Again, numbers make all the difference in the world. Any number of scenarios are possible, what matters is probability. How often do these things give permission to fire incorrectly? If it's 10% of the time, then still, nine out of ten times an attacker wrestles your gun away from you and tries to shoot you with it, you're saved. And that's assuming the device doesn't deter him from trying it.
I'm guessing you mean any increased chance, since we live in the real world where everything always has a non-zero chance of not working as advertised. How much of an increased chance do these things have of failing? I'd be interested to see real data rather than conjecture. If this thing fails one out of every, I dunno, one thousand trigger pulls, that could be more reliable than your average Saturday night special.
I think you'd also want to compare, if possible, the chances of you needing to shoot someone with the chances of someone shooting you with your own gun, before concluding you're worse off with this. Whether or not you're safer with a gun in the home is controversial and heavily written about, the risks of being shot by your gun vs the likelihood of you shooting a would-be-attacker. I don't have an opinion on the subject as I'm not prepared to wade into the literature, but it seems like this tech would avoid the chance of the former while still giving you the chance at the latter. That could be a net benefit even given the chance of the gun refusing to fire when you needed it.
Either way, these are just hypotheses, we'd need hard data. I know its fun to not use data when discussing public policy and especially gun control, I certainly don't have any.
The USPTO seems to be insulting itself worse. I'd rather everyone know I was drunk and on coke than everyone know I was a useless rubber stamp, enabling patent trolls to leech off of society.
Metal gear solid had something like this. "Look on the back of the CD case." I was not the only person to be totally confused about that. I hadn't found any CD cases. I actually restarted the game, convinced I had missed finding something that was necessary to continue and the game had glitched. It was only after looking up online that I figured out it meant the case of the game. And it told me the word anyway.
I'm astonished that the studio executives own intestines didn't spring forth and strangle the man for such blatant hypocrisy. I'm astonished that politicians aren't on television right now saying "Yeah, that's some pot/kettle 'black' shit right there. I'm astonished any reporter he was talking to didn't kick him in the balls. I mean, I probably would have done all those things. Simultaneously in fact.
If that response got any traction, I think it might backfire. They'll immediately steal our privacy, then quibble about the details of the flipside until everyone forgets about it or worse. I mean, filing a complaint on an officer gets you arrested, imagine what type of lists you'd be put on for registering to get access to the department video feeds. Which would likely be "offline" for the important parts anyway.
I think the most annoying thing about Florian is the knowledge that someone actually pays money for this behavior. I guess the point is to try to decrease the value of googles stock and... what exactly? Then they'll go out of business leaving MS, oracle, amazon, and apple to split up the territory?
It's fucking absurd. Whoever is wasting money funding this guy should give it to me. For half of whatever they're paying him, I'll buy a windows phone. That seems like a much better return on their investment.
To surrender to a corporate tyrant is just as bad as to surrender to any other sort of tyrant.
I'm pretty flamingly socialist, but that's just not true. If the corporate tyrant has the power to kill you legally against your wishes, then there's a problem with the government.
It's the new Iron law of wages. Except now without any pretense of it being better for them, because if you paid them much more than they need to not starve, they'd fuck like rabbits until they had more mouths to feed and were back to near-starvation. Now the reason is "Because the market! Investors!"
Ideally we'd get to the point of complete honesty, where workers are always plainly "Because fuck you, that's why," and then no one could possibly pretend that it was better for everyone this way.
I agree. "Voting with your wallet" only works if you agree with the demographic that is "voting" the most. In this case, as with many other cases, it's utter morons who are voting the most.
Actual voting, of course, works only slightly better, since the idiots can only vote once.
I'm not sure if this is already a rule, but I say if there are only two or three competitors, we stop using terms like free market, capitalism, and competitive markets, and instead call it something else. I'd suggest "socialism" since using it as a slur to describe things you don't like even if it's not actually socialism seems popular. We'd have to rename things that are actually socialism of course, but we probably need to do that anyway.
That seems like a huge generalization, as there are thousands of types of cancers. Also seems like you're thinking very narrowly in an attempt to criticize the researchers. Perhaps there is a chemotheraputic that is really effective at killing a type of cancer, but is also super effective at destroying your liver. Perhaps you could beat cancer by taking your liver out and keeping it going while taking the drug, then putting it back in. Or perhaps this technology advancing a little could allow you to take a liver biopsy, grow a new liver in culture, and then replacing it. No need for immunosupressants.
This is a big advance, even if there are still specific problems.
I don't live in the UK. Perhaps there's a huge problem with men masturbating to porn in public places? I'd say if I saw ten dudes jacking off while clutching smartphones and tablets every time I went into a coffee house, I'd want to ban porn in public too.
What's that? This is not the situation in the UK? Oh God... that would imply that some politicians are trying to convince idiot voters that they're needed to regulate morals in society! It might further imply that people who try to use government to clean up societies are fucking idiots who are absolutely worthless and should be deported to a Taliban-ruled country where everyone is castrated and forced to wear a tent in public!
He's the "business" guy. Seems like he's not really a computer guy, he's just another executive type. He says things and does things not out of interest in computers or altruism, he seems to behave exactly as any other executive type stuck in that position would, just out to make money and screw everyone else over. The only thing that's different is that the company happens to be Google, and they at least have the motto of "don't be evil." I'm obviously not in on the inner workings of Google, but I suspect were Schmidt the only guy in charge from the start, everyone here would hate Google just as much as apple or MS.
"Should" not meaning realistically, not that you SHOULDN'T enjoy privacy in your own back yard. Sure you can take additional measures to ensure your privacy, but that doesn't mean that failing to take those measures, you should be denied privacy.
"If you wanted to keep your significant other's private parts private, you should have told him or her to wear infrared-blocking underwear, thus I'm okay to post pictures of their genitals I took via infrared when they went outside fully clothed all over the internet" is an example of the alternative meaning. Obviously, you SHOULD have privacy as a default. Obviously, this is not necessarily the case, however the guilty party there is the one invading privacy, not the ones expecting privacy.
Background processing. Anyway, my point is that while you may hypothesize that talking on a handsfree headset is no different from talking to a passenger, the studies indicate this is not the case: that most people's brains for whatever reason sees a cell phone conversation as different from talking to a person, and that talking on the phone is something they need to focus on more than driving.
The news here is that HTC now breaks that tradition and just offers their cellphone directly to consumers, simlock free. And that does matter.
It will matter if and when phone companies start offering discounts to people who buy their own phones. Last time I checked, t-mobile was the only company that didn't charge you the same rate as someone with a subsidized phone. Meaning if you buy your own phone for $400 more than verizon or AT&T would sell you with a 2 year contract, and you stay with them for 2 years anyway, you've wasted at least $400, and likely quite a bit more in the monthly fees.
With only one real competitor, each can get away with it. They compete over who can get the fanciest phone of the month, getting the rest of their consumers to pay for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, numbers make all the difference in the world. Any number of scenarios are possible, what matters is probability. How often do these things give permission to fire incorrectly? If it's 10% of the time, then still, nine out of ten times an attacker wrestles your gun away from you and tries to shoot you with it, you're saved. And that's assuming the device doesn't deter him from trying it.
I'm guessing you mean any increased chance, since we live in the real world where everything always has a non-zero chance of not working as advertised. How much of an increased chance do these things have of failing? I'd be interested to see real data rather than conjecture. If this thing fails one out of every, I dunno, one thousand trigger pulls, that could be more reliable than your average Saturday night special.
I think you'd also want to compare, if possible, the chances of you needing to shoot someone with the chances of someone shooting you with your own gun, before concluding you're worse off with this. Whether or not you're safer with a gun in the home is controversial and heavily written about, the risks of being shot by your gun vs the likelihood of you shooting a would-be-attacker. I don't have an opinion on the subject as I'm not prepared to wade into the literature, but it seems like this tech would avoid the chance of the former while still giving you the chance at the latter. That could be a net benefit even given the chance of the gun refusing to fire when you needed it.
Either way, these are just hypotheses, we'd need hard data. I know its fun to not use data when discussing public policy and especially gun control, I certainly don't have any.
He was probably too busy sending out virtual DMCA notices to the virtual torrenters in the game to read the summary.
The USPTO seems to be insulting itself worse. I'd rather everyone know I was drunk and on coke than everyone know I was a useless rubber stamp, enabling patent trolls to leech off of society.
No, I'm 30 and my sister and I thought it would be funny. I don't use twitter. Quit making assumptions about people you've never met.
if China for example started collecting up old US sattelites, I suspect there would be trouble, etc.
You think that would stop them? I suspect China would tell the US to go fuck off. Or would say "Think of it as repo for the money you owe us."
Metal gear solid had something like this. "Look on the back of the CD case." I was not the only person to be totally confused about that. I hadn't found any CD cases. I actually restarted the game, convinced I had missed finding something that was necessary to continue and the game had glitched. It was only after looking up online that I figured out it meant the case of the game. And it told me the word anyway.
I'm going to assume that vortexcortex inhaled/smoked coolant from his refrigerator.
I suppose you've never retold a funny joke you heard or taken part in a prank someone else came up with.
If our parents didn't know we were morons already, then I'm not sure why they'd catch on NOW. Also, don't call me a child, I'm 30.
My dad's reaction was a bit muted. I think had it not been for concern for his grandson's welfare, he wouldn't have bothered responding.
I'm astonished that the studio executives own intestines didn't spring forth and strangle the man for such blatant hypocrisy. I'm astonished that politicians aren't on television right now saying "Yeah, that's some pot/kettle 'black' shit right there. I'm astonished any reporter he was talking to didn't kick him in the balls. I mean, I probably would have done all those things. Simultaneously in fact.
NO!!! Don't let them choose! You and I both know what the people will choose these days!
If that response got any traction, I think it might backfire. They'll immediately steal our privacy, then quibble about the details of the flipside until everyone forgets about it or worse. I mean, filing a complaint on an officer gets you arrested, imagine what type of lists you'd be put on for registering to get access to the department video feeds. Which would likely be "offline" for the important parts anyway.
I think the most annoying thing about Florian is the knowledge that someone actually pays money for this behavior. I guess the point is to try to decrease the value of googles stock and... what exactly? Then they'll go out of business leaving MS, oracle, amazon, and apple to split up the territory?
It's fucking absurd. Whoever is wasting money funding this guy should give it to me. For half of whatever they're paying him, I'll buy a windows phone. That seems like a much better return on their investment.
To surrender to a corporate tyrant is just as bad as to surrender to any other sort of tyrant.
I'm pretty flamingly socialist, but that's just not true. If the corporate tyrant has the power to kill you legally against your wishes, then there's a problem with the government.
It's the new Iron law of wages. Except now without any pretense of it being better for them, because if you paid them much more than they need to not starve, they'd fuck like rabbits until they had more mouths to feed and were back to near-starvation. Now the reason is "Because the market! Investors!"
Ideally we'd get to the point of complete honesty, where workers are always plainly "Because fuck you, that's why," and then no one could possibly pretend that it was better for everyone this way.
I agree. "Voting with your wallet" only works if you agree with the demographic that is "voting" the most. In this case, as with many other cases, it's utter morons who are voting the most.
Actual voting, of course, works only slightly better, since the idiots can only vote once.
I'm not sure if this is already a rule, but I say if there are only two or three competitors, we stop using terms like free market, capitalism, and competitive markets, and instead call it something else. I'd suggest "socialism" since using it as a slur to describe things you don't like even if it's not actually socialism seems popular. We'd have to rename things that are actually socialism of course, but we probably need to do that anyway.
That seems like a huge generalization, as there are thousands of types of cancers. Also seems like you're thinking very narrowly in an attempt to criticize the researchers. Perhaps there is a chemotheraputic that is really effective at killing a type of cancer, but is also super effective at destroying your liver. Perhaps you could beat cancer by taking your liver out and keeping it going while taking the drug, then putting it back in. Or perhaps this technology advancing a little could allow you to take a liver biopsy, grow a new liver in culture, and then replacing it. No need for immunosupressants.
This is a big advance, even if there are still specific problems.
I don't live in the UK. Perhaps there's a huge problem with men masturbating to porn in public places? I'd say if I saw ten dudes jacking off while clutching smartphones and tablets every time I went into a coffee house, I'd want to ban porn in public too.
What's that? This is not the situation in the UK? Oh God... that would imply that some politicians are trying to convince idiot voters that they're needed to regulate morals in society! It might further imply that people who try to use government to clean up societies are fucking idiots who are absolutely worthless and should be deported to a Taliban-ruled country where everyone is castrated and forced to wear a tent in public!
He's the "business" guy. Seems like he's not really a computer guy, he's just another executive type. He says things and does things not out of interest in computers or altruism, he seems to behave exactly as any other executive type stuck in that position would, just out to make money and screw everyone else over. The only thing that's different is that the company happens to be Google, and they at least have the motto of "don't be evil." I'm obviously not in on the inner workings of Google, but I suspect were Schmidt the only guy in charge from the start, everyone here would hate Google just as much as apple or MS.
"Should" not meaning realistically, not that you SHOULDN'T enjoy privacy in your own back yard. Sure you can take additional measures to ensure your privacy, but that doesn't mean that failing to take those measures, you should be denied privacy.
"If you wanted to keep your significant other's private parts private, you should have told him or her to wear infrared-blocking underwear, thus I'm okay to post pictures of their genitals I took via infrared when they went outside fully clothed all over the internet" is an example of the alternative meaning. Obviously, you SHOULD have privacy as a default. Obviously, this is not necessarily the case, however the guilty party there is the one invading privacy, not the ones expecting privacy.
You're making a straw man argument. No one is saying they CAN'T do this.
Background processing. Anyway, my point is that while you may hypothesize that talking on a handsfree headset is no different from talking to a passenger, the studies indicate this is not the case: that most people's brains for whatever reason sees a cell phone conversation as different from talking to a person, and that talking on the phone is something they need to focus on more than driving.
The news here is that HTC now breaks that tradition and just offers their cellphone directly to consumers, simlock free. And that does matter.
It will matter if and when phone companies start offering discounts to people who buy their own phones. Last time I checked, t-mobile was the only company that didn't charge you the same rate as someone with a subsidized phone. Meaning if you buy your own phone for $400 more than verizon or AT&T would sell you with a 2 year contract, and you stay with them for 2 years anyway, you've wasted at least $400, and likely quite a bit more in the monthly fees.
With only one real competitor, each can get away with it. They compete over who can get the fanciest phone of the month, getting the rest of their consumers to pay for it.