are repeated with the same intent. Was he offended when this was pointed out?
>>..what drives extremists to so thoroughly propagandize themselves..
>..that's not what is happening here..
On the contrary, it is the only thing happening here.
the Left had the House, Senate, and President and
could have passed anything they wanted for two years
You're forgetting about the filibuster. And the Democrats only had a filibuster proof Senate for less than half of only one of those two years. I don't remember the history exactly but I'm guessing that's when they passed Obamacare.
Now, if it selectively kills cancer cells in a petri dish, you can be sure it's at least a great breakthrough for everyone suffering from petri dish cancer.
The French and Indian War wasn't the French fighting against the Indians. It was the Americans and British fighting against the French and the Indians.
Whether alone (with user movement and precise clocking) or in a coordinated group effort, devices might begin to triangulate tower location and check this against historical and geographic data.
It would be a bit ironic, if/when triangulation begins to "work" "in the other direction".
It already is: Mozilla has been building apps¹ that allow users to contribute to a shared database of the locations of cellphone towers and WiFi APs.
The idea is to allow GPS-less devices to find where they are, but it could certainly be used to identify new towers in places which had already been mapped.
EDIT: It seems there's also opencellid.org, which actually allows you to download the full database.
3G provides some cryptographic basis for this, but you might not have a UI on your device to require 3G or to warn you about roaming (which could defend at least against early generations of IMSI catchers).
The complaint isn't that they "didn't explain properly". The complaint is that they sensationalized an inaccurate explanation, without addressing the fundamental technological question: is this better than existing battery technology and if so how? Does it last longer than current batteries? Didn't say. Is it cheaper? Didn't say. Is it less toxic? OK, they said that it is non-toxic, I still don't know if it's less toxic than existing alternatives. If you want to convince people that you have a superior technology, well then you have to actually explain your technology, not just say OMG Electricity from Salt Water!
Salt water is not the point. The anodes and cathodes and the LED lamp are the point.
corner store to go pick up batteries at
The electrodes need to be replaced regularly. Where will the replacement parts come from? That problem is equivalent to having to "pick up batteries".
The materials will simply survive better in this
environment than traditional batteries, and need to be
replenished less.
How do you know this? It doesn't say so on the website that I can see. Are you an expert on batteries (not sarcastic)? I'm not but I'm guessing a lot of engineering has gone into existing battery technology, including batteries for rugged environments and/or long term usage.
While I would not have used the harsh words, grandparent is right in most respects.
I challenge you to quote the 'misleading' sections verbatim
Voila:
Sustainable and cost effective ecologically designed
lamp powered by "tap water" and "table salt!"
The lamp is not powered by tap water or table salt. It is powered by a non-rechargeable battery. This is misleading, putting it charitably. To anyone who knows anything about energy, this is not just "semantics" it is an false claim about the fundamental nature of the product.
Perhaps they meant to put "powered" in scare quotes, not "tap water" and "table salt" but they didn't.
Edit: more examples
You can also use the ocean-water to power up your lamp!
Use the ocean-water to power up your lamp and it will
give you 8 hours of running-time.
Store ocean-water in bottles and use them to power up
you lamp anytime, anywhere.
To a naive reader these statements imply that the energy comes from the ocean water. It does not, therefore the statements are misleading.
There are no false claims in this web site. The entire product is explained - just not in one sentence. They explain that salt + water added to the lamp will create power, which it will, because that's the only thing the machine lacks in order to produce power. They also explain that an anode has to be replaced every six months. According to the theory of similar devices, this is all that is involved with the creation of the power, thus, this is the entire design and function of the product.
---
If you have a car, and I said "this car is powered by gasoline", would this be a misleading, false claim about the product? Would I be a liar?
According to you and the parent commenter, Yes, because the car requires a battery and spark plugs to ignite the gasoline along with oxygen.
Technically speaking, gasoline, oxygen, vacuum, a battery, spark plugs, a fuel pump, fuel injectors, an ECU, sensors, pistons, valves, and a whole lot more shit are needed to "power" the car. Without all those things there is no "power" created. What generates the power directly is spark igniting a precise mixture of gas and oxygen, which then applies force to mechanical parts. But a lot more things are involved in making that happen, and maintenance is required on most of it. All of which the average car user has no effing clue about.
You do not need to know any of that in order to 'power' a car. And I am not a liar for telling you a car is 'powered' by gasoline. I simply didn't explain the design of the internal combustion engine to you.
The car comes with a battery, spark plugs and oxygen, just like this lamp comes with an anode, and it needs regular maintenance, just like the various parts of a car. Just like gasoline for a car, water and salt are the fuel for this lamp. The fuel is the only part you need to understand to use it.
They explain several times that the anode has to be replaced every six months [based on average use]. They have omitted nothing. There is no deception. Just simple language explaining only what you need to know to use it.
> To anyone who knows anything about energy, this is not just "semantics" it is an false claim about the fundamental nature of the product
The product's users are not chemists or engineers. They're tribal villagers in the Philippines, for christ's sake. Anyone who speaks english and is intelligent enough to pay for the project will read the whole thing, just like all of us did, and realize how it works, just like all of us did, and be satisfied.
I wrote a bunch of crap below, but the point is this: do you think an average non scientific reader would come to the conclusion that the device extracts energy from salt water? If the answer is yes, then the site is misleading, because it does not. The rest is just quibbling over the definition of the word "power". Most people on this thread seem to disagree with you on that, and unfortunately words mean what the majority thinks they mean. (I'm not being sarcastic when I say 'unfortunately', it's annoying when words become corrupted through misuse, although I don't think that that's not what is happening here.)
-----
There are no false claims in this web site.
You asked for misleading, which is what I provided.
They explain that salt + water added to the lamp will
create power, which it will, because that's the only
thing the machine lacks in order to produce power.
By that analogy, a properly fueled car is "powered by" its ignition key, since that is the only thing the machine lacks in order to produce power. I disagree.
If you have a car, and I said "this car is powered by
gasoline", would this be a misleading, false claim
about the product? Would I be a liar?
According to you and the parent commenter, Yes, because
the car requires a battery and spark plugs to ignite
the gasoline along with oxygen.
You have a point about the oxygen, but not about the other components. The car is powered by the gasoline and the oxygen, since those two chemicals react to release energy. It is not powered by the spark plugs, etc. They are necessary for the car to work, but they are not a source of energy, so they do not power the car.
You could arguably say "the car is powered by its engine" with a slightly different meaning of the word power. To use that sense of the word power with respect to the lamp, I would say "the lamp is powered by its battery" - there isn't really a term that separates the source of energy in the battery from the device that converts it to the form we want.
Technically speaking, gasoline, oxygen, vacuum, a
battery, spark plugs, a fuel pump, fuel injectors, an
ECU, sensors, pistons, valves, and a whole lot more
shit are needed to "power" the car. Without all those
things there is no "power" created. What generates the
power directly is spark igniting a precise mixture of
gas and oxygen, which then applies force to mechanical
parts. But a lot more things are involved in making
that happen, and maintenance is required on most of it.
All of which the average car user has no effing clue
about.
If we're talking to average users, I would say the two correct statements are "the car is powered by gasoline (and oxygen)" or "the car is powered by the engine".
You do not need to know any of that in order to 'power'
a car. And I am not a liar for telling you a car is
'powered' by gasoline. I simply didn't explain the
design of the internal combustion engine to you.
No, but saying the salt water powers the lamp is more like saying the car is powered by the motor oil, or the spark plugs, or the carburetor. The salt water is neither a source of energy (gasoline), nor a (complete) mechanism that turns one form of energy into another (an engine).
The car comes with a battery, spark plugs and oxygen,
just like this lamp comes with an anode, and it needs
regular maintenance, just like the various parts of a
car. Just like gasoline for a car, water and salt are
the fuel for this lamp. The fuel is the only part you
need to understand to use it.
No. Fuel is a store of energy. Salt water is not a store of energy (unless you're extracting the deuterium from it and putting it in a hydrogen bomb). Gasoline is a fuel. Motor oil and spark plugs are not. Similarly, a metal anode is a fuel. Salt water is not, nor copper wires (when used for conducting electricity), nor the liquid container it all goes in.
They explain several times that the anode has to be
replaced every six months [based on average use]. They
have omitted nothing. There is no deception. Just
simple language explaining only what you need to know
to use it.
They make the anode sound like just a random thing you happen to have to replace for maintenance (like spark plugs) while the salt water provides the energy. This is exactly the opposite of what happens. The anode is where the energy comes from. The salt water is the incidental maintenance. This is what people are complaining about.
The product's users are not chemists or engineers.
They're tribal villagers in the Philippines, for
christ's sake. Anyone who speaks english and is
intelligent enough to pay for the project will read the
whole thing, just like all of us did, and realize how
it works, just like all of us did, and be satisfied.
The target audience of this website are journalists and investors, not tribal villagers. Journalists and investors don't just need to know how to use the product. They need to know what is novel about it or what value it provides over other existing solutions. The website makes it sound like the novelty is extracting energy from salt water. This claim is preposterous, which is why all the commenters are complaining.
> The website makes it sound like the novelty is extracting energy from salt water.
This is your interpretation. There exists no statement which says that this is a novel product. In fact, there is a direct quote where it says this is based on a well known scientific principle, and that this is basically a battery.
> This claim is preposterous, which is why all the commenters are complaining.
You have just taken a "this sounds like" and turned it into "a claim"; you have just invented through assumptions and insinuations a problem which does not exist. The idea that these people are being deceptive is in your head.
You based all this perceived deceit on the technical definition of the word 'power', or the phrase 'to power', and their lack of a complete, one-sentence description of the operation of the chemical reaction which creates energy in the device. In the end, they do get across fully the idea of how the device works and the implications thereof. But you ignore that so you can continue to paint them as bad guys.
This is a textbook example of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD). And it's an incredibly long troll. I'm signing off.
Mine, and pretty much everyone else's on the thread. If everyone interprets what you say a particular way, maybe that's what it appears to mean? And if that's not what you meant, maybe you said it wrong?
There exists no statement which says that this is a novel
product. In fact, there is a direct quote where it says
this is based on a well known scientific principle, and
that this is basically a battery.
This is Michael Moore logic. This is the idea that if you say something which is technically correct, but is obviously misinterpreted by many readers to mean something else, you didn't lie, because there is an alternative technical interpretation which is correct. I don't live by Michael Moore logic.
You have just taken a "this sounds like" and turned it
into "a claim"; you have just invented through
assumptions and insinuations a problem which does not
exist. The idea that these people are being deceptive
is in your head.
Oh, come on. I was using the word claim to refer to the concept I had just described in a previous sentence. Sadly I don't know a word that means, "the idea either intentionally or naively, but either way incorrectly, implied by someone".
You based all this perceived deceit on the technical
definition of the word 'power', or the phrase 'to
power',
No, I based it on the colloquial definition, of "to give energy to", or to "make go". Motor oil and spark plugs don't power a car, in colloquial language. Similarly, salt water does not power this lamp.
and their lack of a complete, one-sentence description
of the operation of the chemical reaction which creates
energy in the device.
When you're selling a battery, and you refuse to call what you're selling a battery, it makes the reader rightfully suspicious. And the (paraphrased) sentence "based on the science of batteries" implies it is different than a battery, because to a casual reader, the only reason to say "based on the science of X" is that it is not the same thing as X, otherwise you would just say, "this is an X".
In the end, they do get across fully the idea of how
the device works and the implications thereof.
No, they really really don't. They just don't. I repeat: how many non-scientific readers do you think would conclude, "wow, this thing creates energy from salt water?". I would say most. An that statement is false.
This is a textbook example of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD).
