What was Uber thinking that this sort of thing should even be remotely possible for them just by knowing someone's GPS location? I can only just barely imagine how it might be possible for someone who happens to personally *know* the person to get an idea on the status of someone's safety simply by knowing their whereabouts, but this would require extremely detailed knowledge of that person's agenda, not to mention knowing that person so incredibly well that they could draw a conclusion about about the status of someone they knew simply from their location data, but how was Uber claiming it was going to help *THEM* accomplish that, exactly?
Hey, I'm fully aware that Uber may just have been bullshitting the entire time, but I can't seriously see how anybody else would not have been able to tell, and called them on it right away.
Perish the thought that some person who may be in dire need might ever happen to knock on your door/ring your doorbell without knowing that a paranoid ass who couldn't give two fucks about the world around him lives there.
You cannot shoot someone, even in Texas, for simply ringing your doorbell and asking, however unwelcome they might be, if you will conduct any business with them.
Hey, I've been chewed out before just for saying stuff online about Star Wars a New Hope. My point was to offer a disclaimer in the hopes of avoiding that.
.. of Logan's Run (caution.... spoilers follow)....
...could be avoided if the City just installed devices that terminated people at the requisite age if they did not participate in their ritual instead of having to maintain a police-like organization of people that hunted them down.
Of course, this could be circumvented by the (surgical) removal of such a device, which could itself have been the plot point of a different kind of story.
Having an eating disorder that is apparent called ARFID I am unable to eat most things that are genuinely healthy (can't do green vegetables, most fruits, or any red fish... About 40% of my diet is from sandwiches, usually peanut butter, and sometimes cheese.
Hey, even monthly bus passes can be a (partial) deduction in some places... encouraging people to take public transit.
And even at my lowest paying jobs, I was still putting aside some percentage of my income into an RSP, which I could always claim as a deduction against my gross income each year.
Of course, if you are poor, and can't afford a tax attorney, then you are screwed.
Not at all. If you are poor and can't afford a tax attorney then you need to do two things: the first is to honestly declare all your income, and the second is to keep diligent records of anything you declare as a deduction. If you fail to do those thing you can be hooped even if you have a tax attorney.
I have a 10 foot screen. Anything less than an XD or IMAX screen (at a closer than halfway back the house) is going to be a LESS compelling experience than what many of us have at home.
Presumably that is the reason that one would be willing to spend a hundred bucks to watch something in the first place. That's a half-day's work at living wage where I live... why would anyone want to spend that kind of hard earned money on being entertained for such a short time in their own friggen home? I would imagine that the entire point of spending that kind of money is for some kind of special *experience* of an event, not just simply observing it, and you aren't going to get any kind of unique experience watching it at home, no matter how awesome your home theater is.
Perhaps you had failed to notice that I qualified the term "educated" in my post as specifically referring to the previous poster's own definition of it, since they were the one who used the term first. I even initially put the term in quotes so that this was clear.
Any educated person will begin ignoring these outlets, because their bias proves their lack of trustworthiness.
Unfortunately, the number of people that do not meet your definition of "educated" is of a sufficiently critical mass that they can easily destroy any society that people who might fit your definition of educated would wish to live in.
Since most uneducated people do not get so far as deserving a Darwin award nomination, the notion that this kind of ignorance would somehow peter itself out over time is not a realistic one. More likely, in fact, it is only going to grow if unchecked.
So, short of proposing that gossip should be a capital felony, putting some kinds of brakes on what kinds of information people are allowed to see through the largest information outlets (there will always be alternative outlets for people who wish to find off-the-record information anyways) is probably still the lesser of two evils... because the alternative to it is most certainly a living hell, and not a place that any remotely sane person would want to live.
You are, of course, correct... but the simple reality is that the masses are simply too ignorant and/or lazy to care about whether or not something that they are being told is true enough to perform their own filtering to tell fact from fiction, which is, of course, the ideal.
Censoring is, unfortunately, the lesser of two evils when the alternative is disinformation being widely spread as factual when that disinformation starts to cause measurable harm to society. The instances of this happening are too numerous to name.
Most of those I can understand, and many I even agree with... but "no camera"? That one's got me puzzled... what's wrong with the phone having a camera?
This is why I think anyone who says they cut the cord and can watch what they want are still downloading or streaming a fair amount illegally
And you'd be wrong.... although I wouldn't argue that you might be right as a generalization, speaking from personal experience, after my wife and I cut our cable subscription, we still watched all of the shows that we would otherwise watch on television entirely legally, by just streaming them from the network's website. The only caveat to this was that you couldn't watch it until the day after it aired, and an episode was not available for free streaming anymore after a week.
Computers will never have 'awareness'. Not ever. It is mathematically impossible.
Please provide some kind of citation or pointers to the mathematical proof for this that must necessarily exist for this claim to be valid. If there is no actual mathematical proof of this, then your claim of so-called "mathematical impossibility" is baseless guesswork at best, and outright false at worst,.
While I realize most and users neither know nor care about security enough to actually be entirely responsible for security, I believe that the end-user assuming such responsibility is the only answer that makes any real sense when looking at the big picture. Caveat: the manufacturer should make facilities available, and publish sufficient information about managing their device so that it is at least possible for the end-user to assume such responsibility. As a first prerequisite, this would mean that all Internet connected devices should have an option or facility to connect to the Internet through an end user controlled firewall instead of managing their own such connection.
Which is false, because tasers are much more lethal than that.
Even the very low current of a taser, perhaps no more than 3 or 4 milliamps, can induce fibrillation if enough current from the taser reaches the heart (even just a few microamps is sufficient,). The effects of this are not always immediately self-evident, but if a person who has been tazed is then immediately taken to a hospital to ensure that no heart damage has occurred, only then do the chances of a fatality really drop significantly.
The chance of a person dying from being tazed and who was not hospitalized depends largely on how long the current was maintained. Anything more than just a second or two is going to be quite likely to require being seen by a doctor in facilities equipped to deal with heart fibrillation where they can be treated, or their heart could fail within the next several days of the incident.
Slashdot Mirror
What was Uber thinking that this sort of thing should even be remotely possible for them just by knowing someone's GPS location? I can only just barely imagine how it might be possible for someone who happens to personally *know* the person to get an idea on the status of someone's safety simply by knowing their whereabouts, but this would require extremely detailed knowledge of that person's agenda, not to mention knowing that person so incredibly well that they could draw a conclusion about about the status of someone they knew simply from their location data, but how was Uber claiming it was going to help *THEM* accomplish that, exactly?
Hey, I'm fully aware that Uber may just have been bullshitting the entire time, but I can't seriously see how anybody else would not have been able to tell, and called them on it right away.
Perish the thought that some person who may be in dire need might ever happen to knock on your door/ring your doorbell without knowing that a paranoid ass who couldn't give two fucks about the world around him lives there.
Uh... no.
You cannot shoot someone, even in Texas, for simply ringing your doorbell and asking, however unwelcome they might be, if you will conduct any business with them.
Hey, I've been chewed out before just for saying stuff online about Star Wars a New Hope. My point was to offer a disclaimer in the hopes of avoiding that.
I can't win.
Of course, this could be circumvented by the (surgical) removal of such a device, which could itself have been the plot point of a different kind of story.
Having an eating disorder that is apparent called ARFID I am unable to eat most things that are genuinely healthy (can't do green vegetables, most fruits, or any red fish... About 40% of my diet is from sandwiches, usually peanut butter, and sometimes cheese.
If high carbs mean an early death, I'm hooped.
Hey, even monthly bus passes can be a (partial) deduction in some places... encouraging people to take public transit.
And even at my lowest paying jobs, I was still putting aside some percentage of my income into an RSP, which I could always claim as a deduction against my gross income each year.
Not at all. If you are poor and can't afford a tax attorney then you need to do two things: the first is to honestly declare all your income, and the second is to keep diligent records of anything you declare as a deduction. If you fail to do those thing you can be hooped even if you have a tax attorney.
In my experience, it typically takes upwards of 10 minutes, so yes... 36 seconds is astonishingly fast.
Presumably that is the reason that one would be willing to spend a hundred bucks to watch something in the first place. That's a half-day's work at living wage where I live... why would anyone want to spend that kind of hard earned money on being entertained for such a short time in their own friggen home? I would imagine that the entire point of spending that kind of money is for some kind of special *experience* of an event, not just simply observing it, and you aren't going to get any kind of unique experience watching it at home, no matter how awesome your home theater is.
I cannot claim to know... I know that he sang, but did he ever compose or write music? If so, then yes, but if not, then no.
Is that literally exponentially, or virtually exponentially?
I think it depends if you define "musician" to be synonymous with singer.
I would not consider a singer to be a musician *unless* they also wrote songs.
Perhaps you had failed to notice that I qualified the term "educated" in my post as specifically referring to the previous poster's own definition of it, since they were the one who used the term first. I even initially put the term in quotes so that this was clear.
I expect I'm going to be watching it in a theater, on a 30 foot screen, or else as a live performance.
I cannot even begin to comprehend how a person would think that is a worthwhile investment to watch at home.
Unfortunately, the number of people that do not meet your definition of "educated" is of a sufficiently critical mass that they can easily destroy any society that people who might fit your definition of educated would wish to live in.
Since most uneducated people do not get so far as deserving a Darwin award nomination, the notion that this kind of ignorance would somehow peter itself out over time is not a realistic one. More likely, in fact, it is only going to grow if unchecked.
So, short of proposing that gossip should be a capital felony, putting some kinds of brakes on what kinds of information people are allowed to see through the largest information outlets (there will always be alternative outlets for people who wish to find off-the-record information anyways) is probably still the lesser of two evils... because the alternative to it is most certainly a living hell, and not a place that any remotely sane person would want to live.
You are, of course, correct... but the simple reality is that the masses are simply too ignorant and/or lazy to care about whether or not something that they are being told is true enough to perform their own filtering to tell fact from fiction, which is, of course, the ideal.
Censoring is, unfortunately, the lesser of two evils when the alternative is disinformation being widely spread as factual when that disinformation starts to cause measurable harm to society. The instances of this happening are too numerous to name.
Most of those I can understand, and many I even agree with... but "no camera"? That one's got me puzzled... what's wrong with the phone having a camera?
And you'd be wrong.... although I wouldn't argue that you might be right as a generalization, speaking from personal experience, after my wife and I cut our cable subscription, we still watched all of the shows that we would otherwise watch on television entirely legally, by just streaming them from the network's website. The only caveat to this was that you couldn't watch it until the day after it aired, and an episode was not available for free streaming anymore after a week.
Please provide some kind of citation or pointers to the mathematical proof for this that must necessarily exist for this claim to be valid. If there is no actual mathematical proof of this, then your claim of so-called "mathematical impossibility" is baseless guesswork at best, and outright false at worst,.
While I realize most and users neither know nor care about security enough to actually be entirely responsible for security, I believe that the end-user assuming such responsibility is the only answer that makes any real sense when looking at the big picture. Caveat: the manufacturer should make facilities available, and publish sufficient information about managing their device so that it is at least possible for the end-user to assume such responsibility. As a first prerequisite, this would mean that all Internet connected devices should have an option or facility to connect to the Internet through an end user controlled firewall instead of managing their own such connection.
Which is false, because tasers are much more lethal than that.
Even the very low current of a taser, perhaps no more than 3 or 4 milliamps, can induce fibrillation if enough current from the taser reaches the heart (even just a few microamps is sufficient,). The effects of this are not always immediately self-evident, but if a person who has been tazed is then immediately taken to a hospital to ensure that no heart damage has occurred, only then do the chances of a fatality really drop significantly.
The chance of a person dying from being tazed and who was not hospitalized depends largely on how long the current was maintained. Anything more than just a second or two is going to be quite likely to require being seen by a doctor in facilities equipped to deal with heart fibrillation where they can be treated, or their heart could fail within the next several days of the incident.
Fine. Don't not sue, charge them criminally. Their only out is to then admit that is an opinion only.
It makes perfect sense if it was actually a complete fabrication
[nt]