I've been listening to the radio my entire life, regardless of tape, CDs, MP3s, internet radio (back when it was free) or streaming; I've even tried streaming, and found it lacking. Broadcast radio has never been perfect, but then again what is? Yes, you have to listen to commercials -- but commercials or no, you pay one way or another. You don't always get to hear exactly what you want to hear, but if you want that you have to pay anyway. The only way you don't have to pay is if you pirate. I'd rather own copies I can listen to whenver I want and never have to pay again, rather than pay monthly whether I listen or not, plus use up a dataplan (if mobile). What I'm seeing is that they're monetizing you one way or the other. I can switch stations via presets or just turn the volume down/mute the radio if there are commercials on broadcast FM. If I want to hear something specific then I'll play my own music.
What kind of world are we living in where some shitty game you play on your phone gets made into a movie you have to go to a theatre to pay to see?
Some people give me dirty looks when I say that humans are getting dumber, not smarter, but then something like this comes along and proves just how right I actually am.
How can you people claim you're 'cutting the cord' when you PAY for all these rediculous streaming services? Go back to owning your own music, not paying every month to listen to it, and turn on the nice, free, broadcast radio otherwise, and not use up your expensive, overpriced dataplans. Seriuously: Pay for a connection to the Internet, then pay someone for content, too, every month? Rediculous. You're just cutting one cord and getting TWO new ones.
JarJar didn't stick his neck out for shit. He made himself look good to fans for little to no risk.
You can't prove that one way or the other, it's literally just your opinion. Regardless he's on public record as saying that so we have to take it at face value unless he proves otherwise with his actions.
In all seriousness, I'm still using the RAZR V9 I bought years ago. The outside display has a dead spot in it just over one of the touchscreen buttons (this damage is recent), and the outside glass is cracked, and the rubber coating recently peeled off the battery cover, but it still works fine as a phone, and that's all I need. I still can't justify the expense to purchase or operate a smartphone, especially with what a swisscheese they are so far as security goes. I'd welcome an updated version of what I have. The only real improvement I'd like is a better music player built into it.
Whereas I've been a harsh critic of his Star Trek-flavored (which is like saying something is 'chocolate flavored', but not containing any actual chocolate) movies, but have greatly enjoyed his various television series (which makes for some internal conflicts for me), I now have a little more respect for the man that he'd stick his neck out for this. Now, if only Paramount will heed his words and let the whole thing drop for real..
So in other words, Google is admitting that their so-called 'self-driving cars' will hit pedestrians, and they're trying (vainly) to mitigate that already. Face it, people: You're going to be driving yourself for a long, long time to come, so you'd better get to a driver training school once in a while to make sure your skillset is up to par. Also, who the hell would be insane enough to want to sit down in a box on wheels with no controls for a human being and let it control YOU? That's nuts and I'll be having NONE of it, thank you very much. This whole idea is rediculous, self-driving car fanbois apparently don't understand the technology involved and how far short of the mark it falls, the so-called 'statistics' of Google's cars' safety is meaningless because it turns over control to the human operator all the time, only goes 20mph max, never on a freeway, and otherwise there isn't enough data to call any 'statistics' reliable, and last but not least: so-called 'self-driving cars' will actually take away people's very much human right to choose, and will control THEM instead of them controlling IT, and that's just plain wrong. Technology is supposed to be tools for humans, not something that controls or enslaves humans. I am and will continue to be philosophically opposed to the entire idea of a vehicle I am not allowed to directly control and would not own one for any reason. The most I'll accept is a 'driver assist' system that acts as a sophisticated autopilot when I flip the switch to allow it to do so. Otherwise I'll just keep driving myself, thank-you-very-much. Oh, and by the way? You people get your way anyway? I'll go out of my way to troll your self-driving car to the point where it has an epileptic fit and just shuts down, just for the lulz. Oh, and also: Enjoy knowing that your utterly uncontrollable self-driving car can be brought to some other destination than what you intended, or brought to a complete stop in the middle of nowhere, wirelessly, by any cop that decides he wants to do so, or government agency, or criminal wanting to carjack you, or any bored script kiddie. That's the world you're buying into, and I will LAUGH OUT LOUD at you when it happoens -- then drive or ride away knowing that it won't happen to me. {/rant}
Wait, what? Criminals with a conscience? Of course, someone will come along in short order and say
..but they didn't turn themselves in, and they didn't return their ill-gotten gains, so they're still scumbags
Sure. But how often do you get any sort of an apology like this? With all the ugly shit going on all over the world, isn't it a little refreshing that someone actually says they're sorry and makes at least some token amends for their actions? Small consolation or not.
The use of the word 'sabotage' seems to indicate a conspiracy. Seems more likely to me that people are just rating according to how much they liked a program. Also seems likely to me that, ironically, this article has some sort of agenda all it's own.
I hadn't realized it's been 20 years since any GMO crop had been released into the wild. Where does the time go? Guess I've been busy.
At any rate, there's no point in even getting upset over GMO plants now. Why? Because it's already proliferated throughout the ecosphere of the planet by now; it's too late to do anything about it, if there's damage done, it's now irreversible anyway, we couldn't take it back if we tried. If in another 20 years, or 50 years, or 100 years, we discover that it was, indeed A Huge Mistake, we'll just have to deal with the consequences then -- assuming there's anything we can do at that point.
Since not a singleoneofyou are anything more than Anonymous Cowards, I guess I need to comment on my own comment.
The reason you don't 'get' art, is you're not emotionally available to it. Art is one of the most 'human' things that humans have ever invented, because the whole point of art, is to evoke an emotional response within the person viewing it. That being said, no two people are going to have exactly, precisely the same emotional response to a particular piece of art. Then there's people who Just Don't Get It, and maybe not for lack of trying on their part; they're just not available to it, emotionally, to be affected by it in any way, for whatever reason.
That all being said: I don't get most art, either. But at least I understand the point of it, and can appreciate that aspect of it. Doesn't mean I think all art is trash and a ripoff, it just means I won't go out of my way for most of it. I'll even admit that perhaps more exposure to it and study of it would expand my understanding and appreciation for it.
Oh and by the way: music is a form of art, too; if you really can honestly say that there has never been a piece of music of any genre whatsoever that never evoked some sort of emotional response in you, then perhaps you are, in fact, dead inside.
In the future, we may see Google use machine-learning algorithms to analyze influential classical painters and create new masterpieces.
Nope, nope, and hell, no. At best they might create 'in the style of such-and-such classical artist', but they won't be 'masterpieces'. Google's hubris, arrogance, and lack of taste, apparently, know no bounds. AI fanbois can bite me.
Yeah sure thing because governments just love 'secessionists' so much, that they have pet names for them: 'dissidents', 'revolutionaries', 'terrorists', 'insurgents', 'enemy of the State', and similar. Know what a 'secessionist' without weapons is called? 'Prisoner'.
If the specific implementation doesn't support the function built into the silicon then that's one thing, but if the specific device has the capability and the wireless company supporting it on their network is specifically disabling it, then I think that's wrong, they're cheating you out of a legitimate capability of the device, and as TFA alludes to, if they're doing it to force you to use up your expensive dataplan on streaming services instead, then I too would cry foul.
Unless it's someone you're involved with, someone else's sexual relations are none of your business, so you should keep your nose out of it, and if you're so unhappy with your government that you feel the need to 'seceed', then I'd suggest you work within the existing system to change it (soap box, ballot box, jury box) before resorting to the 'ammo box', which is where secessionism leads; either that or I suggest you 'emigrate' to some country more to your liking.
Oh, I see: Being a secessionist is OK in your book, but one adult utilizing the service being offered by another adult in exchange for monetary compensation is not OK? 'Make war not love' is your motto, then? Violent revolution is OK in your book, but casual sex isn't?
Guess what, friend? We can enable the FM receiver on your phone right now, without your permission -- and nobody is forcing you to use it at all. You can go on about your business as usual, using up your dataplan to listen to streaming services, or your own music, or whatever, and it won't change anything for you. On the other hand, people who'd like to use it on their own phone are then free to do so, and profit thereby. If I didn't know any better, I'd be tempted to think that in so many words you're saying 'Stop liking what I don't like!', but of course that would be silly, now wouldn't it? I'd also be tempted to wonder if you're a paid shill for the telecom companies or some other competing interest, but that would be rather silly, too, wouldn't it?
If the hardware is there, people have paid for it, they should be allowed to use it, plain and simple.
The only 'value' there is in Facebook anymore is the 'value' that Zuckerberg and Facebook shareholders get from monetizing it's users and selling their personal information, and people are getting clued in finally that 'sharing' on Facebook is counter to their interests. So shush, Facebook shill/troll. The smart people (like me) dumped Facebook years ago. Everyone else will soon follow.
Non-progressive societies don't encourage girls to do things like science and math in the first place, they expect them to adopt 'traditional female roles'.
Your post is full of baloney. If the vast majority of people wanted public transportation instead of their own vehicles, then that's what we'd have, but we don't now do we? Not everyone lives or wants to live in an urban center, and that's the only environment where mass public transit would actually work -- but people don't want to ride on smelly crowded buses with the unwashed masses, they want to take themselves and their kids in a nice safe relatively clean private vehicle where they don't have to worry about people sharing their germs, inappropriate behavior, or getting robbed. They also don't want to have to wait for it to show up, or have it take several times longer to arrive at their destination, or have to walk maybe a mile or two because it won't go door-to-door.
If YOU don't want to own a car that's your business. But don't for a minute think you speak for the majority of people, or are some oracle that can see the future.
Haven't you people got the message yet? Go back to email lists or (gasp!) telephone calls to stay in touch with people. After you exclude the fake online-only friends, most people will be down to about a dozen anyway, easy enough to manage.
We own the computers they're making unilateral decisions for, what the actual fuck happened to our choice as the owners of the hardware they're forcing their software on??????
This is positively CRIMINAL and has to be STOPPED. WHERE ARE THE CRIMINAL AND/OR CIVIL CHARGES AGAINST MICROSOFT????
Slashdot Mirror
I've been listening to the radio my entire life, regardless of tape, CDs, MP3s, internet radio (back when it was free) or streaming; I've even tried streaming, and found it lacking. Broadcast radio has never been perfect, but then again what is? Yes, you have to listen to commercials -- but commercials or no, you pay one way or another. You don't always get to hear exactly what you want to hear, but if you want that you have to pay anyway. The only way you don't have to pay is if you pirate. I'd rather own copies I can listen to whenver I want and never have to pay again, rather than pay monthly whether I listen or not, plus use up a dataplan (if mobile). What I'm seeing is that they're monetizing you one way or the other. I can switch stations via presets or just turn the volume down/mute the radio if there are commercials on broadcast FM. If I want to hear something specific then I'll play my own music.
What kind of world are we living in where some shitty game you play on your phone gets made into a movie you have to go to a theatre to pay to see?
Some people give me dirty looks when I say that humans are getting dumber, not smarter, but then something like this comes along and proves just how right I actually am.
How can you people claim you're 'cutting the cord' when you PAY for all these rediculous streaming services? Go back to owning your own music, not paying every month to listen to it, and turn on the nice, free, broadcast radio otherwise, and not use up your expensive, overpriced dataplans. Seriuously: Pay for a connection to the Internet, then pay someone for content, too, every month? Rediculous. You're just cutting one cord and getting TWO new ones.
JarJar didn't stick his neck out for shit. He made himself look good to fans for little to no risk.
You can't prove that one way or the other, it's literally just your opinion. Regardless he's on public record as saying that so we have to take it at face value unless he proves otherwise with his actions.
Heh, you and me both, friend.
In all seriousness, I'm still using the RAZR V9 I bought years ago. The outside display has a dead spot in it just over one of the touchscreen buttons (this damage is recent), and the outside glass is cracked, and the rubber coating recently peeled off the battery cover, but it still works fine as a phone, and that's all I need. I still can't justify the expense to purchase or operate a smartphone, especially with what a swisscheese they are so far as security goes. I'd welcome an updated version of what I have. The only real improvement I'd like is a better music player built into it.
Whereas I've been a harsh critic of his Star Trek-flavored (which is like saying something is 'chocolate flavored', but not containing any actual chocolate) movies, but have greatly enjoyed his various television series (which makes for some internal conflicts for me), I now have a little more respect for the man that he'd stick his neck out for this. Now, if only Paramount will heed his words and let the whole thing drop for real..
So in other words, Google is admitting that their so-called 'self-driving cars' will hit pedestrians, and they're trying (vainly) to mitigate that already. Face it, people: You're going to be driving yourself for a long, long time to come, so you'd better get to a driver training school once in a while to make sure your skillset is up to par. Also, who the hell would be insane enough to want to sit down in a box on wheels with no controls for a human being and let it control YOU? That's nuts and I'll be having NONE of it, thank you very much. This whole idea is rediculous, self-driving car fanbois apparently don't understand the technology involved and how far short of the mark it falls, the so-called 'statistics' of Google's cars' safety is meaningless because it turns over control to the human operator all the time, only goes 20mph max, never on a freeway, and otherwise there isn't enough data to call any 'statistics' reliable, and last but not least: so-called 'self-driving cars' will actually take away people's very much human right to choose, and will control THEM instead of them controlling IT, and that's just plain wrong. Technology is supposed to be tools for humans, not something that controls or enslaves humans. I am and will continue to be philosophically opposed to the entire idea of a vehicle I am not allowed to directly control and would not own one for any reason. The most I'll accept is a 'driver assist' system that acts as a sophisticated autopilot when I flip the switch to allow it to do so. Otherwise I'll just keep driving myself, thank-you-very-much. Oh, and by the way? You people get your way anyway? I'll go out of my way to troll your self-driving car to the point where it has an epileptic fit and just shuts down, just for the lulz. Oh, and also: Enjoy knowing that your utterly uncontrollable self-driving car can be brought to some other destination than what you intended, or brought to a complete stop in the middle of nowhere, wirelessly, by any cop that decides he wants to do so, or government agency, or criminal wanting to carjack you, or any bored script kiddie. That's the world you're buying into, and I will LAUGH OUT LOUD at you when it happoens -- then drive or ride away knowing that it won't happen to me. {/rant}
..but they didn't turn themselves in, and they didn't return their ill-gotten gains, so they're still scumbags
Sure. But how often do you get any sort of an apology like this? With all the ugly shit going on all over the world, isn't it a little refreshing that someone actually says they're sorry and makes at least some token amends for their actions? Small consolation or not.
The use of the word 'sabotage' seems to indicate a conspiracy. Seems more likely to me that people are just rating according to how much they liked a program. Also seems likely to me that, ironically, this article has some sort of agenda all it's own.
Nothing to see here?
because without a cultural reference most art is actually meaningless and completely unemotional
Oh so you admit that it's BOTH 'cultural' and 'emotional'? Thanks for validating my point, have a nice day!
Art is cultural
Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both 'cultural' and 'emotional'? I disagree with your disagreement.
I hadn't realized it's been 20 years since any GMO crop had been released into the wild. Where does the time go? Guess I've been busy.
At any rate, there's no point in even getting upset over GMO plants now. Why? Because it's already proliferated throughout the ecosphere of the planet by now; it's too late to do anything about it, if there's damage done, it's now irreversible anyway, we couldn't take it back if we tried. If in another 20 years, or 50 years, or 100 years, we discover that it was, indeed A Huge Mistake, we'll just have to deal with the consequences then -- assuming there's anything we can do at that point.
Since not a single one of you are anything more than Anonymous Cowards, I guess I need to comment on my own comment.
The reason you don't 'get' art, is you're not emotionally available to it. Art is one of the most 'human' things that humans have ever invented, because the whole point of art, is to evoke an emotional response within the person viewing it. That being said, no two people are going to have exactly, precisely the same emotional response to a particular piece of art. Then there's people who Just Don't Get It, and maybe not for lack of trying on their part; they're just not available to it, emotionally, to be affected by it in any way, for whatever reason.
That all being said: I don't get most art, either. But at least I understand the point of it, and can appreciate that aspect of it. Doesn't mean I think all art is trash and a ripoff, it just means I won't go out of my way for most of it. I'll even admit that perhaps more exposure to it and study of it would expand my understanding and appreciation for it.
Oh and by the way: music is a form of art, too; if you really can honestly say that there has never been a piece of music of any genre whatsoever that never evoked some sort of emotional response in you, then perhaps you are, in fact, dead inside.
In the future, we may see Google use machine-learning algorithms to analyze influential classical painters and create new masterpieces.
Nope, nope, and hell, no. At best they might create 'in the style of such-and-such classical artist', but they won't be 'masterpieces'. Google's hubris, arrogance, and lack of taste, apparently, know no bounds. AI fanbois can bite me.
Yeah sure thing because governments just love 'secessionists' so much, that they have pet names for them: 'dissidents', 'revolutionaries', 'terrorists', 'insurgents', 'enemy of the State', and similar. Know what a 'secessionist' without weapons is called? 'Prisoner'.
Shove it up your ass, AC.
If the specific implementation doesn't support the function built into the silicon then that's one thing, but if the specific device has the capability and the wireless company supporting it on their network is specifically disabling it, then I think that's wrong, they're cheating you out of a legitimate capability of the device, and as TFA alludes to, if they're doing it to force you to use up your expensive dataplan on streaming services instead, then I too would cry foul.
Unless it's someone you're involved with, someone else's sexual relations are none of your business, so you should keep your nose out of it, and if you're so unhappy with your government that you feel the need to 'seceed', then I'd suggest you work within the existing system to change it (soap box, ballot box, jury box) before resorting to the 'ammo box', which is where secessionism leads; either that or I suggest you 'emigrate' to some country more to your liking.
Oh, I see: Being a secessionist is OK in your book, but one adult utilizing the service being offered by another adult in exchange for monetary compensation is not OK? 'Make war not love' is your motto, then? Violent revolution is OK in your book, but casual sex isn't?
Guess what, friend? We can enable the FM receiver on your phone right now, without your permission -- and nobody is forcing you to use it at all. You can go on about your business as usual, using up your dataplan to listen to streaming services, or your own music, or whatever, and it won't change anything for you. On the other hand, people who'd like to use it on their own phone are then free to do so, and profit thereby. If I didn't know any better, I'd be tempted to think that in so many words you're saying 'Stop liking what I don't like!', but of course that would be silly, now wouldn't it? I'd also be tempted to wonder if you're a paid shill for the telecom companies or some other competing interest, but that would be rather silly, too, wouldn't it?
If the hardware is there, people have paid for it, they should be allowed to use it, plain and simple.
No, what I think a fair portion of them want is to return the United States to something like Pleasantville.
The only 'value' there is in Facebook anymore is the 'value' that Zuckerberg and Facebook shareholders get from monetizing it's users and selling their personal information, and people are getting clued in finally that 'sharing' on Facebook is counter to their interests. So shush, Facebook shill/troll. The smart people (like me) dumped Facebook years ago. Everyone else will soon follow.
Non-progressive societies don't encourage girls to do things like science and math in the first place, they expect them to adopt 'traditional female roles'.
Your post is full of baloney. If the vast majority of people wanted public transportation instead of their own vehicles, then that's what we'd have, but we don't now do we? Not everyone lives or wants to live in an urban center, and that's the only environment where mass public transit would actually work -- but people don't want to ride on smelly crowded buses with the unwashed masses, they want to take themselves and their kids in a nice safe relatively clean private vehicle where they don't have to worry about people sharing their germs, inappropriate behavior, or getting robbed. They also don't want to have to wait for it to show up, or have it take several times longer to arrive at their destination, or have to walk maybe a mile or two because it won't go door-to-door.
If YOU don't want to own a car that's your business. But don't for a minute think you speak for the majority of people, or are some oracle that can see the future.
Haven't you people got the message yet? Go back to email lists or (gasp!) telephone calls to stay in touch with people. After you exclude the fake online-only friends, most people will be down to about a dozen anyway, easy enough to manage.
We own the computers they're making unilateral decisions for, what the actual fuck happened to our choice as the owners of the hardware they're forcing their software on??????
This is positively CRIMINAL and has to be STOPPED. WHERE ARE THE CRIMINAL AND/OR CIVIL CHARGES AGAINST MICROSOFT????