It's interesting how Americans can discount evidence from other places in the world. Gun control, basic income, education.... I might be willing to believe that a revolutionary start and a couple hundred years of living with the right to bear arms enshrined in their constitution has made Americans more violent than people from other countries, but it's hard to believe that a history of generally substandard social programs has made them lazier than others.
It's odd that you put gun control in there - ever look at the correlation between safe countries and gun ownership?
I've found one of the biggest problems can be convincing programmers that they should even try to have less bugs.
Why don't you actually practice the "modern programming technique" you say you know, and convince the "programmers" to write their own unit tests? You claim expertise in the area and yet you don't even mention the #1 technique for reducing bugs and educating developers about them: write their own damned tests. It's much more effective than your nonsense.
Because if you are going to convince a team of only one thing you may as well convince them of reducing the bugcount. That will get you the unit tests and a whole lot of other things as well. If you convince them to implement unit-tests all you'll get are unit tests.
You are basically asserting that it is better to convince a programmer to do a subset of $F00. OP is asserting that it is better to convince a programmer to just aim for $FOO instead.
Actually a decent software developer can do most vehicle repair themselves, if they can be bothered to research it.
Don't make me laugh... following directions on the internet to fix something in your car rarely works out. The biggest and first problem you will encounter is fault-diagnosis. For this you need actual knowledge, fault codes notwithstanding.
Most people that Slashdotters look down on...tradesmen in particular, could have fixed that engine themselves for a few hundred dollars at most.
But here you are, one of the "smart ones" and you are reduced to Public Transit.
When everything goes into the shitter, most of the "smart" people will stave to death.
Quite correct. This is why I can fix my own car, build my own house, install my own plumbing, tile my own roof, rewire my distribution board, grow my own fruit, sew up my own wounds... not only can, I have actually done all of the above. If only I lived in an area zoned for agriculture I'd try raising animals too.
The Internet of Things is about sensors everywhere and to a more limited extent actuators. But actuators are relatively few compared to sensors. Fine grained sensors are out at the edge here there is no normal wireless connectivity and are quite a challenge to innovate, power and scale out at very low cost. The next challenging is gathering the edge information at highly distributed small systems that may be more wireless/internet connected in some form. While you could hack to corrupt data feeds flowing up the question is what would be the significant payoff to make it worth it at all? You corrupt the out on the farm soil sensors so the watering systems give too much or too little water? Not so easy to get away with and no payoff beyond malice and an ego trip.
Look carefully everyone - this is the argument from shitty devs of limited cognitive capacity that results in insecure products. The argument "why would anyone want to hack me" is stupid, and people making the argument deserve all the derision we are laying on them. They work under the assumption that no one has an enemy, or an ex, or a corporate competitor, or a disgruntled customer, or an angry creditor...etc... who wants to take them down. This is a stupid argument and you should feel stupid for putting that argument into words.
You *never* make the argument "why would anyone want to hack me"! You always work under the assumption that there is already a hostile threat after you *specifically*; only then will your designs be even halfway decent.
Right, because seeing Hot Super-Heroine #1 exchange a few lines of sweaty, breathless dialog with Hot Super-Heroine #2 about how to take down the Villain currently kicking the team's ass would be a total turn-off for everyone watching the movie. Everyone knows that only the male characters can have conversations that drive the plot. And god forbid they should exchange a couple lines of inane dialog such as exchanged by practically the entire male cast, that would have audiences walking out of theaters across the country!
The problem isn't that nobody wants to see it - mostly nobody would even notice it happening, and the only ones that care are those that notice its glaring absence.
If enough people wanted to see it, it would make money. It's a free market, and the issue has been known for decades, and yet you want to claim that movie makers, caring only about profits, will routinely ignore what could be profitable scripts?
You're making a bold assertion - namely that something that was known about for decades will be profitable if only someone will make it. The odds are better that movie makers have learned, over the decades, what sells and what doesn't sell by using trial and error.
They're having trouble seeing profitability in well-written plots and non-forgettable characters, now you want them to add ideology into the mix? We'd see a return to things like basic plot design and character building before we see a move towards a little-cared-for ideology promoted by a fringe of the population.
The robots are designed to be as human like as possible in appearance and in the way that they move. The key difference is that unlike human women they are souless sex slaves who only exist to fulfil their owners every desire. I can see why she finds it distasteful - I think I'd feel a bit odd about a cotton picking robot that was designed to look like a black slave, complete with stereotypical attributes and "broken slave" personality.
Of course it applies for male sexbots too, before someone complaints about that.
By the way, the way that porn negatively affects some people's attitudes towards their partners, particularly teenagers (who shouldn't own a sexbot, but inevitably will gain access to them just like porn) is quite well documented. Part of modern sex education in UK schools is to point out how unrealistic porn is, and to counteract peer pressure to act like a pornstar in bed. The fear is that sexbots will create the same unrealistic and harmful expectations.
Only on slashdot will an argument limiting the options for masturbation get a +4 informative score. Seriously, to the mods who modded this tripe up - do you really want a world in which you can only do "approved" masturbation?
Men have the right to sex, everybody has a right to have their needs met.
No. Sorry, there is no right to sex. Absolutely not. You have no right to force/demand other human beings have sex with you to fulfil your "needs". That's pure misogyny.
Would you be okay if some guy demanded to have sex with you, because they "need" to? I think that is very, very doubtful.
Correct there is no right to sex. But here you are arguing for a right to limit masturbation to what you consider acceptable. What the fuck is wrong with you? You think there is no right to sex but there *is* a right to limit it even when only a single party is involved?
Is there really a significant difference between fantasizing about having sex with {starlet of the month} with a box of tissues and a hard working left hand, and fantasizing about having sex with {starlet of the month} with your whatever being worked by a robot that looks just like her (but you know it's a robot)?
Let's answer that.
Women in magazines tend to be airbrushed and are, for the most part, fairly unrealistic. There are negative consequences to this, like people having unrealistic expectations. So it's not an ideal to strive for, just what we have now. For most of the 25,000 years you claim humans have been masturbating for (I'll take your word for it) such images have not been available, and it didn't seem to be detrimental in any way.
Sexbots... Well, it depends on the type of robot I suppose. If it's just a mechanical hand jacking you off, that's quite different to an ultra-realistic simulation of a human being. It starts to become like the magazine models, an ideal that real women can't live up to. This leads to a more general debate about robot body types, which has already begin with manikins. Gap were heavily criticised for their "death cam chic" models in shops, that looked like the victims of starvation.
If you want to get into the "fully aware it's not real" argument, I again direct you to discussion of photoshopped magazine models.
Your argument boils down to "must reduce options to ensure expectations are kept realistic". You must be mad to suggest that a reduction in sexual options is a good thing for society.
I agree it would be good to have "sexual independence", as you put it. I just think there needs to be some responsibility taken by the manufacturers.
Gap gets criticised because its manikins are ridiculously, death camp thin. Magazines get criticised because their models are all photoshopped to non-human proportions and levels of perfection. So rather than banning fembots, it would at least be an idea to consider that if we do make human like robots for any purpose they should not be causing the same unrealistic body image problems as manikins and photoshopped models.
Your ideology is peeking through again. Me having the "sexual independence" to fuck a robot does not in any way present a moral issue. If you think there is a responsibility on the part of the manufacturer them you are limiting my sexual independence.
The reverse (average looking woman) is not true; Even blandest plain looking average woman can get laid whenever she wants, will have a lineup of men waiting to take her out on dates (getting a decent bf is not as easy though).
Bullshit. Complete and total bullshit. Your biases are showing.
Reality is at odds with your ideology. For a man it takes time and effort and talent and money and power and influence to get laid. The more of any of these a man has the bigger his chances of getting laid. For a women all she has to do is say yes.
Two women talk to each other about anything other than men. (seriously - just try to imagine a movie that doesn't feature guys talking to each other about anything other than women) Why? Because the production industry is dominated by people who are either personally uninterested, or have convinced themselves that the audience is uninterested, in women who are more than skin deep.
The movie makers want to make money off their movies, so they make what people will pay to see. If there are not enough people of either gender who wants to see two or more women in a conversation where men aren't involved what do you expect them to do?
Again, very broadly speaking, this isn't something in the female mentality, or at least it has not been....
The existence and popularity of dildos invalidates both your position and hers.
Doesn't the existence and popularity of dildos validate the argument that women want more than sex? After all even dildo owners still want to date.
I think that the current issue is that there probably isn't a similar sex toy for men; one that is as satisfying to a man sexually as a dildo is to a woman sexually. Once there is few men are going to put up with relationship baggage. We are already seeing a sway towards this as porn becomes more accessible and cheaper.
Consider Hakamada Iwao, who was found guilty of murder, only to be exonerated 45 years later when DNA testing proved his innocence. One of the original judges reportedly considered committing suicide out of shame over it:
Yeah, he should have committed suicide. If you are prepared to take away 45 years (more, actually) of someones life you had better be pretty certain that they are guilty.
If someone is on the bleeding edge of this industry, and respected by this industry, how the hell do we take the industry seriously? No one with a clue will claim "self-awareness" as a goal for industry. Does *anyone* in this industry have a clue that isn't superficial knowledge of flight and 3d printers?
This is the abstinence only approach. Doesn't work.
Tell that to the gun-control crowd; they're pushing for abstinence rather than education. TBH, if such a large part of the population is delusional enough to expect abstinence to work over education in area $FOO, I see no reason why they wouldn't hold the same view in area $BAR.
the "gas" pedal is nothing more than a potentiometer that feeds the master computer
In the old days before computers the gas pedal still was not directly connected to the throttle. There is a linkage from the transmission that overrides the pedal input and backs off the throttle when the transmission shifts gears. It's all mechanical.
What the hell are you talking about? There is no linkage from the transmission that overrides pedal inputs in old cars. In new cars, maybe. In old cars everything was connected with steel cables. Throttle literally pulled open a flap that allowed more air into the intake manifold (via a venturi). Clutch (on manual) literally pushed a plate away from the transmission to decouple the engine from the driveshafts.
What you are talking about does not exist in older cars. In newer cars... maybe. But certainly not in older cars.
The only way to disarm criminals is arm citizens. And let the police do their damn job instead of whining about another thug being shot.
You can't even guarantee most guns can even consistently fire (except for Glock), this looks like more of the tech-solves-everything blind faith.
The problem I see is though, when a law abiding citizen walks into Lowe's or Chipotle's brandshing his piece as is his second amendment right and in his camos how are the other law abiding citizens in the same place going to know if he is a good gut or a bad guy?
Therein lies the problem. If I'm concealed carrying at the moment, they are going to have about a second to convince me they are not entering with harmful intent. At that point, it's now a really bad situation.
This is not a trivial problem.
It's not a problem at all - brandishing a firearm and/or displaying intent is already illegal, so by definition the brandisher is a criminal. If everyone who brandished their weapon willy-nilly got shot down, that sort of behaviour would vanish, hence it's a non-problem.
It takes a lot of intelligence to repeatedly hit a small ball with a stick.
And hit that little ball into a little hole that you can't even see? You're fucking right it takes a lot of intelligence, if by intelligence you mean proprioception, patience, strategy, and the ability to think "over the horizon".
Maybe the reason you work in tech is that you lack imagination and creativity.
GP is suffering under the delusion that *his* particular way to veg out in front of the TV with beer and friends on weekends his superior to everyone else's way of vegging out in front of the TV with beer and friends on weekends.
He doesn't appear to spot the irony in that everything he wrote about golf, if true, would also apply to every other sport there is.
It takes a lot of intelligence to repeatedly hit a small ball with a stick.
Golf is the most pointless 'sport' in existence. You can't even compare it with low-level sports like baseball and ping pong, let alone sports that require actual skill and are moderately fun to watch, like basketball and football and soccer. And when people consider basketball players and football players to be dumb, imagine how dumb the average golf player must be.
All it takes to play golf is good motor coordination. Some people are naturally more talented at this, some aren't. That's ALL golf is. You know a sport is idiotic when a simple mechanical machine is better at it than any human could ever dream to be.
And about correlation, no it's not a coincidence that the majority of golf players seem to be those who are rapidly falling down the hill of age-related brain decay. And when their brain decays to the point where even playing golf becomes too hard, it's off to the bingo hall.
You might say I'm being too hard on golf. Actually I think I'm being too lenient. Golf shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as real sports. Golfers deserve constant 24/7 ridicule until they finally pack their shit and we can repurpose the huge amounts of land devoted to that useless 'sport' for useful purposes, like landfills.
You know, every single thing you wrote applies to baseball, (american) football, cricket, soccer, basketball, hockey and just about every other sport there is. A simple mechanical device can beat a human at every single one of those sports just as well as in golf. People still watch 'em.
It's up to companies making controllers and games.
But Apple hasn't made what they consider to be a games console - it's a home App Box. What you do with such a thing is up to you... It's actually got pretty exciting hacking potential since anyone will be able to develop apps for their own home for free now that there's not a $99 requirement for local device testing.
If people wanted hacking potential on a set top box they've had it for ages. The difference in this product (compared to other apple products, that is) is that it's relatively open...ish. I'm interested in seeing how lower walls in the garden works out for them.
Hi literally said "You want to be a real maker... start sculpting metal".
Yes - but he never said that that's the only path. He never even implied it. You saythat he said "the only way to be a real maker is by..." when all he really said was "You can be a real maker by..."
That is pretty much the archetypal "no true scotsman". You can be a perfectly real maker without indulging in heavy metal work.
I don't understand why you are presenting that argument as if it refutes what OP said. It doesn't. You're arguing that he said $FOO when he clearly didn't, and then you present an argument for why $FOO[1] is wrong. You win your argument only by virtue of the fact that $FOO is indeed wrong, but he never said nor implied $FOO. Are you that desperate to be right on the internet, that you'd argue someone against something that they've never asserted?
[1] s/$FOO/You can be a real maker only by working with metal
Slashdot Mirror
What do they do now?
They run out of money and steal things from other people Not to buy food they don't care about that just the next fix.
At least that's the druggies the alcoholics seem to just drink as much as they can while they have money.
Giving them free money will not change their current situation. The current ebt cards and so on aren't able to help either.
But I don't think it's intended to fix those types of problems.
Addiction is a mental health problem and they aren't treated well here...Maybe someone should do something about that.
You're working on the assumption that these people actually *want* to go off drugs or alcohol. Not everyone has your specific desires.
It's interesting how Americans can discount evidence from other places in the world. Gun control, basic income, education.... I might be willing to believe that a revolutionary start and a couple hundred years of living with the right to bear arms enshrined in their constitution has made Americans more violent than people from other countries, but it's hard to believe that a history of generally substandard social programs has made them lazier than others.
It's odd that you put gun control in there - ever look at the correlation between safe countries and gun ownership?
I've found one of the biggest problems can be convincing programmers that they should even try to have less bugs.
Why don't you actually practice the "modern programming technique" you say you know, and convince the "programmers" to write their own unit tests? You claim expertise in the area and yet you don't even mention the #1 technique for reducing bugs and educating developers about them: write their own damned tests. It's much more effective than your nonsense.
Because if you are going to convince a team of only one thing you may as well convince them of reducing the bugcount. That will get you the unit tests and a whole lot of other things as well. If you convince them to implement unit-tests all you'll get are unit tests.
You are basically asserting that it is better to convince a programmer to do a subset of $F00. OP is asserting that it is better to convince a programmer to just aim for $FOO instead.
Actually a decent software developer can do most vehicle repair themselves, if they can be bothered to research it.
Don't make me laugh... following directions on the internet to fix something in your car rarely works out. The biggest and first problem you will encounter is fault-diagnosis. For this you need actual knowledge, fault codes notwithstanding.
Funny.
Most people that Slashdotters look down on...tradesmen in particular, could have fixed that engine themselves for a few hundred dollars at most.
But here you are, one of the "smart ones" and you are reduced to Public Transit.
When everything goes into the shitter, most of the "smart" people will stave to death.
Quite correct. This is why I can fix my own car, build my own house, install my own plumbing, tile my own roof, rewire my distribution board, grow my own fruit, sew up my own wounds... not only can, I have actually done all of the above. If only I lived in an area zoned for agriculture I'd try raising animals too.
The Internet of Things is about sensors everywhere and to a more limited extent actuators. But actuators are relatively few compared to sensors. Fine grained sensors are out at the edge here there is no normal wireless connectivity and are quite a challenge to innovate, power and scale out at very low cost. The next challenging is gathering the edge information at highly distributed small systems that may be more wireless/internet connected in some form. While you could hack to corrupt data feeds flowing up the question is what would be the significant payoff to make it worth it at all? You corrupt the out on the farm soil sensors so the watering systems give too much or too little water? Not so easy to get away with and no payoff beyond malice and an ego trip.
Look carefully everyone - this is the argument from shitty devs of limited cognitive capacity that results in insecure products. The argument "why would anyone want to hack me" is stupid, and people making the argument deserve all the derision we are laying on them. They work under the assumption that no one has an enemy, or an ex, or a corporate competitor, or a disgruntled customer, or an angry creditor...etc... who wants to take them down. This is a stupid argument and you should feel stupid for putting that argument into words.
You *never* make the argument "why would anyone want to hack me"! You always work under the assumption that there is already a hostile threat after you *specifically*; only then will your designs be even halfway decent.
You are being played.
Ironic.
Right, because seeing Hot Super-Heroine #1 exchange a few lines of sweaty, breathless dialog with Hot Super-Heroine #2 about how to take down the Villain currently kicking the team's ass would be a total turn-off for everyone watching the movie. Everyone knows that only the male characters can have conversations that drive the plot. And god forbid they should exchange a couple lines of inane dialog such as exchanged by practically the entire male cast, that would have audiences walking out of theaters across the country!
The problem isn't that nobody wants to see it - mostly nobody would even notice it happening, and the only ones that care are those that notice its glaring absence.
If enough people wanted to see it, it would make money. It's a free market, and the issue has been known for decades, and yet you want to claim that movie makers, caring only about profits, will routinely ignore what could be profitable scripts?
You're making a bold assertion - namely that something that was known about for decades will be profitable if only someone will make it. The odds are better that movie makers have learned, over the decades, what sells and what doesn't sell by using trial and error.
They're having trouble seeing profitability in well-written plots and non-forgettable characters, now you want them to add ideology into the mix? We'd see a return to things like basic plot design and character building before we see a move towards a little-cared-for ideology promoted by a fringe of the population.
The robots are designed to be as human like as possible in appearance and in the way that they move. The key difference is that unlike human women they are souless sex slaves who only exist to fulfil their owners every desire. I can see why she finds it distasteful - I think I'd feel a bit odd about a cotton picking robot that was designed to look like a black slave, complete with stereotypical attributes and "broken slave" personality.
Of course it applies for male sexbots too, before someone complaints about that.
By the way, the way that porn negatively affects some people's attitudes towards their partners, particularly teenagers (who shouldn't own a sexbot, but inevitably will gain access to them just like porn) is quite well documented. Part of modern sex education in UK schools is to point out how unrealistic porn is, and to counteract peer pressure to act like a pornstar in bed. The fear is that sexbots will create the same unrealistic and harmful expectations.
Only on slashdot will an argument limiting the options for masturbation get a +4 informative score. Seriously, to the mods who modded this tripe up - do you really want a world in which you can only do "approved" masturbation?
Men have the right to sex, everybody has a right to have their needs met.
No. Sorry, there is no right to sex. Absolutely not. You have no right to force/demand other human beings have sex with you to fulfil your "needs". That's pure misogyny.
Would you be okay if some guy demanded to have sex with you, because they "need" to? I think that is very, very doubtful.
Correct there is no right to sex. But here you are arguing for a right to limit masturbation to what you consider acceptable. What the fuck is wrong with you? You think there is no right to sex but there *is* a right to limit it even when only a single party is involved?
Is there really a significant difference between fantasizing about having sex with {starlet of the month} with a box of tissues and a hard working left hand, and fantasizing about having sex with {starlet of the month} with your whatever being worked by a robot that looks just like her (but you know it's a robot)?
Let's answer that.
Women in magazines tend to be airbrushed and are, for the most part, fairly unrealistic. There are negative consequences to this, like people having unrealistic expectations. So it's not an ideal to strive for, just what we have now. For most of the 25,000 years you claim humans have been masturbating for (I'll take your word for it) such images have not been available, and it didn't seem to be detrimental in any way.
Sexbots... Well, it depends on the type of robot I suppose. If it's just a mechanical hand jacking you off, that's quite different to an ultra-realistic simulation of a human being. It starts to become like the magazine models, an ideal that real women can't live up to. This leads to a more general debate about robot body types, which has already begin with manikins. Gap were heavily criticised for their "death cam chic" models in shops, that looked like the victims of starvation.
If you want to get into the "fully aware it's not real" argument, I again direct you to discussion of photoshopped magazine models.
Your argument boils down to "must reduce options to ensure expectations are kept realistic". You must be mad to suggest that a reduction in sexual options is a good thing for society.
I agree it would be good to have "sexual independence", as you put it. I just think there needs to be some responsibility taken by the manufacturers.
Gap gets criticised because its manikins are ridiculously, death camp thin. Magazines get criticised because their models are all photoshopped to non-human proportions and levels of perfection. So rather than banning fembots, it would at least be an idea to consider that if we do make human like robots for any purpose they should not be causing the same unrealistic body image problems as manikins and photoshopped models.
Your ideology is peeking through again. Me having the "sexual independence" to fuck a robot does not in any way present a moral issue. If you think there is a responsibility on the part of the manufacturer them you are limiting my sexual independence.
The reverse (average looking woman) is not true; Even blandest plain looking average woman can get laid whenever she wants, will have a lineup of men waiting to take her out on dates (getting a decent bf is not as easy though).
Bullshit. Complete and total bullshit. Your biases are showing.
Reality is at odds with your ideology. For a man it takes time and effort and talent and money and power and influence to get laid. The more of any of these a man has the bigger his chances of getting laid. For a women all she has to do is say yes.
Two women talk to each other about anything other than men. (seriously - just try to imagine a movie that doesn't feature guys talking to each other about anything other than women) Why? Because the production industry is dominated by people who are either personally uninterested, or have convinced themselves that the audience is uninterested, in women who are more than skin deep.
The movie makers want to make money off their movies, so they make what people will pay to see. If there are not enough people of either gender who wants to see two or more women in a conversation where men aren't involved what do you expect them to do?
Again, very broadly speaking, this isn't something in the female mentality, or at least it has not been....
The existence and popularity of dildos invalidates both your position and hers.
Doesn't the existence and popularity of dildos validate the argument that women want more than sex? After all even dildo owners still want to date.
I think that the current issue is that there probably isn't a similar sex toy for men; one that is as satisfying to a man sexually as a dildo is to a woman sexually. Once there is few men are going to put up with relationship baggage. We are already seeing a sway towards this as porn becomes more accessible and cheaper.
Japan's criminal justice system is terrible, just terrible.
Crime is very low
Funny - I'd call very low crime rates a roaring success of the criminal justice system.
And how the hell did you get modded up so high by asserting both "CJS is terrible" and "crime is very low"?
Consider Hakamada Iwao, who was found guilty of murder, only to be exonerated 45 years later when DNA testing proved his innocence. One of the original judges reportedly considered committing suicide out of shame over it:
Yeah, he should have committed suicide. If you are prepared to take away 45 years (more, actually) of someones life you had better be pretty certain that they are guilty.
If someone is on the bleeding edge of this industry, and respected by this industry, how the hell do we take the industry seriously? No one with a clue will claim "self-awareness" as a goal for industry. Does *anyone* in this industry have a clue that isn't superficial knowledge of flight and 3d printers?
This is the abstinence only approach. Doesn't work.
Tell that to the gun-control crowd; they're pushing for abstinence rather than education. TBH, if such a large part of the population is delusional enough to expect abstinence to work over education in area $FOO, I see no reason why they wouldn't hold the same view in area $BAR.
the "gas" pedal is nothing more than a potentiometer that feeds the master computer
In the old days before computers the gas pedal still was not directly connected to the throttle. There is a linkage from the transmission that overrides the pedal input and backs off the throttle when the transmission shifts gears. It's all mechanical.
What the hell are you talking about? There is no linkage from the transmission that overrides pedal inputs in old cars. In new cars, maybe. In old cars everything was connected with steel cables. Throttle literally pulled open a flap that allowed more air into the intake manifold (via a venturi). Clutch (on manual) literally pushed a plate away from the transmission to decouple the engine from the driveshafts.
What you are talking about does not exist in older cars. In newer cars... maybe. But certainly not in older cars.
The only way to disarm criminals is arm citizens. And let the police do their damn job instead of whining about another thug being shot.
You can't even guarantee most guns can even consistently fire (except for Glock), this looks like more of the tech-solves-everything blind faith.
The problem I see is though, when a law abiding citizen walks into Lowe's or Chipotle's brandshing his piece as is his second amendment right and in his camos how are the other law abiding citizens in the same place going to know if he is a good gut or a bad guy?
Therein lies the problem. If I'm concealed carrying at the moment, they are going to have about a second to convince me they are not entering with harmful intent. At that point, it's now a really bad situation.
This is not a trivial problem.
It's not a problem at all - brandishing a firearm and/or displaying intent is already illegal, so by definition the brandisher is a criminal. If everyone who brandished their weapon willy-nilly got shot down, that sort of behaviour would vanish, hence it's a non-problem.
And hit that little ball into a little hole that you can't even see? You're fucking right it takes a lot of intelligence, if by intelligence you mean proprioception, patience, strategy, and the ability to think "over the horizon".
Maybe the reason you work in tech is that you lack imagination and creativity.
GP is suffering under the delusion that *his* particular way to veg out in front of the TV with beer and friends on weekends his superior to everyone else's way of vegging out in front of the TV with beer and friends on weekends.
He doesn't appear to spot the irony in that everything he wrote about golf, if true, would also apply to every other sport there is.
It takes a lot of intelligence to repeatedly hit a small ball with a stick.
Golf is the most pointless 'sport' in existence. You can't even compare it with low-level sports like baseball and ping pong, let alone sports that require actual skill and are moderately fun to watch, like basketball and football and soccer. And when people consider basketball players and football players to be dumb, imagine how dumb the average golf player must be.
All it takes to play golf is good motor coordination. Some people are naturally more talented at this, some aren't. That's ALL golf is. You know a sport is idiotic when a simple mechanical machine is better at it than any human could ever dream to be.
And about correlation, no it's not a coincidence that the majority of golf players seem to be those who are rapidly falling down the hill of age-related brain decay. And when their brain decays to the point where even playing golf becomes too hard, it's off to the bingo hall.
You might say I'm being too hard on golf. Actually I think I'm being too lenient. Golf shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as real sports. Golfers deserve constant 24/7 ridicule until they finally pack their shit and we can repurpose the huge amounts of land devoted to that useless 'sport' for useful purposes, like landfills.
You know, every single thing you wrote applies to baseball, (american) football, cricket, soccer, basketball, hockey and just about every other sport there is. A simple mechanical device can beat a human at every single one of those sports just as well as in golf. People still watch 'em.
It's up to companies making controllers and games.
But Apple hasn't made what they consider to be a games console - it's a home App Box. What you do with such a thing is up to you... It's actually got pretty exciting hacking potential since anyone will be able to develop apps for their own home for free now that there's not a $99 requirement for local device testing.
If people wanted hacking potential on a set top box they've had it for ages. The difference in this product (compared to other apple products, that is) is that it's relatively open...ish. I'm interested in seeing how lower walls in the garden works out for them.
People need parent up - I'm all out of points, but this post really really needs to be seen.
Do you know what a straw man is?
Hi literally said "You want to be a real maker ... start sculpting metal".
Yes - but he never said that that's the only path. He never even implied it. You saythat he said "the only way to be a real maker is by..." when all he really said was "You can be a real maker by..."
That is pretty much the archetypal "no true scotsman". You can be a perfectly real maker without indulging in heavy metal work.
I don't understand why you are presenting that argument as if it refutes what OP said. It doesn't. You're arguing that he said $FOO when he clearly didn't, and then you present an argument for why $FOO[1] is wrong. You win your argument only by virtue of the fact that $FOO is indeed wrong, but he never said nor implied $FOO. Are you that desperate to be right on the internet, that you'd argue someone against something that they've never asserted?
[1] s/$FOO/You can be a real maker only by working with metal