Did you ever watch that TV show that had a girl die from a piece of the Mir space station when it de-orbited? She became a Grim Reaper, though I forget why.
THIS ARTICLE IS BEING SCRUBBED FROM THE NET. THE SITE IT WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED TO YANKED THE PLUG ON THEIR WHOLE SITE!!! COPY/PASTE THIS ARTICLE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO DISCUSSION FORUMS, BLOGS, FACEBOOK, TWITTER, AND ARCHIVE AND MIRROR THIS DOCUMENT SO IT DOES NOT VANISH FOREVER!
"So you just got the Kinect/Xbox360 gaming system and you're having fun, hanging out in your underwear, plopped down in your favorite lounge chair, and playing games with your buddies. Yeah, it's great to have a microphone and camera in your game system so you can "Kinect" to your pals while you play, but did you read that Terms of Service Agreement that came with your Kinect thingy? No? Here, let me point out an important part of that service agreement.
If you accept the agreement, you "expressly authorize and consent to us accessing or disclosing information about you, including the content of your communications, in order to: (a) comply with the law or respond to lawful requests or legal process; (b) protect the rights or property of Microsoft, our partners, or our customers, including the enforcement of our agreements or policies governing your use of the Service; or (c) act on a good faith belief that such access or disclosure is necessary to protect the personal safety of Microsoft employees, customers, or the public."
Did you catch that? Here, let me print the important part in really big letters.
"If you accept the agreement, you expressly authorize and consent to us accessing or disclosing information about you, including the content of your communications⦠on a good faith belief that such access or disclosure is necessary to protect the personal safety of Microsoft employees, customers, or the public."
OK, is that clear enough for ya? When you use the Kinect system, you agree to allow Microsoft (and any branch of law enforcement or government they care to share information with) to use your Kinect system to spy on you. Maybe run that facial recognition software to check you out, listen to your conversations, and keep track of who you are communicating with.
I know this is probably old news to some, but I thought I would mention it because it pertains to almost all of these home game systems that are interactive. You have to remember, the camera and microphone contained in your game system have the ability to be hacked by anyone the game company gives that ability to, and that includes government snoops and law enforcement agents.
Hey, it's MICROSOFT. What did you expect?
And the same concerns apply to all interactive game systems. Just something to think about if you're having a "Naked Wii party" or doing something illegal while you're gaming with your buddies. Or maybe you say something suspicious and it triggers the DHS software to start tracking your every word. Hey, this is not paranoia. It's spelled out for you, right there in that Service Agreement. Read it! Here's one more part of the agreement you should be aware of.
"You should not expect any level of privacy concerning your use of the live communication features (for example, voice chat, video and communications in live-hosted gameplay sessions) offered through the Service."
Did you catch it that time? YOU SHOULD NOT EXPECT ANY LEVEL OF PRIVACY concerning your voice chat and video features on your Kinect box."
###
"Listen up, you ignorant sheep. Your government is spending more money than ever to spy on its own citizens. That's YOU, my friend. And if you're one of these people who say, "Well I ain't ever done nothing wrong so why should I worry about it?' - you are dead wrong. Our civil liberties are being taken away faster than you can spit. The NSA is working away on its new "First Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cyber-security Initiative Data Center' to keep track of every last one of us. This thing will be the size of 17 footbal
Hey, good to hear ya. I'm from up in Muskegon county myself. I was riding in Muskegon, Grand Haven, Spring Lake, and even to Grand Rapids once. Now I live where it doesn't snow. I see the train tracks that went past the farm I grew up on has been converted to a bike path from Grand Rapids to Muskegon. Wish we had that back then.
Really. They make it sound like we are afraid of getting our tires wet. I rode on a trail through the woods where my feet made trenches as each pedal went around. It was safer than the road at the time. That was on the way home from work at around 10pm.
Besides absolute depth, snowbanks and hidden obstacles/ditches can't be ignored either.
I'm sorry, did I simply say "OMG winter" in my earlier post? I don't think so.
By the way, you never mentioned how many meters of snow you get in your part of Germany. Where I lived it averaged several feet per month. Other places get much more than that. Some get far less snow, but the temperature is many degrees colder.
So, what is the average snowfall where you live? What is the average winter temperature?
not "They have no place in cities", that's merely an opinion. One that can be reasonably backed up by citing road widths, corner radiuses turning circles, car widths etc.
So you are saying that the opinion that large SUVs shouldn't be allowed in cities is based on the physical characteristics relevant to their size, which is larger than standard passenger cars. These physical characteristics include their width compared to the road/lane, and their turning radius. Your argument apparently is that they cannot maneuver well enough to ensure the safety of other vehicles.
I brought up delivery vehicles, which are as large as or larger than SUVs. I pointed out that they maneuver adequately on city streets. Therefor SUVs should not be a problem, based on their physical characteristics.
Your next sentence shows the heart of your argument:
Just because it's possible to have a few of them about, doesn't imply that it's reasonable to have the streets filled with them.
You simply don't want them there. The physical characteristics you mentioned earlier were just a smoke screen. The rest of that post, excusing "critical" delivery vans while condemning vehicles that are "just taking up a crap load of space" further illuminate your true feelings.
This is no straw man, and you get no debate team points for trying to use that old crutch. This is taking your own words and arguments, and making a reasonable approximation of your thoughts and prejudices based on them.
My only contribution to your reasoning is assuming you have a car that you drive in a SUV-choked city. Why else would it be such a sore point for you? If that isn't the case, you either have no car or don't drive in a city, I will gladly rescind the clause at the end of that sentence. Now it is simply large vehicles you don't like have no place in cities.
I'm sorry. I thought your argument was about physical characteristics such as turning radius and vehicle width in relation to lane width. That the numbers show large vehicles have no place in cities.
Now it is simply large vehicles you don't like have no place in cities where you are driving your privately owned car.
Again, sorry for the confusion on my part. I assumed you were being logically consistent and reasonable.
Are you referring to the final year of Bush's term? When a Democrat controlled Congress insisted we needed to throw a couple trillion dollars to Wall Street, or poor people would starve to death?
How about using the 6 years from the middle of his terms? Then you eliminate the first year that he had less to do with, and the final year for the same reason.
Slashdot Mirror
So only investigate someone's death/disappearance if it doesn't take away any funds that could instead go to your favorite social program.
Is that your stance?
Sounds like it. Apple and 5 publishers tried to raise the price of new "e-books from the $9.99 price that Amazon had made standard".
So why does Amazon get to set the price, and not Apple or the publishers?
If they actually paid their taxes they would have to raise the price of ebooks. Look where that got them.
A government is 'for' two things.
Set a duty roster of nighttime guards, so that people can sleep peacefully at night. The guards are there to wake everyone up if there is an attack.
Set a roster of people to build common-use structures such as roads or bridges.
Everything else is not 'what a government it for'.
And one of those two isn't essential to have the government involved.
Probably $1.
Thank you.
Does its usefulness come from a nuclear action?
Did you ever watch that TV show that had a girl die from a piece of the Mir space station when it de-orbited? She became a Grim Reaper, though I forget why.
Nanothread and the Benzenes.
Hey now, don't drag me into this discussion. It's been a long day and I just want to argue about politics.
So would my mom. The cancer had other ideas.
At least she's alive and doing well.
This is very important.
Microsoft Kinect Spy System
THIS ARTICLE IS BEING SCRUBBED FROM THE NET. THE SITE IT WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED TO YANKED THE PLUG ON THEIR WHOLE SITE!!! COPY/PASTE THIS ARTICLE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO DISCUSSION FORUMS, BLOGS, FACEBOOK, TWITTER, AND ARCHIVE AND MIRROR THIS DOCUMENT SO IT DOES NOT VANISH FOREVER!
"So you just got the Kinect/Xbox360 gaming system and you're having fun, hanging out in your underwear, plopped down in your favorite lounge chair, and playing games with your buddies. Yeah, it's great to have a microphone and camera in your game system so you can "Kinect" to your pals while you play, but did you read that Terms of Service Agreement that came with your Kinect thingy? No? Here, let me point out an important part of that service agreement.
If you accept the agreement, you "expressly authorize and consent to us accessing or disclosing information about you, including the content of your communications, in order to: (a) comply with the law or respond to lawful requests or legal process; (b) protect the rights or property of Microsoft, our partners, or our customers, including the enforcement of our agreements or policies governing your use of the Service; or (c) act on a good faith belief that such access or disclosure is necessary to protect the personal safety of Microsoft employees, customers, or the public."
Did you catch that? Here, let me print the important part in really big letters.
"If you accept the agreement, you expressly authorize and consent to us accessing or disclosing information about you, including the content of your communications⦠on a good faith belief that such access or disclosure is necessary to protect the personal safety of Microsoft employees, customers, or the public."
OK, is that clear enough for ya? When you use the Kinect system, you agree to allow Microsoft (and any branch of law enforcement or government they care to share information with) to use your Kinect system to spy on you. Maybe run that facial recognition software to check you out, listen to your conversations, and keep track of who you are communicating with.
I know this is probably old news to some, but I thought I would mention it because it pertains to almost all of these home game systems that are interactive. You have to remember, the camera and microphone contained in your game system have the ability to be hacked by anyone the game company gives that ability to, and that includes government snoops and law enforcement agents.
Hey, it's MICROSOFT. What did you expect?
And the same concerns apply to all interactive game systems. Just something to think about if you're having a "Naked Wii party" or doing something illegal while you're gaming with your buddies. Or maybe you say something suspicious and it triggers the DHS software to start tracking your every word. Hey, this is not paranoia. It's spelled out for you, right there in that Service Agreement. Read it! Here's one more part of the agreement you should be aware of.
"You should not expect any level of privacy concerning your use of the live communication features (for example, voice chat, video and communications in live-hosted gameplay sessions) offered through the Service."
Did you catch it that time? YOU SHOULD NOT EXPECT ANY LEVEL OF PRIVACY concerning your voice chat and video features on your Kinect box."
###
"Listen up, you ignorant sheep. Your government is spending more money than ever to spy on its own citizens. That's YOU, my friend. And if you're one of these people who say, "Well I ain't ever done nothing wrong so why should I worry about it?' - you are dead wrong. Our civil liberties are being taken away faster than you can spit. The NSA is working away on its new "First Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cyber-security Initiative Data Center' to keep track of every last one of us. This thing will be the size of 17 footbal
So, again, your argument is: Now it is simply large vehicles you don't like have no place in cities.
Sugar-coat it all you want, that is your position. Throw away the crutches.
Hey, good to hear ya. I'm from up in Muskegon county myself. I was riding in Muskegon, Grand Haven, Spring Lake, and even to Grand Rapids once. Now I live where it doesn't snow. I see the train tracks that went past the farm I grew up on has been converted to a bike path from Grand Rapids to Muskegon. Wish we had that back then.
Such a nice light dusting of snow.
Really. They make it sound like we are afraid of getting our tires wet. I rode on a trail through the woods where my feet made trenches as each pedal went around. It was safer than the road at the time. That was on the way home from work at around 10pm.
Besides absolute depth, snowbanks and hidden obstacles/ditches can't be ignored either.
I'm sorry, did I simply say "OMG winter" in my earlier post? I don't think so.
By the way, you never mentioned how many meters of snow you get in your part of Germany. Where I lived it averaged several feet per month. Other places get much more than that. Some get far less snow, but the temperature is many degrees colder.
So, what is the average snowfall where you live? What is the average winter temperature?
You originally wrote:
not "They have no place in cities", that's merely an opinion. One that can be reasonably backed up by citing road widths, corner radiuses turning circles, car widths etc.
So you are saying that the opinion that large SUVs shouldn't be allowed in cities is based on the physical characteristics relevant to their size, which is larger than standard passenger cars. These physical characteristics include their width compared to the road/lane, and their turning radius. Your argument apparently is that they cannot maneuver well enough to ensure the safety of other vehicles.
I brought up delivery vehicles, which are as large as or larger than SUVs. I pointed out that they maneuver adequately on city streets. Therefor SUVs should not be a problem, based on their physical characteristics.
Your next sentence shows the heart of your argument:
Just because it's possible to have a few of them about, doesn't imply that it's reasonable to have the streets filled with them.
You simply don't want them there. The physical characteristics you mentioned earlier were just a smoke screen. The rest of that post, excusing "critical" delivery vans while condemning vehicles that are "just taking up a crap load of space" further illuminate your true feelings.
This is no straw man, and you get no debate team points for trying to use that old crutch. This is taking your own words and arguments, and making a reasonable approximation of your thoughts and prejudices based on them.
My only contribution to your reasoning is assuming you have a car that you drive in a SUV-choked city. Why else would it be such a sore point for you? If that isn't the case, you either have no car or don't drive in a city, I will gladly rescind the clause at the end of that sentence. Now it is simply large vehicles you don't like have no place in cities.
Well, I don't drive a car powered by crystal methamphetimine. Gasoline is much cheaper than the ice sold on the street corners.
In a thread proposing putting all trucking companies out of business so that only farmers have the food they need, I think my post fits right in.
Considering the original article is about lack of funds from fuel taxes, spending further trillions on rail over passes doesn't make a lot of sense.
I'm sorry. I thought your argument was about physical characteristics such as turning radius and vehicle width in relation to lane width. That the numbers show large vehicles have no place in cities.
Now it is simply large vehicles you don't like have no place in cities where you are driving your privately owned car.
Again, sorry for the confusion on my part. I assumed you were being logically consistent and reasonable.
Considering I rode a bike to work for years, including in the Michigan winter, I will stand by my statement.
A bicycle is not an acceptable solution for most of the working public. For many reasons, two of which I mentioned.
Are you referring to the final year of Bush's term? When a Democrat controlled Congress insisted we needed to throw a couple trillion dollars to Wall Street, or poor people would starve to death?
How about using the 6 years from the middle of his terms? Then you eliminate the first year that he had less to do with, and the final year for the same reason.
"Citizen" sounds good.
They can convert to using biofuel, and grow their own.