Considering Google's price point compared to other devices with all of the same capabilities, do you genuinely feel that there is still a high danger of ubiquity?
In what way is Google Glass significantly more threatening with regards to privacy than the situation of ubiquitous camera embedded in cell phones situation that we already have today, where probably 7 out of every 10 people you see are carrying something they could use to take pictures or video at any time anyways?
Secondly, actively *highly* secret recording devices, like spy cameras and the like, which can be embedded in glasses or other very inconspicuous places, far less noticeable than Glass, have been available for quite some time. In what way does Google Glass pose a greater threat to privacy than devices like these? Why is there not a similar interest in banning such devices, which anyone is perfectly permitted to buy?
I'm not saying that critics who are concerned about privacy are wrong because of the above points, but I'm personally very interested in how critics of Glass would address those issues
It's absolutely a fallacy, which falls under many names, starting with the Straw Man fallacy.
No. The strawman fallacy is the representation of the opponent's argument under a (perhaps superficially) similar or tangentially related position, one that is usually relatively easily defeated by some additional presented argument, and then presuming that by extension, the flaws that led to that position being defeated by the argument would indicate fatal flaws in the original position that was allegedly being represented.
Rather, suggesting that people who oppose Google Glass are merely afraid of change is most definitely a type of ad hominem fallacy, which is where the person presenting their view somehow attacks the people that disagree with the argument rather than the argument itself. Whether the attack might reflect a true statement is irrelevant, the fallacy lies in the fact that it does not actually address the critic's argument, but instead attacks the critic themselves.
In fact, this particular example is probably most similar to the notion of "poisoning the well", which pre-emptively presents adverse information about a target (who will presumably disagree with the arguer) with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person may be about to say.
There's one thing that I can see I'd like this for... and that is because probably at least once or twice a week while I'm out, usually while I'm on my way to or from work, I see stuff that I wish I had taken a picture of, or had recorded... where by the time I can get my phone out, switch on the camera function, and press the button, the moment has already gone by, where if I had been recording the whole time, I would have had it already... and could extract the appropriate segments from the video when I get home later. The additional "smart" functionality of Google Glass makes it perhaps only modestly more useful than a portable webcam affixed to my clothing. But the chief advantage over such a webcam is that I can be very certain of where it's aiming at all times.
If you want to get people rightfully worried about the implacations of privacy, you need to come up with a better story then black helicopters AND/OR "I behaved like an ass in public and I don't want to be held accountable for it".
A primary tenet of some of the worlds' major religions is that every human being metaphorically has both of their legs in casts, and will likewise need metaphorical crutches... even if they never come to a point of conscious cognition of this notion.
Most religions that I know of ascribe the concept of free will to humanity, and humans assume full responsibility and liability for all of their own actions, not God.
I don't think it's so much that Slashdot is filled with "raging atheists" who think the universe is a computer simulation as much as it is filled with "raging atheists" that are at least willing to entertain such a notion for discussion far more willingly than they typically do with the notion that there is a god.
I don't think the theory of evolution searches for any particular meaning to life... only how it developed.
Ascribing any particular "meaning" to life would necessitate having a belief in some sort of purpose or specific design for life in the first place. People who do not believe in God do not typically subscribe to such philosophies.
Seven minutes of video isn't reams. Youtube would probably be a smarter choice in this case... there seems little point to using bittorrent for this other than to make a political statement that loads of other people already do anyways.
If they seed it, then they are willfully distributing it. If they do not have the authority to do this, they are arguably committing copyright infringement simply in the act of making unauthorized copies publicly available in the first place. If they *do* have the authority to do this, then any download from them would be a legitimately acquired copy, since it was received from a source that was authorized to distribute such a copy to them.
I've never actually seen an iPad mini except in photos, so I can't say... I get the impression, however, that the iPad mini may be slightly too large to hold securely in one hand while trying to use like a phone, if such capabilities were added to it. The S3 however, I have held, and I've found to be a very comfortable size.
So why don't I get an S3? Because iOS devices are more relevant to what I do for a living than Android, and I don't want to be bothered owning paying for two cell phones.
Having hands that one of my kids once told me resembled bear paws... oversized and clumsy, something about the same size as the Galaxy S3 would be ideal for my purposes, because I've always found the iPhone display to be unusably tiny for anything involving complex interactivity (such as texting, for instance).
I would speculate that the system that Doc Brown had rigged up to deliver the energy to the car in the first movie probably already limited the power delivery, since in the sequel, the car was directly struck by lightning and that event *did* fuse the time circuits.
The problem, as I remarked in this followup post to someone who asked if I had even read the summary was that I *did* read the article (or at least one of the ones linked to), unfortunately, I did so, and immediately commented upon it before I had even fully read and comprehended the points that the summary was actually making.
I could chalk it up to having just woken up at the time, but then I wouldn't be admitting responsibility for doing so. It was my bad, and I realize I probably deserve gratuitous levels of mocking from slashdot posters and AC's everywhere for it.
So if her startup takes most of the first ten years to get off the ground, or even longer, something that's actually entirely feasible, given the average success rate of new businesses, then the investor has just lost a whole crapload of money..
Basically, the investor has taken a gamble that her startup is going to take off within the first 3 or 4 years. It's possible, certainly, but by no means something should be speculated as particularly likely.
Kudos to her for finding someone that believed in her idea enough that they were willing to take that kind of risk.
"How would you feel if your neighbour went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their backyard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?"
I'd feel like my neighbor is an idiot, personally.... if he thinks he's going to see anything that's worth that kind of trouble. My private life isn't interesting enough for anybody else with a good grip on their sanity to find it remotely worth investing in that kind of effort to learn more about.
Hey, I'm just saying that you can get a whole lot more than 1.21gw out of a single lightning bolt.
Okay, maybe I'm humor impaired. Sorry. I took the original comment as meaning that the poster figured that if BTF was any indication, 1.21gw was about all the power you could usefully get out of a lightning bolt. This doesn't consider the possibility that the bolt of lightning in BTF actually had far more kick than that, the car only needing 1.21gw of it.
Call me morbidly curious, but what sort of worse things could happen?
I get the BTF reference. My point was only that you wouldn't need 50 lightning bolts to get 50GW, since even a single lightning bolt has on the order of a terawatt or more of power (so you could get 1.21GW from a single lightning bolt as well).
Slashdot Mirror
Who should pay the price? The kid?
To b fair, you can hardly pass as a spy wearing google Glass either... They are rather obvious-looking.
Considering Google's price point compared to other devices with all of the same capabilities, do you genuinely feel that there is still a high danger of ubiquity?
In what way is Google Glass significantly more threatening with regards to privacy than the situation of ubiquitous camera embedded in cell phones situation that we already have today, where probably 7 out of every 10 people you see are carrying something they could use to take pictures or video at any time anyways?
Secondly, actively *highly* secret recording devices, like spy cameras and the like, which can be embedded in glasses or other very inconspicuous places, far less noticeable than Glass, have been available for quite some time. In what way does Google Glass pose a greater threat to privacy than devices like these? Why is there not a similar interest in banning such devices, which anyone is perfectly permitted to buy?
I'm not saying that critics who are concerned about privacy are wrong because of the above points, but I'm personally very interested in how critics of Glass would address those issues
Thanks in advance.
Or video... but yup.
I already do wear glasses.
And I'm not that worried about looking like a twat beyond the concern that people might get be bothered enough to assault me for wearing them.
Neither do I.... I just said I'd have a good use for it. Not that I'd spend what they are asking for on it.
No. The strawman fallacy is the representation of the opponent's argument under a (perhaps superficially) similar or tangentially related position, one that is usually relatively easily defeated by some additional presented argument, and then presuming that by extension, the flaws that led to that position being defeated by the argument would indicate fatal flaws in the original position that was allegedly being represented.
Rather, suggesting that people who oppose Google Glass are merely afraid of change is most definitely a type of ad hominem fallacy, which is where the person presenting their view somehow attacks the people that disagree with the argument rather than the argument itself. Whether the attack might reflect a true statement is irrelevant, the fallacy lies in the fact that it does not actually address the critic's argument, but instead attacks the critic themselves.
In fact, this particular example is probably most similar to the notion of "poisoning the well", which pre-emptively presents adverse information about a target (who will presumably disagree with the arguer) with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person may be about to say.
There's one thing that I can see I'd like this for... and that is because probably at least once or twice a week while I'm out, usually while I'm on my way to or from work, I see stuff that I wish I had taken a picture of, or had recorded... where by the time I can get my phone out, switch on the camera function, and press the button, the moment has already gone by, where if I had been recording the whole time, I would have had it already... and could extract the appropriate segments from the video when I get home later. The additional "smart" functionality of Google Glass makes it perhaps only modestly more useful than a portable webcam affixed to my clothing. But the chief advantage over such a webcam is that I can be very certain of where it's aiming at all times.
Well played, AC... well played.
It's a type of ad-hominem fallacy.
A primary tenet of some of the worlds' major religions is that every human being metaphorically has both of their legs in casts, and will likewise need metaphorical crutches... even if they never come to a point of conscious cognition of this notion.
Most religions that I know of ascribe the concept of free will to humanity, and humans assume full responsibility and liability for all of their own actions, not God.
I don't think it's so much that Slashdot is filled with "raging atheists" who think the universe is a computer simulation as much as it is filled with "raging atheists" that are at least willing to entertain such a notion for discussion far more willingly than they typically do with the notion that there is a god.
Ascribing any particular "meaning" to life would necessitate having a belief in some sort of purpose or specific design for life in the first place. People who do not believe in God do not typically subscribe to such philosophies.
Emphasis there on "reams of data".
Seven minutes of video isn't reams. Youtube would probably be a smarter choice in this case... there seems little point to using bittorrent for this other than to make a political statement that loads of other people already do anyways.
If they seed it, then they are willfully distributing it. If they do not have the authority to do this, they are arguably committing copyright infringement simply in the act of making unauthorized copies publicly available in the first place. If they *do* have the authority to do this, then any download from them would be a legitimately acquired copy, since it was received from a source that was authorized to distribute such a copy to them.
I've never actually seen an iPad mini except in photos, so I can't say... I get the impression, however, that the iPad mini may be slightly too large to hold securely in one hand while trying to use like a phone, if such capabilities were added to it. The S3 however, I have held, and I've found to be a very comfortable size.
So why don't I get an S3? Because iOS devices are more relevant to what I do for a living than Android, and I don't want to be bothered owning paying for two cell phones.
Dude!!!!
TMI!
Having hands that one of my kids once told me resembled bear paws... oversized and clumsy, something about the same size as the Galaxy S3 would be ideal for my purposes, because I've always found the iPhone display to be unusably tiny for anything involving complex interactivity (such as texting, for instance).
I would speculate that the system that Doc Brown had rigged up to deliver the energy to the car in the first movie probably already limited the power delivery, since in the sequel, the car was directly struck by lightning and that event *did* fuse the time circuits.
The problem, as I remarked in this followup post to someone who asked if I had even read the summary was that I *did* read the article (or at least one of the ones linked to), unfortunately, I did so, and immediately commented upon it before I had even fully read and comprehended the points that the summary was actually making.
I could chalk it up to having just woken up at the time, but then I wouldn't be admitting responsibility for doing so. It was my bad, and I realize I probably deserve gratuitous levels of mocking from slashdot posters and AC's everywhere for it.
Nope. Clicked straight on through to the first article, and then added my comment.
Yes... I'm feeling sufficiently stupid now. Thanks for asking.
10% of her after-tax income for 10 years?
So if her startup takes most of the first ten years to get off the ground, or even longer, something that's actually entirely feasible, given the average success rate of new businesses, then the investor has just lost a whole crapload of money..
Basically, the investor has taken a gamble that her startup is going to take off within the first 3 or 4 years. It's possible, certainly, but by no means something should be speculated as particularly likely.
Kudos to her for finding someone that believed in her idea enough that they were willing to take that kind of risk.
I'd feel like my neighbor is an idiot, personally.... if he thinks he's going to see anything that's worth that kind of trouble. My private life isn't interesting enough for anybody else with a good grip on their sanity to find it remotely worth investing in that kind of effort to learn more about.
Hey, I'm just saying that you can get a whole lot more than 1.21gw out of a single lightning bolt.
Okay, maybe I'm humor impaired. Sorry. I took the original comment as meaning that the poster figured that if BTF was any indication, 1.21gw was about all the power you could usefully get out of a lightning bolt. This doesn't consider the possibility that the bolt of lightning in BTF actually had far more kick than that, the car only needing 1.21gw of it.
Call me morbidly curious, but what sort of worse things could happen?
I get the BTF reference. My point was only that you wouldn't need 50 lightning bolts to get 50GW, since even a single lightning bolt has on the order of a terawatt or more of power (so you could get 1.21GW from a single lightning bolt as well).