I do wish more people realized that cops in the US have serious problems and operate more like big brother than they need to. That said, I don't follow your logic here. "Cops do bad things, anonymous doesn't do and won't do as many bad things, therefore this thing that they're thinking of doing is okay"?
The fact that they're whining about how hard they have it suggests to me that they do have it easy. It's the new first rule of PR: if you're on top, make it sound like you're a victim of something, an underdog. Witness MS trying to make it sound like Linux is stealing trillions of dollars from them, or the religious majority of the country claiming there's a "War on Christmas."
Plus there are different fan bases reacting as far as I can tell. I watched the original "Wrath of Khan" after the latest JJ star trek and almost couldn't get through it. At the risk of the wrath of the trekkies, I'm going to say that aside from nostalgia for the old series, most viewers would prefer the newer one. The hardcore fans were pissed, but they're dramatically outnumbered by people who liked it. So I wouldn't say "some people have this opinion," I would say "very few people think JJ star trek movies were awful compared to the older movies."
Previous attempts to convince people have not been successful yet either. It's been said you can't reason someone out of a position they have not reasoned themselves into, this is true for climate change. Simply letting the truth speak for itself and guide policy has been a depressing failure. Different approaches must be tried.
My point was that politics sometimes sometimes follow facts, often they don't, but that doesn't change the nature of the facts themselves. Concluding "any facts politicians agree on must be wrong" is as stupid as suggesting the reverse. Anon-admin was suggesting that since climate change is being discussed by politicians, it's not science. That's backwards.
I don't understand why it needs to have a camera on it. I just want a heads up display. It requires a smartphone right? Are there ANY smartphones which do not already have a camera on it?
If I'm walking along reading a text on a glass display and I see Bigfoot, I could pull out my phone and use that camera. Not having a camera on the glass itself would not be an issue. Bigfoot could say "Hey man, could you not film me," and I could put my phone back in my pocket and apologize. Then bigfoot would say "Are you still filming me with that google glass?" and I could say "No, it's glass 2, so there's no camera" and he would say "Oh cool, now I know I'm not being filmed and I can relax. Hey, have you seen 'Harry and the Hendersons.'" And I could say "Uh... I'm watching it right now!"
With the camera on there, I would assure him I'm not filming him still, and he'd still be nervous, and then might rip my head off. That's why I won't be buying a glass with a camera on it. I like my head where it is.
I'm saving my "stop spying on me" outrage for the government. When we arrest Brennan and dismantle the NSA, then I'll have some room on my plate to get mad at individual people who might be filming me without my consent.
I'm not familiar with the track record of students kicked out of high schools for idiotic reasons such as this, but I've heard of some students who sued their school districts, seems like the case I'm remembering they got into decent schools.
"I stood up to my school district for invading my privacy, they expelled me, I got the ACLU to sue them and got reinstated/a hefty settlement that I'm using for college tuition" seems like a college essay that would really stand out from "I volunteered once at a soup kitchen."
Keep in mind that rules like these are rules made by cowards: they're not doing this because they believe the best way of educating their students is to invade their privacy. This is purely the work of administrators who are afraid of lawyers hiding behind every corner. That works both ways: they'll pick on the wrong student before too long, that student will call their bluff, the school will make even dumber threats, the student will organize a legal response, and the school will back down in a huff saying it's unfortunate that they couldn't protect students or something like that.
4chan was the place you could say ANYTHING. People would go on the most insane rants on that site. Say some positively evil things. And judge that as you will, there are very few places on the internet that are well known that you could get away with that sort of thing.
"Very few places" here being slashdot, youtube, reddit, twitter, and pretty much everywhere else on the internet...
I can't imagine how you got "democracy is good... but... hm... ehm... [cognitive dissonance]... except in Israel" from my post. I'm saying it SHOULD be democracy even though I won't like the result very much. I'm simply acknowledging that Palestinians aren't saints (no country is), their understanding of human rights is different than mine (again true of nearly every other country including the US), and that Palestinians aren't particularly fond of US interests (with good and obvious reasons).
If it were a true democracy, I think there would be very real safety concerns for Israeli Jews immediately. Going from one group being persecuted to the other group being persecuted isn't good. But at least that would be democracy rather than persecution WITHOUT democracy.
A treaty doesn't dictate reality. The US and Israel pretend Palestine is a seperate country when it suits them, but do everything possible to prevent it in reality. Look at how bent out of shape they got when Palestine wanted a seat at the UN. It's a part of Israel in reality governed by Israel and totally subject to Israel's rule, but they have no vote.
"Undue influence" is quite an understatement. Israel doesn't allow Palestinians to leave, and prevents anyone it can from entering. They're not allowed to import anything aside from life-sustaining rations Israel approves of. Israel did all it could to prevent Palestinians from voting for who they wanted to in their own elections. They're not allowed to have an army. Israel encourages extremists to take Palestinian territory with force. On top of that, Israel is attacking Palestine in an extremely one-sided conflict.
Aside from the freedom to reproduce, there doesn't seem to be much that Israel doesn't attempt to control about Palestinian life.
You'd suggest what? Cynicism is warranted with politics, but when it gets into resignation, then it's usually a contributor to the problem. People who would stand against the spying are too busy lamenting how the country is going to hell in a handbasket to actually demand something real. People who like their politics to be like a wrestling match in the meantime cheer on their team and let everything else get trampled.
I did some quick googling, I'm sure there is controversy over some of these numbers:
Number of Knesset members: 120
Number of current Arab Knesset members: 12 or 10%
Number of Israelis: 8 million
Number of Palestinians: 4.4 million
Given that Israel rules Palestine, that really doesn't meet my definition of democracy. As an American I'm sure I'd have problems with an Islamic Israel, but we tell ourselves we value democracy and freedom above all else. Furthermore, I can't imagine the current course will end up better.
They were honest: comcast is very scared of it. And those cities WERE failed experiments in the sense that they weren't very experimental. What's the hypothesis here being tested? That the city can offer a municipal service... involving computers?
The rights of corporations to put out fliers has never been in question. It has nothing to do with corporate personhood, nothing to do with spending money as speech.
If you don't want corporations to be considered people in terms of freedom of speech, fine, lets pretend that's the case. Only real people have freedom of speech, done. What a roadblock for comcast! Why, they would have to give money to some real person in order to have THAT person exercise their freedom of speech in the form of misleading fliers! Man, that could add a whole hour or two to the process, imagine how much freedom we'd have! (single tear runs down cheek)
Ignorance is no excuse from legal repercussions is the meaning of that phrase. Google made that statement to a reporter asking for comment, not in a courtroom. In reality (as opposed to the legal system) yes, ignorance of a law definitely is a good excuse. Look at patent trolls, those are clear cases where ignorance of the laws are unfortunately not a legal defense but are definitely a moral excuse.
Slashdot Mirror
I do wish more people realized that cops in the US have serious problems and operate more like big brother than they need to. That said, I don't follow your logic here. "Cops do bad things, anonymous doesn't do and won't do as many bad things, therefore this thing that they're thinking of doing is okay"?
"If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" has got to be the most disingenuous lie that law enforcement has ever come up with.
The fact that they're whining about how hard they have it suggests to me that they do have it easy. It's the new first rule of PR: if you're on top, make it sound like you're a victim of something, an underdog. Witness MS trying to make it sound like Linux is stealing trillions of dollars from them, or the religious majority of the country claiming there's a "War on Christmas."
You seem to be assuming that operating glass hands free is safer than pulling out your phone. This sounds unlikely to me given the available data.
Outside of a car, again, pull out your smartphone's camera.
I didn't say I hated glass.
Plus there are different fan bases reacting as far as I can tell. I watched the original "Wrath of Khan" after the latest JJ star trek and almost couldn't get through it. At the risk of the wrath of the trekkies, I'm going to say that aside from nostalgia for the old series, most viewers would prefer the newer one. The hardcore fans were pissed, but they're dramatically outnumbered by people who liked it. So I wouldn't say "some people have this opinion," I would say "very few people think JJ star trek movies were awful compared to the older movies."
Previous attempts to convince people have not been successful yet either. It's been said you can't reason someone out of a position they have not reasoned themselves into, this is true for climate change. Simply letting the truth speak for itself and guide policy has been a depressing failure. Different approaches must be tried.
My point was that politics sometimes sometimes follow facts, often they don't, but that doesn't change the nature of the facts themselves. Concluding "any facts politicians agree on must be wrong" is as stupid as suggesting the reverse. Anon-admin was suggesting that since climate change is being discussed by politicians, it's not science. That's backwards.
I don't understand why it needs to have a camera on it. I just want a heads up display. It requires a smartphone right? Are there ANY smartphones which do not already have a camera on it?
If I'm walking along reading a text on a glass display and I see Bigfoot, I could pull out my phone and use that camera. Not having a camera on the glass itself would not be an issue. Bigfoot could say "Hey man, could you not film me," and I could put my phone back in my pocket and apologize. Then bigfoot would say "Are you still filming me with that google glass?" and I could say "No, it's glass 2, so there's no camera" and he would say "Oh cool, now I know I'm not being filmed and I can relax. Hey, have you seen 'Harry and the Hendersons.'" And I could say "Uh... I'm watching it right now!"
With the camera on there, I would assure him I'm not filming him still, and he'd still be nervous, and then might rip my head off. That's why I won't be buying a glass with a camera on it. I like my head where it is.
I'm saving my "stop spying on me" outrage for the government. When we arrest Brennan and dismantle the NSA, then I'll have some room on my plate to get mad at individual people who might be filming me without my consent.
I'm not familiar with the track record of students kicked out of high schools for idiotic reasons such as this, but I've heard of some students who sued their school districts, seems like the case I'm remembering they got into decent schools.
"I stood up to my school district for invading my privacy, they expelled me, I got the ACLU to sue them and got reinstated/a hefty settlement that I'm using for college tuition" seems like a college essay that would really stand out from "I volunteered once at a soup kitchen."
Keep in mind that rules like these are rules made by cowards: they're not doing this because they believe the best way of educating their students is to invade their privacy. This is purely the work of administrators who are afraid of lawyers hiding behind every corner. That works both ways: they'll pick on the wrong student before too long, that student will call their bluff, the school will make even dumber threats, the student will organize a legal response, and the school will back down in a huff saying it's unfortunate that they couldn't protect students or something like that.
4chan was the place you could say ANYTHING. People would go on the most insane rants on that site. Say some positively evil things. And judge that as you will, there are very few places on the internet that are well known that you could get away with that sort of thing.
"Very few places" here being slashdot, youtube, reddit, twitter, and pretty much everywhere else on the internet...
I, too, think that externalized costs are a scam. It would be nice if we could all actually admit that oil barrons are stealing money.
Well then I guess circles aren't geometry or math, they're actually political. Or maybe political discussions can cover scientific issues without making them non-science.
That said, you're right. It's not a question anymore. It's a scientific answer at this point.
I can't imagine how you got "democracy is good... but... hm... ehm... [cognitive dissonance]... except in Israel" from my post. I'm saying it SHOULD be democracy even though I won't like the result very much. I'm simply acknowledging that Palestinians aren't saints (no country is), their understanding of human rights is different than mine (again true of nearly every other country including the US), and that Palestinians aren't particularly fond of US interests (with good and obvious reasons).
If it were a true democracy, I think there would be very real safety concerns for Israeli Jews immediately. Going from one group being persecuted to the other group being persecuted isn't good. But at least that would be democracy rather than persecution WITHOUT democracy.
A treaty doesn't dictate reality. The US and Israel pretend Palestine is a seperate country when it suits them, but do everything possible to prevent it in reality. Look at how bent out of shape they got when Palestine wanted a seat at the UN. It's a part of Israel in reality governed by Israel and totally subject to Israel's rule, but they have no vote.
Read this and tell me why Gaza is the terrorist state.
"Undue influence" is quite an understatement. Israel doesn't allow Palestinians to leave, and prevents anyone it can from entering. They're not allowed to import anything aside from life-sustaining rations Israel approves of. Israel did all it could to prevent Palestinians from voting for who they wanted to in their own elections. They're not allowed to have an army. Israel encourages extremists to take Palestinian territory with force. On top of that, Israel is attacking Palestine in an extremely one-sided conflict.
Aside from the freedom to reproduce, there doesn't seem to be much that Israel doesn't attempt to control about Palestinian life.
..which empirically is not enough to stop the current situation...
You'd suggest what? Cynicism is warranted with politics, but when it gets into resignation, then it's usually a contributor to the problem. People who would stand against the spying are too busy lamenting how the country is going to hell in a handbasket to actually demand something real. People who like their politics to be like a wrestling match in the meantime cheer on their team and let everything else get trampled.
and it has support from the executive branch as well
Never mind. We're doomed.
I agree. Furthermore, why make an egg now? Fuck that, wait for a chicken first, THEN make an egg. Greedy fucking ovipares always jumping the gun...
I did some quick googling, I'm sure there is controversy over some of these numbers:
Number of Knesset members: 120
Number of current Arab Knesset members: 12 or 10%
Number of Israelis: 8 million
Number of Palestinians: 4.4 million
Given that Israel rules Palestine, that really doesn't meet my definition of democracy. As an American I'm sure I'd have problems with an Islamic Israel, but we tell ourselves we value democracy and freedom above all else. Furthermore, I can't imagine the current course will end up better.
Angry birds... IN 3D!!
They were honest: comcast is very scared of it. And those cities WERE failed experiments in the sense that they weren't very experimental. What's the hypothesis here being tested? That the city can offer a municipal service... involving computers?
The rights of corporations to put out fliers has never been in question. It has nothing to do with corporate personhood, nothing to do with spending money as speech.
If you don't want corporations to be considered people in terms of freedom of speech, fine, lets pretend that's the case. Only real people have freedom of speech, done. What a roadblock for comcast! Why, they would have to give money to some real person in order to have THAT person exercise their freedom of speech in the form of misleading fliers! Man, that could add a whole hour or two to the process, imagine how much freedom we'd have! (single tear runs down cheek)
Ignorance is no excuse from legal repercussions is the meaning of that phrase. Google made that statement to a reporter asking for comment, not in a courtroom. In reality (as opposed to the legal system) yes, ignorance of a law definitely is a good excuse. Look at patent trolls, those are clear cases where ignorance of the laws are unfortunately not a legal defense but are definitely a moral excuse.