If you saying that the only reason that people trust the government more than private firms is because the government is more likely to get caught, that says far less for any trust in government than it does for just outright paranoia.
Ditto on the Starflight recommend. SF 1 had an amazingly detailed story that required some real-life skills with regards to problem solving and knowing how to take good notes from a conversation that isn't going to get recorded, with a climactic plot revelation that honestly made me gasp in total awe right where i was sitting when I discovered it shortly before the end of the game. I
Starflight 2 was equally compelling in terms of story, and shared many of Starflight 1's strengths, it's biggest flaw was in the endgame, which, in retrospect, felt more like a final boss fight than a carefully calculated set of actions chosen by the player to produce the intended conclusion. After the fight, the game was just over, with nothing more to do. The biggest "oh my god" moment (at least for me) in that game actually came as expository text after that battle, so I felt more disappointed with that game than the first. Overall still an excellent game though, and I would sorely love to see a continuation of the series that was true to the spirit of the originals, and especially had as much continuity with them as SF2 did with SF1.
Actually, I'm not sure that he *IS* qualified to debate this subject.
The debate topic is "is creation a viable model for origins?" Of course it is... it might not be remotely testable, scientific, or practical to teach in a science class, which may very well be issues that Bill Nye is more than qualified to talk about... but none of those are really the topic that is being debated. It's only "is creation a viable model for origins?" Which is to say, is it possible? Of course it is... even the most hard core protestor against creationism would have to confess that without a time machine, they are fundamentally incapable of disproving creation... all they may be able to do is prove that certain specific things have happened in the past, but that doesn't mean that the whole thing didn't really begin with "Let there be light".
So I think your question is very valid... is Bill Nye qualified? Not because Bill Nye has any lack of education, but because there is nothing about the topic that says that the subject of the debate must be scientific. And if the debate is not scientific, why is it being debated with somebody who is rather famously recognized as a scientist?
That is true, but it's true because the neighbor (or the boss, or the HR person, etc.) does have certain power over me
If you think about it for a second, you'd realize that this is a rationalization... a way of saying "it's not my fault", and blaming other people when things don't work the way you want, and it's all bullshit.
If somebody doesn't like you because you're doing something that isn't actually wrong, that's *THEIR* problem, not yours, and although they might try to make it yours if they decide to get physical with you over it, as you describe, in practice, most people that I've met are not so uncivilized as to resort to violence initially. Further, of course, the law would probably be on your side in the matter... the consequences for you might be some pain that will heal, while the consequences for a jealous boyfriend or husband against whom you hadn't even done anything may include a prison term (and at the very least a restraining order), and would probably have far longer reaching consequences for them than for you.
Only your wife can answer that question. And she will, mark my words:-)
The point I was trying to make is that my wife wouldn't worry....I'm not the sort of person to foster any kind of relationship, let alone a marriage, where I would not be deserving of implicit trust... I would not cheat on my wife and she would know that.
'By the way, I *am* married, and she *DOES* know that.
No adult wants to be judged for something stupid that he did 40 years ago.
Or, much more likely, it won't tend to be the case that people will care about holding it against a person for that amount of time. You don't need to forget a past mistake to move beyond it... in fact, forgetting mistakes only encourages their repetition.
I thought it's obvious. It does not matter if Joe did X in reality. All that matters for Joe's social life is what others think of Joe.
A mature person isn't really going to care what other people "think"... they are going to be concerned with just exhibiting as much integrity as they actually have, and moving forward from today. If outside circumstances have made it much more difficult because, say, they are being judged for getting drunk at the company christmas party, acting up, and getting fired, reducing the chances of finding new work anytime soon, that's unfortunate, but it's dick-all nothing compared to the shit that people without access to things like facebook have to deal with. In the time that I've typed this, alone, at least a dozen people have died from starvation... so really, people who are a little bit embarrassed about something that they did in public think that *THEY* have problems?
People need to have some perspective and realize that their own lives are really just not that important... they are to oneself, of course, and rightly so, but in the grand scheme of things, years down the road, the only people that are liable to hold things in your past against the kind of person you are trying to be today are people who are, to be honest, just not worth your time trying to impress... so stop trying. You accuse me of living in fear, and yet it seems to be you who does.... fear of what your neighbor might think of you when they see you doing something they don't agree with.
If it were obvious, then your statement is equally obvious... which makes your comment at best equivalent to a vacuous statement. Regardless, it's unhelpful... although I'm sure that's obvious too.
You are conveniently forgetting that human memory is short term, fallible, and cannot be mined by a computer.
What difference should the imperfection of human memory make? People not remembering that Joe did X does not mean that Joe never did X in reality. And where one person might forget an incident, another might remember it quite clearly, so assuming that everyone is going to definitely forget everything if they don't record it isn't really a safe bet. The only thing it does is introduce some sense of doubt when or if a person may intend to lie about something that they did which they do not want others to know about.
Imagine that you are married. One day you meet a girl who doesn't mind your company, and she asks you to take her to some public place.
If I were married, why would the fact that another girl who, as you put it, doesn't mind my company, be of any concern whatsoever to my wife? I'm not the sort of person who would cheat on the person I was with, so I'm not particularly worried about what my wife might find out if she sees me in a video that somebody captured. I'm not afraid of the scenario you've described, so it doesn't impact my freedom in the slightest.
If I am doing something that I don't want others to know about, and I'm not saying that there aren't such things in my life, I do them in private. That's not a limitation on my freedom because I am directly taking responsibility for my own privacy and not simply expecting other people to always offer it to me without any effort on my part. I maintain that it's absurd that people should have any serious expectation of privacy in a place where they can be publicly observed by anybody who happens to be in the vicinity, and I think many people who are afraid of Google glass may have an overinflated sense of importance of how much interest somebody else is actually liable to have in their actions.
Hope all you want... I'm not particularly worried it will actually happen. Your recitation of my email doesn't exactly send any shivers down my spine that you may actually know who I am, or have the willingness and ability to track me down and carry out your implied threat of physical violence, least of all from an AC.
I can understand objecting to recording devices which directly extend human senses beyond what is humanly possible to deliberately invade another's privacy, but what I don't get about the Google Glass objections is that they are usually just objecting to stuff being recorded that absolutely anybody in the vicinity could see or hear anyways. If I'm doing something where I'd feel uncomfortable with somebody recording me, I'd be doing it in private... where other people, or people I wouldn't want to be aware of what I'm doing can't see me in the first place. I'm not saying that if a person is doing nothing wrong they have nothing to hide, but I am saying that if a person feels that they need to hide something then perhaps they shouldn't be doing it in public in the first place. Relying on things like laws or even local policies to protect individual privacy is only going to lull people into a very superficial sense of security because somebody's going to eventually figure out how to not get caught and do it anyways.
That's only because most people think that what they are doing is actually important enough that anyone who happens to see a recording that they might incidentally happen to be in would ever even care. In fact, people who are being recorded draw *FAR* more attention to themselves by objecting against being recorded than they would if they simply ignored it entirely.
The main difference between cult and religion is longevity... a so-called "cult" belief that manages to remain established for more than about half a dozen generations or more may find itself being considered a religion by the end of that time.
I believe that secondary to longevity is that relative to the social environment that exists around it, a belief that would become religion does not tend to evolve or change very quickly. Not that I would suggest that religions are ever somehow magically immune to change that could easily infect any belief, but that the rate of its change is generally quite observably slower than the changes that otherwise happen in society itself. The reason for this is generally attributed to the high value and importance that people who believe that particular thing place on those beliefs, and so they tend to get passed along from generation to generation relatively unaltered.
So really, if you want to invent a new religion, you can try... but you won't be alive to see it actually become one.
If they Mars One team dies on launch, en route, or on the planet, there is a whole range of liability and monetary claim.
If???
It's all but a foregone certainty that some will die en-route... and I can't imagine those who survive the trip, if any, will live much beyond the first year.
Recall, for instance, just what the survivability rate was for people trying to get to the "new world" from Europe in the 1500's. And that was on a boat surrounded by a perfectly breathable atmosphere!
People are going to die... and it's not going to be pretty.
Because the truth of the matter is that we just aren't anywhere nearly ready for human colonization of Mars. I'd dare say that most of the people who try going anytime in the remotely near future won't even reach their destination alive.
I'm not wrong.... the Brick will refund the money for customers that don't want to take advantage of the actual discount that the Brick is offering and that will be the end of it. Customers are of course entirely welcome to try to sue the Brick for this, but they won't win.
You are incorrect about point 2. I can find nothing in the policy which says that about lower prices at the register (in fact, the only thing mentioned in that regard is that the customer is *NOT* entitled to any compensation)
You may also be interested in knowing that the law to which you referred was part of Quebec's "Accurate Pricing Policy", and governs cases where the price is *HIGHER* at checkout, not lower.
The law to which you keep referring would not be applicable because this was essentially a self-checkout. It is engineered to prevent bait-and-switch schemes, which this is not.
I'm reminded of a saying... "justice without mercy is tyranny".
I agree there needs to be a penalty, but in the end, this was caused only by very poor judgement on his part about what is really important. I'm not saying he should just be let off without penalty, only that while trying to carry out an appropriate punishment, that room for eventual forgiveness be present.
That said, I think that the ban should be long enough that when he's allowed to try to do it again, he'll basically be starting from zero, and he's going to have to work for at least just as long as he did before just to get back to where he already was. To that end, I'd suggest that a decade may be more apt than just 3 years.
Hopefully, he will have learned his lesson by that time. If he does it again, I could probably abide a lifetime ban.
Except if you were to knowingly take the excess money, you are basically a thief. You could try to argue that the machine just gave it to you, but guess what a judge would say to that, if it were to make it into court?
As it is, the Brick isn't even going to ship the items until they are paid for.
People are, I suppose, welcome to try to sue them or threaten to never shop there again... but it will make little difference. The Brick will just refund their money for people who don't want to pay the proper price, and that will be the end of it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you saying that the only reason that people trust the government more than private firms is because the government is more likely to get caught, that says far less for any trust in government than it does for just outright paranoia.
Ditto on the Starflight recommend. SF 1 had an amazingly detailed story that required some real-life skills with regards to problem solving and knowing how to take good notes from a conversation that isn't going to get recorded, with a climactic plot revelation that honestly made me gasp in total awe right where i was sitting when I discovered it shortly before the end of the game. I
Starflight 2 was equally compelling in terms of story, and shared many of Starflight 1's strengths, it's biggest flaw was in the endgame, which, in retrospect, felt more like a final boss fight than a carefully calculated set of actions chosen by the player to produce the intended conclusion. After the fight, the game was just over, with nothing more to do. The biggest "oh my god" moment (at least for me) in that game actually came as expository text after that battle, so I felt more disappointed with that game than the first. Overall still an excellent game though, and I would sorely love to see a continuation of the series that was true to the spirit of the originals, and especially had as much continuity with them as SF2 did with SF1.
Actually, I'm not sure that he *IS* qualified to debate this subject.
The debate topic is "is creation a viable model for origins?" Of course it is... it might not be remotely testable, scientific, or practical to teach in a science class, which may very well be issues that Bill Nye is more than qualified to talk about... but none of those are really the topic that is being debated. It's only "is creation a viable model for origins?" Which is to say, is it possible? Of course it is... even the most hard core protestor against creationism would have to confess that without a time machine, they are fundamentally incapable of disproving creation... all they may be able to do is prove that certain specific things have happened in the past, but that doesn't mean that the whole thing didn't really begin with "Let there be light".
So I think your question is very valid... is Bill Nye qualified? Not because Bill Nye has any lack of education, but because there is nothing about the topic that says that the subject of the debate must be scientific. And if the debate is not scientific, why is it being debated with somebody who is rather famously recognized as a scientist?
If you think about it for a second, you'd realize that this is a rationalization... a way of saying "it's not my fault", and blaming other people when things don't work the way you want, and it's all bullshit.
If somebody doesn't like you because you're doing something that isn't actually wrong, that's *THEIR* problem, not yours, and although they might try to make it yours if they decide to get physical with you over it, as you describe, in practice, most people that I've met are not so uncivilized as to resort to violence initially. Further, of course, the law would probably be on your side in the matter... the consequences for you might be some pain that will heal, while the consequences for a jealous boyfriend or husband against whom you hadn't even done anything may include a prison term (and at the very least a restraining order), and would probably have far longer reaching consequences for them than for you.
The point I was trying to make is that my wife wouldn't worry....I'm not the sort of person to foster any kind of relationship, let alone a marriage, where I would not be deserving of implicit trust... I would not cheat on my wife and she would know that.
'By the way, I *am* married, and she *DOES* know that.
Or, much more likely, it won't tend to be the case that people will care about holding it against a person for that amount of time. You don't need to forget a past mistake to move beyond it... in fact, forgetting mistakes only encourages their repetition.
A mature person isn't really going to care what other people "think"... they are going to be concerned with just exhibiting as much integrity as they actually have, and moving forward from today. If outside circumstances have made it much more difficult because, say, they are being judged for getting drunk at the company christmas party, acting up, and getting fired, reducing the chances of finding new work anytime soon, that's unfortunate, but it's dick-all nothing compared to the shit that people without access to things like facebook have to deal with. In the time that I've typed this, alone, at least a dozen people have died from starvation... so really, people who are a little bit embarrassed about something that they did in public think that *THEY* have problems?
People need to have some perspective and realize that their own lives are really just not that important... they are to oneself, of course, and rightly so, but in the grand scheme of things, years down the road, the only people that are liable to hold things in your past against the kind of person you are trying to be today are people who are, to be honest, just not worth your time trying to impress... so stop trying. You accuse me of living in fear, and yet it seems to be you who does.... fear of what your neighbor might think of you when they see you doing something they don't agree with.
If it were obvious, then your statement is equally obvious... which makes your comment at best equivalent to a vacuous statement. Regardless, it's unhelpful... although I'm sure that's obvious too.
What difference should the imperfection of human memory make? People not remembering that Joe did X does not mean that Joe never did X in reality. And where one person might forget an incident, another might remember it quite clearly, so assuming that everyone is going to definitely forget everything if they don't record it isn't really a safe bet. The only thing it does is introduce some sense of doubt when or if a person may intend to lie about something that they did which they do not want others to know about.
If I were married, why would the fact that another girl who, as you put it, doesn't mind my company, be of any concern whatsoever to my wife? I'm not the sort of person who would cheat on the person I was with, so I'm not particularly worried about what my wife might find out if she sees me in a video that somebody captured. I'm not afraid of the scenario you've described, so it doesn't impact my freedom in the slightest.
If I am doing something that I don't want others to know about, and I'm not saying that there aren't such things in my life, I do them in private. That's not a limitation on my freedom because I am directly taking responsibility for my own privacy and not simply expecting other people to always offer it to me without any effort on my part. I maintain that it's absurd that people should have any serious expectation of privacy in a place where they can be publicly observed by anybody who happens to be in the vicinity, and I think many people who are afraid of Google glass may have an overinflated sense of importance of how much interest somebody else is actually liable to have in their actions.
Hope all you want... I'm not particularly worried it will actually happen. Your recitation of my email doesn't exactly send any shivers down my spine that you may actually know who I am, or have the willingness and ability to track me down and carry out your implied threat of physical violence, least of all from an AC.
I genuinely fail to see how google glass is any dumber, at its core, than the concept of wearable computing itself.
How is wearable computing dumb?
I can understand objecting to recording devices which directly extend human senses beyond what is humanly possible to deliberately invade another's privacy, but what I don't get about the Google Glass objections is that they are usually just objecting to stuff being recorded that absolutely anybody in the vicinity could see or hear anyways. If I'm doing something where I'd feel uncomfortable with somebody recording me, I'd be doing it in private... where other people, or people I wouldn't want to be aware of what I'm doing can't see me in the first place. I'm not saying that if a person is doing nothing wrong they have nothing to hide, but I am saying that if a person feels that they need to hide something then perhaps they shouldn't be doing it in public in the first place. Relying on things like laws or even local policies to protect individual privacy is only going to lull people into a very superficial sense of security because somebody's going to eventually figure out how to not get caught and do it anyways.
That's only because most people think that what they are doing is actually important enough that anyone who happens to see a recording that they might incidentally happen to be in would ever even care. In fact, people who are being recorded draw *FAR* more attention to themselves by objecting against being recorded than they would if they simply ignored it entirely.
The main difference between cult and religion is longevity... a so-called "cult" belief that manages to remain established for more than about half a dozen generations or more may find itself being considered a religion by the end of that time.
I believe that secondary to longevity is that relative to the social environment that exists around it, a belief that would become religion does not tend to evolve or change very quickly. Not that I would suggest that religions are ever somehow magically immune to change that could easily infect any belief, but that the rate of its change is generally quite observably slower than the changes that otherwise happen in society itself. The reason for this is generally attributed to the high value and importance that people who believe that particular thing place on those beliefs, and so they tend to get passed along from generation to generation relatively unaltered.
So really, if you want to invent a new religion, you can try... but you won't be alive to see it actually become one.
Sorry... somebody had to say it.
[nt]
If???
It's all but a foregone certainty that some will die en-route... and I can't imagine those who survive the trip, if any, will live much beyond the first year.
Recall, for instance, just what the survivability rate was for people trying to get to the "new world" from Europe in the 1500's. And that was on a boat surrounded by a perfectly breathable atmosphere!
People are going to die... and it's not going to be pretty.
Because the truth of the matter is that we just aren't anywhere nearly ready for human colonization of Mars. I'd dare say that most of the people who try going anytime in the remotely near future won't even reach their destination alive.
My point is that they are going to do it anyways, even if it is illegal.
As it is, the fact that there's so much data to have to search through means it's inviable for them to really search it all.
Your privacy, therefore, is secured from the fact that your life is just a drop in an unending ocean of data.
If this continues to be news, I guess we'll see, won't we?
I'm not wrong.... the Brick will refund the money for customers that don't want to take advantage of the actual discount that the Brick is offering and that will be the end of it. Customers are of course entirely welcome to try to sue the Brick for this, but they won't win.
You are incorrect about point 2. I can find nothing in the policy which says that about lower prices at the register (in fact, the only thing mentioned in that regard is that the customer is *NOT* entitled to any compensation)
You may also be interested in knowing that the law to which you referred was part of Quebec's "Accurate Pricing Policy", and governs cases where the price is *HIGHER* at checkout, not lower.
The law to which you keep referring would not be applicable because this was essentially a self-checkout. It is engineered to prevent bait-and-switch schemes, which this is not.
I'm reminded of a saying... "justice without mercy is tyranny".
I agree there needs to be a penalty, but in the end, this was caused only by very poor judgement on his part about what is really important. I'm not saying he should just be let off without penalty, only that while trying to carry out an appropriate punishment, that room for eventual forgiveness be present.
That said, I think that the ban should be long enough that when he's allowed to try to do it again, he'll basically be starting from zero, and he's going to have to work for at least just as long as he did before just to get back to where he already was. To that end, I'd suggest that a decade may be more apt than just 3 years.
Hopefully, he will have learned his lesson by that time. If he does it again, I could probably abide a lifetime ban.
Except if you were to knowingly take the excess money, you are basically a thief. You could try to argue that the machine just gave it to you, but guess what a judge would say to that, if it were to make it into court?
As it is, the Brick isn't even going to ship the items until they are paid for.
People are, I suppose, welcome to try to sue them or threaten to never shop there again... but it will make little difference. The Brick will just refund their money for people who don't want to pay the proper price, and that will be the end of it.