"Raul Castro's government has relied in particular on a provision of the Cuban Criminal Code that allows the state to imprison individuals before they have committed a crime, on the suspicion that they might commit and offense in the future. This "dangerousness" provision is overtly political, defining "dangerousness" as any behavior that contradicts socialist norms. The most Orwellian of Cuba's laws, it captures the essence of the Cuban government's repressive mindset, which views anyone who acts out of step with the government as a potential thread, and thus worthy of punishment."
Reading this, it's no wonder to me that I walked out on the movie Minority Report about 10 minutes in, because it's exactly like that. My sympathies to the poor bastard and his family, they'll probably never see him alive ever again.
Once upon a time I used to think that having separate countries was the problem with this world. I see now that national borders are the only thing keeping us safe from tyranny on a global scale. I see now that we cannot be ruled by one single governmental entity and expect everyone to be treated fairly.
You are ignoring a basic truth: People have to want to do something first. Most people can't be bothered. "Learn by doing" is fine and well, but we're talking about "learning by doing" with machines and circumstances where people can be seriously injured or killed if they screw it up. You're also ingoring a point I made: Police academies don't take just anybody, you have to have a minimum acceptable levels of skills and aptitudes first, or they turn you away. You also can't contradict my own experience: I see people every single day who are talking on their damned phones while driving, and they're driving erratically because of it, because they don't have enough attention to split between the two!
I don't believe that the vast majority of people can be taught to do this safely and responsibly. What I see every day is that at least half the people on the roads are just barely competent to be driving, and you add a cellphone to the equation and they become downright dangerous to themselves and everyone around them. Police are specifically trained for the skills they must have to do their jobs, but in addition to that they are held to much more rigorous standards before they're even accepted for that training. If the average person was held to the standards potential police or highway patrol are held to, there would be many fewer people on the roads to begin with.
..so what I like to eat or drink, what I like to watch or read for entertainment, how I wipe my ass when I take a crap, these things are all supposed to be public knowledge? Should we all live in transparent houses as well, so everyone can see what everyone else is doing all the time? Fuck you, Google, and fuck everyone with this attitude, because it's BULLSHIT. All of you who speak this way have your own "hidden" agenda: you want to criticize and control every aspect of everyone's lives, and you can't do that without knowing EVERYTHING that EVERYONE is doing at ALL times. This is how dictatorships start! Well, I got a memo for you assholes: The Underwear Gnomes are going through your underwear drawers at night and touching all your private things, and there is NOTHING you can do about it!
I can't see this being legally enforceable because there are way too many places online where you can't be even remotely sure that the person you're conversing with is of legal age, even if it's somewhere that should ONLY be adults. Even online dating sites that are pay-only could potentially have an underage person on it, using their parents' credit card to gain access, or using someone else's account.
NOT funny. WAY too plausible. I've said it before in other places this week, and I'll say it again here: No good will come of this. I'm surprised that the government will allow this sale to go through.
I've still got a Lexmark inkjet printer. It cost me all of $50 when it was new. It's cheap, but it did what I needed it to do, and frankly it was cheaper than buying replacement cartridges for it's predecessor, whatever printer that was (been so long I've forgotten). I had the same exact thoughts that the OP had about it. The Lexmark was the last inkjet printer I ever bought. Never again. Printer ink is a HUGE ripoff. I bought a Brother laser printer. Does duplexing, even had an ethernet interface built right into it. I print maybe a handful of pages a month, so the toner cartridge that came with it will probably last for 2 years, and unlike ink, it won't (shouldn't?) dry out and become unusuable. Sure, cartridges for it cost about $90, but that refill (when I actually need it) will likely last several years.
I am also 44, and I 100% agree with you.
VoIP requires broadband internet connectivity. We can't even manage to get decent dialup internet service to everywhere in this country (the USA), let alone 100% broadband penetration. We might get some form of wireless broadband sooner (like WiMax), but even then I'd think that we'll have 100% cellphone coverage before we have 100% broadband coverage. Also, I haven't been too impressed with VoIP thusfar, I think there needs to be improvements to it before you can expect 100% adoption of the technology.
I also suppose "eventually" is 10 years out? Where have we heard this before? Oh, that's right, we've heard this everywhere before! Clean cheap cold fusion reactors are 10 years away. Self-aware AI is 10 years away. Mass-produced flying cars are 10 years away. Room-temperature superconductors are 10 years away. If I was smart I'd've filed for a patent on the idea of claiming a new technology was "just 10 years away", then neither I nor the next 7 generations of my descendants would ever have to work!
If this is the way these systems work, and since they're so tiny, wouldn't it make sense to build them as triple-redundant (or more) all running the same exact routines, and take the majority answer? Or perhaps have a cluster of them running in parallel the same routine X number of times and take the majority answer from that?
If I was suddenly forced to watch commercials (i.e. no 30 second skip and/or no fast forward) I'd probably dump cable and just watch what I can get on Netflix instead. It would be sad though because there are down-times during the latter parts of my evenings when it's too early to go to bed but I'm too tired to do anything else and I want something passive and relatively low-bandwidth brainpower-wise to do in the meantime, and the few shows TiVo records for me are perfect for that.
You beat me to the reference. I too believe this could be a dangerous idea, but not just for the obvious reason: I don't see where we know enough about our own genome yet to be able to make judgement calls of this sort based on it. In other words, sounds like more new-age quackery to me.
I feel that they're making a general assumption: that if they make it essentially impossible to pirate content, that the would-be pirates are all going to pay for the content. I for one disagree with that; there are many things that if I can't get them for free, I'll just do without them and move on to something else. Example: I'll wait an extra season for something to come on television and watch it for free rather than pay for it, especially if it's something I only care enough about to see once. Content I actually care about enough to want to see it multiple times, I'll pay for a physical copy of. I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way about it either. The MPAA/RIAA/Networks/etc all need to understand this: making it more difficult to obtain their programming isn't going to increase their sales, it's just going to piss more people off!
That's the formula. If you aren't bothering to keep track of everything you eat, then you're more likely to eat more because you're hungrier when you exercise regularly. Wouldn't at all be surprised if some people actually end up gaining weight while exercising for that reason.
Slashdot Mirror
"Raul Castro's government has relied in particular on a provision of the Cuban Criminal Code that allows the state to imprison individuals before they have committed a crime, on the suspicion that they might commit and offense in the future. This "dangerousness" provision is overtly political, defining "dangerousness" as any behavior that contradicts socialist norms. The most Orwellian of Cuba's laws, it captures the essence of the Cuban government's repressive mindset, which views anyone who acts out of step with the government as a potential thread, and thus worthy of punishment."
Reading this, it's no wonder to me that I walked out on the movie Minority Report about 10 minutes in, because it's exactly like that. My sympathies to the poor bastard and his family, they'll probably never see him alive ever again.
Once upon a time I used to think that having separate countries was the problem with this world. I see now that national borders are the only thing keeping us safe from tyranny on a global scale. I see now that we cannot be ruled by one single governmental entity and expect everyone to be treated fairly.
Welcome to the new Slashdot, where everything Google does is great, and only people with something to hide would care about privacy.
They're idiots.
You are ignoring a basic truth: People have to want to do something first. Most people can't be bothered. "Learn by doing" is fine and well, but we're talking about "learning by doing" with machines and circumstances where people can be seriously injured or killed if they screw it up. You're also ingoring a point I made: Police academies don't take just anybody, you have to have a minimum acceptable levels of skills and aptitudes first, or they turn you away. You also can't contradict my own experience: I see people every single day who are talking on their damned phones while driving, and they're driving erratically because of it, because they don't have enough attention to split between the two!
I don't believe that the vast majority of people can be taught to do this safely and responsibly. What I see every day is that at least half the people on the roads are just barely competent to be driving, and you add a cellphone to the equation and they become downright dangerous to themselves and everyone around them. Police are specifically trained for the skills they must have to do their jobs, but in addition to that they are held to much more rigorous standards before they're even accepted for that training. If the average person was held to the standards potential police or highway patrol are held to, there would be many fewer people on the roads to begin with.
Wow. For once, a First Post with not only some real content, but with GOOD content! Hear, hear! /thread
What if you are an active amateur cyclist working your way up the local ranks?
They'd be disqualified and disbarred from racing just as if they'd been using anabolic steroids, that's what would happen.
..so what I like to eat or drink, what I like to watch or read for entertainment, how I wipe my ass when I take a crap, these things are all supposed to be public knowledge? Should we all live in transparent houses as well, so everyone can see what everyone else is doing all the time? Fuck you, Google, and fuck everyone with this attitude, because it's BULLSHIT. All of you who speak this way have your own "hidden" agenda: you want to criticize and control every aspect of everyone's lives, and you can't do that without knowing EVERYTHING that EVERYONE is doing at ALL times. This is how dictatorships start! Well, I got a memo for you assholes: The Underwear Gnomes are going through your underwear drawers at night and touching all your private things, and there is NOTHING you can do about it!
I can't see this being legally enforceable because there are way too many places online where you can't be even remotely sure that the person you're conversing with is of legal age, even if it's somewhere that should ONLY be adults. Even online dating sites that are pay-only could potentially have an underage person on it, using their parents' credit card to gain access, or using someone else's account.
NOT funny. WAY too plausible.
I've said it before in other places this week, and I'll say it again here: No good will come of this. I'm surprised that the government will allow this sale to go through.
I've still got a Lexmark inkjet printer. It cost me all of $50 when it was new. It's cheap, but it did what I needed it to do, and frankly it was cheaper than buying replacement cartridges for it's predecessor, whatever printer that was (been so long I've forgotten). I had the same exact thoughts that the OP had about it.
The Lexmark was the last inkjet printer I ever bought. Never again. Printer ink is a HUGE ripoff. I bought a Brother laser printer. Does duplexing, even had an ethernet interface built right into it. I print maybe a handful of pages a month, so the toner cartridge that came with it will probably last for 2 years, and unlike ink, it won't (shouldn't?) dry out and become unusuable. Sure, cartridges for it cost about $90, but that refill (when I actually need it) will likely last several years.
I am also 44, and I 100% agree with you.
VoIP requires broadband internet connectivity. We can't even manage to get decent dialup internet service to everywhere in this country (the USA), let alone 100% broadband penetration. We might get some form of wireless broadband sooner (like WiMax), but even then I'd think that we'll have 100% cellphone coverage before we have 100% broadband coverage. Also, I haven't been too impressed with VoIP thusfar, I think there needs to be improvements to it before you can expect 100% adoption of the technology.
To crack down on insider trading and other white collar crime.
..with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch.
I also suppose "eventually" is 10 years out? Where have we heard this before? Oh, that's right, we've heard this everywhere before! Clean cheap cold fusion reactors are 10 years away. Self-aware AI is 10 years away. Mass-produced flying cars are 10 years away. Room-temperature superconductors are 10 years away.
If I was smart I'd've filed for a patent on the idea of claiming a new technology was "just 10 years away", then neither I nor the next 7 generations of my descendants would ever have to work!
If this is the way these systems work, and since they're so tiny, wouldn't it make sense to build them as triple-redundant (or more) all running the same exact routines, and take the majority answer? Or perhaps have a cluster of them running in parallel the same routine X number of times and take the majority answer from that?
A word: "Grandstanding".
If I was suddenly forced to watch commercials (i.e. no 30 second skip and/or no fast forward) I'd probably dump cable and just watch what I can get on Netflix instead. It would be sad though because there are down-times during the latter parts of my evenings when it's too early to go to bed but I'm too tired to do anything else and I want something passive and relatively low-bandwidth brainpower-wise to do in the meantime, and the few shows TiVo records for me are perfect for that.
Hear, hear!
"We're broke like everybody else and are trying to make money any way we can. Sucks to be you, college students."
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
You beat me to the reference. I too believe this could be a dangerous idea, but not just for the obvious reason: I don't see where we know enough about our own genome yet to be able to make judgement calls of this sort based on it. In other words, sounds like more new-age quackery to me.
Now you'll have TWO overpriced batteries to replace instead of just one!
I feel that they're making a general assumption: that if they make it essentially impossible to pirate content, that the would-be pirates are all going to pay for the content. I for one disagree with that; there are many things that if I can't get them for free, I'll just do without them and move on to something else. Example: I'll wait an extra season for something to come on television and watch it for free rather than pay for it, especially if it's something I only care enough about to see once. Content I actually care about enough to want to see it multiple times, I'll pay for a physical copy of. I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way about it either. The MPAA/RIAA/Networks/etc all need to understand this: making it more difficult to obtain their programming isn't going to increase their sales, it's just going to piss more people off!
That's the formula. If you aren't bothering to keep track of everything you eat, then you're more likely to eat more because you're hungrier when you exercise regularly. Wouldn't at all be surprised if some people actually end up gaining weight while exercising for that reason.
Great. As if fucking up your computer isn't bad enough, now these bastards can ruin your life as well. Just great.