I don't understand how having to carry around an extra pair of glasses, at an extra expense, for the just the movies is simpler than just not going. Like I said I have a pair of reading glasses and it kills me just to remember to take them to work, I have to wear them there and home otherwise I forget them and carrying them in my pocket with my phone, keys, wallet, pager (yes I still have one, it's an outdated policy), and change isn't really an option.
If you don't like the theaters policy, just don't go. Isn't that how the argument works? you don't like DRM in a game, just don't buy it? Don't like forced previews on a DVD, Don't buy it? Don't like being treated like a criminal for wearing glasses at the movie theater, don't go?
Yes, I get it my original comment was poorly worded, you're only the third person to point it out. Please get over it. I did read the article and meant to say "when they start having more prescription Google Glass".
No one told him there was an issue and he'd been doing it for months. I would have at least expected a manager to ask him politely at first. What makes his glasses any different from a regular cell phone? Aside from the fact that he also requires them to see and they're actually on his face instead of in his hand.
You guys need to get over the word "apologists", frankly it makes you sound like your parroting some right and/or left wing extremest political view. I've mostly gotten in the habit of as soon as I read that word I shutdown and ignore everything else as been completely off base and out side of normal reality. Actually I just had a good laugh because after typing all that I read your user name (reality impaired).
Or, you know, he just didn't think it bothered anyone and no one said anything to him until the FBI dragged him out of a theater. Maybe he didn't see any reason for carrying two pairs of glasses around for doing different things. I only need glasses for reading. I don't wear them all the time and I don't carry them with me because it's a pain to carry a fragile pair of glasses around unless your actually wearing them. Glasses are too fragile to just stick in your pant pocket and cases for them are too bulky.
Personally if I had a pair, I'd wear them just to piss people to ignorant to look into the tech, or ask me about them, off. I see so many people complaining about being filmed (I remember the exact same arguments when they started putting cameras in cell phones) by some stranger when, by all accounts I've read, the batter would die in the glasses after a few minutes of filming. What makes you so frigg'n special that I'd care enough to follow you around in a public place filming you? Which by the way could be done just a discreetly with a cell phone, if someone's holding one up you can't tell if they're filming or reading an e-mail.
Actually this will be a real problem when they start having prescription Google Glass. People will ware them because they have to in order to see. If they take them off before going into a theater they won't be able to see the movie. I know the simple solution for them will be to just not go see movies, but it was a pretty similar scenario five to ten years ago with cell phones.
I remember once, after paying for a tickets, my wife and I got the the theater doors (big multiplex theater) and there was a guy with a bin and bags sitting at the door making everyone put their phones in little plastic bags, write their names on them and toss them in the bin. My wife and I stopped going to the theaters for a couple years after that. We were rather insulted they made us pay nearly $50 (no refunds) before making us give up our brand new phones without telling us a head of time and we weren't going to leave our phones at home just because the theater didn't want us to have them. Just as I suspected would happen there was a bin of phones stolen because the guy that was suppose to be watching them ran off for a pee brake. The theater tried to give everyone a free movie as compensation, but was ultimately responsible for replacing everyone's phones, I'm betting some that weren't even stolen, which ended up costing them several thousand.
And that was before people used their phones for anything serious like banking. I can only imagine the shit storm there'd be if peoples bank accounts started getting hacked after the theater lost them, but I'm off topic at this point.
Actually 5 years ago personal HDs were made against the rule. They were collected then outright band from the network. Employees were mandated to use server storage, but in the last two years, with the creation of Shared Services Canada, there's been confusion about who's supposed to provide that service. A budy of mine who works for DFO is always complaining about fights with IM&TS and SSC. Both suppose to provide a service neither one doing it. Data is the casualty.
We have 3 parties the Tories won a majority from just over 37% of the vote. Most of which came from Alberta (North Texas). There's not much the other 63% of us can do, it's how the system works. That being said 2015 is an election year, hopefully the damage Harper's done to the public service by then will be remembered.
You should have posted that in response to Hoosierbill1234 just above you.
For experimental confirmation that the earth is not warming a great amount, stick your thumb out the window. This past December the USA recorded a long listing or record low temperatures.
Last time I checked the USA wasn't the "Globe", I was just about to go find a reference to the record highs they've been having in Australia, but you beat me too it.
I have really considered getting a dash camera because of the people I see on a daily basis. At the very least I'd be able to prove to an insurance company I wasn't at fault.
I'm going out on a limb here, I've just read thorough the whole thread and I'm speculating it's the exact same AC posting FUD in just about every sub-thread. So is the Microsoft PR department no paying for sock-puppet accounts anymore?
Just FYI, There are cars that have HUDs built into the windshields. BMW or Cadillac I think.
Not that I disagree with your assessment, " the lowest common denominator isnt going to skip all of the good things being offered and go right down to trivial distractions that are causing problems", but that happens anyway. People are going to *find* a way to distract themselves with or without this tech. I really feel this type of technology deserves a chance to be useful before we collectively decide to kick it to the curb. We really should be looking for ways that it could be used to improve safety rather than just assuming it's the devils work and people should be locked up or shot or punched in the face for just wearing it.
It's obvious from reading comments here on/. and on CBC form that people have an irrational fear of this technology and all kinds of FUD is being spread about it just to stop it from even being tested let along getting to mainstream. I would have expected/. to be a little less sensitive and fearful of the technology, but it's clearly not the case.
Have to agree, a HUD is nothing more than moving from analog dials and gauges fixed in the dash board to a projection on the windshield, or glasses, where you don't have to take your eyes off the road to read information like speed, time, temperature etc.
I could also see cars with IR sensors that would integrate with Google Glass being used to do things like outline animals on the side of the road, which would be really useful for night driving. Where I'm from we have moose and deer, both of which will wreck your car and quite probably kill you if you hit them at highway speeds. Sonar and other sensors could also be used to detect how close you are to a vehicle in front of you during a sudden think fog (As my part of the world is very prone to) or outline the road way in a sudden blizzard or down poor.
I remember once when my wife and I were coming back from visiting her parents it started to rain and it was just like someone flew over with a water drop plane. My wife was driving and neither of us could see anything so my wife pulled over. It only lasted two our three minutes, but apparently we pulled over just in time. There was an accident just ten meters down the road. Apparently the lady driving at the front panicked and slammed on her brakes. The women behind her was pulling over, but smashed into the first one because she had just stopped dead in the road.
It's a shame this tech is never going to get off the ground and be usable to save lives because there are so many ignorant NIMBYs trying to stop something they haven't even seen in use yet.
It seems like youre objecting to me lumping all atheists in with Pol Pot, which is great because I likewise object to lumping all protestants in with the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusaders.
Great, I'm glad I'm getting my point across.
If you go way back in this thread you'll see it started because someone decided Atheist were a group of people that would conspire as terrorist. When that clearly isn't a thing. Then some other person jumped in with a link implying "Earth First!" was an Atheist group, which they're not, they're a a radical environmental group.
Then jcr jumped in with "If you want an example of atheist terrorism, all of the communist regimes that ever existed fit the description.". They're communist. Maybe they happen to be Atheist too, but their brand of Atheism is no more connected to Atheist in general than Baptist is to Hindu.
Then Curunir_wolf went into describing how the Chinese use Atheism as an excuse to kill non-atheist, which clearly isn't the case. They do it because they're a communist country with their own set of rules and beliefs. They have something against religion, but it has nothing to do with what I, in the category of Atheist, believe. You might as well say it's because their human and all humans are evil for killing religious people.
Some shots were fired and I'm sorry you as a Christian got caught in the cross fire and your feelings were hurt.
That being said, Just because there's a label that all Atheist fit under, a label that says they don't believe in God(s), or at least have no stance on the matter, doesn't mean Atheist are remotely related in their beliefs. I have no association with any other Atheist, that I know of. I probably know some, but I've never talked to someone where both of us being Atheist was the topic of the conversion. I assume no more responsibility for the actions of other humans, Atheist or not, than you do.
To me being Atheist isn't a big part of my life. It's no more important than just being human. I don't have shrines built to it, and it doesn't come up in my day to day life. Actually I rarely bring it up and have gone years without mentioning it. Normally until someone decides to step on my toes and rub their religion in my face, and/or decides to tell me how evil I am because I don't believe in their particular brand of flying spaghetti monster. I'm sure you'd be upset too if someone started telling you how evil you were because you were associated with other Christian religions that committed atrocities in the past, oh wait you were!
I'm just tired of hearing about how sure people are that I'm wrong and they're right based on "faith". More than that, it's something I'd rather not waste the energy even thinking about that's constantly being pushed back into my face because it's such a big factor for other people. Who can't seem to wrap their heads around the lack of having "faith" in somehting. So yeah, I'm sorry I'm a little bitter about it.
Best quote I've ever read, "Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat."
Most of the movies I've been to in the last two years just show regular tv comercials for twenty to thirty minutes, then there's two or three previews then the movie. It feels like such a rippoff, cost me $50 (two tickets, One popcorn combo with two pops) to take my wife out on a date night, plus I had to pay for a babysitter (another $30), just so I can watch crap I activaly avoid on TV. Maybe that's why Empire Theater in Nova Scotia, was sold off to Cineplex. Maybe that's also the reason so many people wait to pirate the movies instead of going to the theaters.
How is the pound defined? Thought I'd look it up , but all I can find is Wikipedia that says a pound is defined as "(b) the pound shall be 0.45359237 kilogram exactly".
The avoirdupois pound, also known as the wool pound, first came into general use c. 1300. It was initially equal to 6992 troy grains. The pound avoirdupois was divided into 16 ounces. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the avoirdupois pound was redefined as 7,000 troy grains. Since then, the grain has often been an integral part of the avoirdupois system. By 1758, two Elizabethan Exchequer standard weights for the avoirdupois pound existed, and when measured in troy grains they were found to be of 7,002 grains and 6,999 grains.
I don't have to explain them away. They're not associated with me or what I decide is true and what isn't.
Being Atheist doesn't mean I believe exactly the same thing as other Atheist. We're not an organized religion and we, at least I, don't gather in big rooms to talk about how great it is to believe in "the nothing" that rules our lives. By the reasoning that all Atheist believe the same thing you might as well say all white people are racist because some belong to the KKK or that all Women are feminist because some believe women to be superior. I'm my own person and came to my own realizations independently of other Atheists and then because I've chosen not to take a stance I'm grouped in with bad people that existed *WAY* before my time.
If anything, trying to stick me in a group with Mao or Stalin, etc, etc... is just a religious nuts way of rationalizing their own beliefs as being superior. "All Atheist are bad because these guys were.". It's a crock and just goes to show how woefully pitiful religion makes people.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but just because regular religious people take their marching orders from a central pillar, doesn't mean people who don't believe in religion do, which actually is one of my reasons for not being religious. Imagine and all powerful being creates the universe, then puts one old white guy, elected by other old white guys, in charge of telling everyone on Earth what to do, but doesn't give him anymore insight into what's going on than anyone else on Earth, but Millions blindly do as the old guy says anyway because he's a divine conduit, *who doesn't know any more than I do* about the guy he supposedly serves.
Or, not. I'm Atheist because there's no proof one way or the other. I choose not to take a stance other than the possibility that all could be wrong and choosing the right religion of the bunch is impossible. I have no more faith that I'm right in being Atheist than I have in the possibility that I'm wrong about it.
Basically, I'm choosing to not be something based on nothing because nothing isn't a good enough reason for me to chose to be something. All that matters is that I'm happy with who I am and what I do, I'll leave rituals, ceremonies and what happens after we die to people that care and have the time to waste on that sort of stuff.
Is that because they are Atheist, or is that because the government doesn't want their citizens answering to another leader (i.e. the Pope)? It seems like much more of a political issue than a religious one. The one thing all religions have in common is there is a structure and someone you as a member of that religion take direction from. This was part of the reason for the creation of the Protestant religion, The King wanted his people to obey him, not the Catholic Pope. Yes, he also wanted a divorce and didn't like the Pope telling him he couldn't get one. The Chinese Government wants its people to obey the government not the Pope or any other head of religion.
I hate to point it out, because the initial commentor was being a heavy handed idiot, but I think the initial comment meant people don't go around killing others because they're Atheists or in the name of Atheism. If someone just happens to be Atheist while doing something terrible we might as well say they're doing it because the like the color blue. It's not being used as a reason to kill people like Romans feeding Christians to the lions or Christians killing Muslims (crusades) or Muslims blowing up buildings, which I'm not really religion was the reason for that. I think it was more political or ideological.
Then why does it matter if it's a computer failing or a human? One of the most successful ways to "hack" into a company is to get on the phone with a person and trick them into giving away information, which computers don't normally just hand out. Same with self driving cars. Obfuscant posted a bunch of scenarios where humans would supposedly preform better than a computer, but I really don't believe any of those situations would be improved given peoples much greater capacity to be distracted and much slower reaction time.
Seriously, kid on an over pass throwing rocks at people, even if you did change lanes to be cautious the kid's going to see it and just redirect the projectile and if you react after the projectile is in motion you're already too late and more likely to cause an even larger accident given someone around you in another car isn't going to notice, know what to do or even care you're about to get a stone in the windshiled, as long as it's not them they'll just continue on.
I was going to say, it's entirely possible the wiring in the wall was bad.
This is one possible scenario which has happened in the past. Maybe it was aluminum wiring, which has a much lower thermal expansion rate than copper. Back in the 70's it was really common for developers to use aluminum wiring in houses because it was cheaper than copper. My house had aluminum wiring. The previous owners of my house were really underhanded. They ran copper off the electrical box up in behind some insulation and connected it to the aluminum from junction hidden junction boxes, and because home inspectors don't do "destructive" inspections, meaning they don't even move insulation, we didn't find out until years after we had bought the house. We had a wall socket stop working and when I opened it up to see what was wrong I found the aluminum wire had completely detached from the terminals. Luckily my father-in-law, who doesn't live near by, is an electrician because we had to have the whole house rewired. It's still not illegal to use aluminum wiring, copper is recommended, but it's not requried. The higher temperature of the adapter could cause the aluminum wire to expand and pop off the plug terminals in the wall box, which can lead to arcing and fires.
It really wouldn't be Tesla's fault if developers were using cheap materials when building the house, but it is nice of them to do something to try and mitigate future issues after it becomes a known possibility. We can't account for every scenario that will ever occur, but we can learn as we go along.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand how having to carry around an extra pair of glasses, at an extra expense, for the just the movies is simpler than just not going. Like I said I have a pair of reading glasses and it kills me just to remember to take them to work, I have to wear them there and home otherwise I forget them and carrying them in my pocket with my phone, keys, wallet, pager (yes I still have one, it's an outdated policy), and change isn't really an option.
If you don't like the theaters policy, just don't go. Isn't that how the argument works? you don't like DRM in a game, just don't buy it? Don't like forced previews on a DVD, Don't buy it? Don't like being treated like a criminal for wearing glasses at the movie theater, don't go?
Yes, I get it my original comment was poorly worded, you're only the third person to point it out. Please get over it. I did read the article and meant to say "when they start having more prescription Google Glass".
No one told him there was an issue and he'd been doing it for months. I would have at least expected a manager to ask him politely at first. What makes his glasses any different from a regular cell phone? Aside from the fact that he also requires them to see and they're actually on his face instead of in his hand.
You guys need to get over the word "apologists", frankly it makes you sound like your parroting some right and/or left wing extremest political view. I've mostly gotten in the habit of as soon as I read that word I shutdown and ignore everything else as been completely off base and out side of normal reality. Actually I just had a good laugh because after typing all that I read your user name (reality impaired).
Just Google "movie theaters confiscating cell phones" and read all about it. It was a pretty common thing to do around and before 2009, apparently it's still a common thing to do for special screenings. From 2009 http://gizmodo.com/5314778/no-... http://boingboing.net/2009/07/... And these were from just 2012 http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards... http://www.avvo.com/legal-answ...
Or, you know, he just didn't think it bothered anyone and no one said anything to him until the FBI dragged him out of a theater. Maybe he didn't see any reason for carrying two pairs of glasses around for doing different things. I only need glasses for reading. I don't wear them all the time and I don't carry them with me because it's a pain to carry a fragile pair of glasses around unless your actually wearing them. Glasses are too fragile to just stick in your pant pocket and cases for them are too bulky.
Personally if I had a pair, I'd wear them just to piss people to ignorant to look into the tech, or ask me about them, off. I see so many people complaining about being filmed (I remember the exact same arguments when they started putting cameras in cell phones) by some stranger when, by all accounts I've read, the batter would die in the glasses after a few minutes of filming. What makes you so frigg'n special that I'd care enough to follow you around in a public place filming you? Which by the way could be done just a discreetly with a cell phone, if someone's holding one up you can't tell if they're filming or reading an e-mail.
Actually this will be a real problem when they start having prescription Google Glass. People will ware them because they have to in order to see. If they take them off before going into a theater they won't be able to see the movie. I know the simple solution for them will be to just not go see movies, but it was a pretty similar scenario five to ten years ago with cell phones.
I remember once, after paying for a tickets, my wife and I got the the theater doors (big multiplex theater) and there was a guy with a bin and bags sitting at the door making everyone put their phones in little plastic bags, write their names on them and toss them in the bin. My wife and I stopped going to the theaters for a couple years after that. We were rather insulted they made us pay nearly $50 (no refunds) before making us give up our brand new phones without telling us a head of time and we weren't going to leave our phones at home just because the theater didn't want us to have them. Just as I suspected would happen there was a bin of phones stolen because the guy that was suppose to be watching them ran off for a pee brake. The theater tried to give everyone a free movie as compensation, but was ultimately responsible for replacing everyone's phones, I'm betting some that weren't even stolen, which ended up costing them several thousand.
And that was before people used their phones for anything serious like banking. I can only imagine the shit storm there'd be if peoples bank accounts started getting hacked after the theater lost them, but I'm off topic at this point.
You have no idea how much data there is. Going back hundreds of years... at least there was. Wish I could say more, but I'm on my phone.
Sorry, meant personal external HDs
Actually 5 years ago personal HDs were made against the rule. They were collected then outright band from the network. Employees were mandated to use server storage, but in the last two years, with the creation of Shared Services Canada, there's been confusion about who's supposed to provide that service. A budy of mine who works for DFO is always complaining about fights with IM&TS and SSC. Both suppose to provide a service neither one doing it. Data is the casualty.
We have 3 parties the Tories won a majority from just over 37% of the vote. Most of which came from Alberta (North Texas). There's not much the other 63% of us can do, it's how the system works. That being said 2015 is an election year, hopefully the damage Harper's done to the public service by then will be remembered.
For experimental confirmation that the earth is not warming a great amount, stick your thumb out the window. This past December the USA recorded a long listing or record low temperatures.
Last time I checked the USA wasn't the "Globe", I was just about to go find a reference to the record highs they've been having in Australia, but you beat me too it.
I have really considered getting a dash camera because of the people I see on a daily basis. At the very least I'd be able to prove to an insurance company I wasn't at fault.
I'm going out on a limb here, I've just read thorough the whole thread and I'm speculating it's the exact same AC posting FUD in just about every sub-thread. So is the Microsoft PR department no paying for sock-puppet accounts anymore?
Next thing you'll hear about is some dude blowing away someone in a movie theater for wearing their Google Glass.
Why not, people have been shot in theaters for less... recently in fact.
Just FYI, There are cars that have HUDs built into the windshields. BMW or Cadillac I think.
/. and on CBC form that people have an irrational fear of this technology and all kinds of FUD is being spread about it just to stop it from even being tested let along getting to mainstream. I would have expected /. to be a little less sensitive and fearful of the technology, but it's clearly not the case.
Not that I disagree with your assessment, " the lowest common denominator isnt going to skip all of the good things being offered and go right down to trivial distractions that are causing problems", but that happens anyway. People are going to *find* a way to distract themselves with or without this tech. I really feel this type of technology deserves a chance to be useful before we collectively decide to kick it to the curb. We really should be looking for ways that it could be used to improve safety rather than just assuming it's the devils work and people should be locked up or shot or punched in the face for just wearing it.
It's obvious from reading comments here on
Have to agree, a HUD is nothing more than moving from analog dials and gauges fixed in the dash board to a projection on the windshield, or glasses, where you don't have to take your eyes off the road to read information like speed, time, temperature etc.
I could also see cars with IR sensors that would integrate with Google Glass being used to do things like outline animals on the side of the road, which would be really useful for night driving. Where I'm from we have moose and deer, both of which will wreck your car and quite probably kill you if you hit them at highway speeds. Sonar and other sensors could also be used to detect how close you are to a vehicle in front of you during a sudden think fog (As my part of the world is very prone to) or outline the road way in a sudden blizzard or down poor.
I remember once when my wife and I were coming back from visiting her parents it started to rain and it was just like someone flew over with a water drop plane. My wife was driving and neither of us could see anything so my wife pulled over. It only lasted two our three minutes, but apparently we pulled over just in time. There was an accident just ten meters down the road. Apparently the lady driving at the front panicked and slammed on her brakes. The women behind her was pulling over, but smashed into the first one because she had just stopped dead in the road.
It's a shame this tech is never going to get off the ground and be usable to save lives because there are so many ignorant NIMBYs trying to stop something they haven't even seen in use yet.
It seems like youre objecting to me lumping all atheists in with Pol Pot, which is great because I likewise object to lumping all protestants in with the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusaders.
Great, I'm glad I'm getting my point across.
If you go way back in this thread you'll see it started because someone decided Atheist were a group of people that would conspire as terrorist. When that clearly isn't a thing. Then some other person jumped in with a link implying "Earth First!" was an Atheist group, which they're not, they're a a radical environmental group.
Then jcr jumped in with "If you want an example of atheist terrorism, all of the communist regimes that ever existed fit the description.". They're communist. Maybe they happen to be Atheist too, but their brand of Atheism is no more connected to Atheist in general than Baptist is to Hindu.
Then Curunir_wolf went into describing how the Chinese use Atheism as an excuse to kill non-atheist, which clearly isn't the case. They do it because they're a communist country with their own set of rules and beliefs. They have something against religion, but it has nothing to do with what I, in the category of Atheist, believe. You might as well say it's because their human and all humans are evil for killing religious people.
Some shots were fired and I'm sorry you as a Christian got caught in the cross fire and your feelings were hurt.
That being said, Just because there's a label that all Atheist fit under, a label that says they don't believe in God(s), or at least have no stance on the matter, doesn't mean Atheist are remotely related in their beliefs. I have no association with any other Atheist, that I know of. I probably know some, but I've never talked to someone where both of us being Atheist was the topic of the conversion. I assume no more responsibility for the actions of other humans, Atheist or not, than you do.
To me being Atheist isn't a big part of my life. It's no more important than just being human. I don't have shrines built to it, and it doesn't come up in my day to day life. Actually I rarely bring it up and have gone years without mentioning it. Normally until someone decides to step on my toes and rub their religion in my face, and/or decides to tell me how evil I am because I don't believe in their particular brand of flying spaghetti monster. I'm sure you'd be upset too if someone started telling you how evil you were because you were associated with other Christian religions that committed atrocities in the past, oh wait you were!
I'm just tired of hearing about how sure people are that I'm wrong and they're right based on "faith". More than that, it's something I'd rather not waste the energy even thinking about that's constantly being pushed back into my face because it's such a big factor for other people. Who can't seem to wrap their heads around the lack of having "faith" in somehting. So yeah, I'm sorry I'm a little bitter about it.
Best quote I've ever read, "Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat."
Most of the movies I've been to in the last two years just show regular tv comercials for twenty to thirty minutes, then there's two or three previews then the movie. It feels like such a rippoff, cost me $50 (two tickets, One popcorn combo with two pops) to take my wife out on a date night, plus I had to pay for a babysitter (another $30), just so I can watch crap I activaly avoid on TV. Maybe that's why Empire Theater in Nova Scotia, was sold off to Cineplex. Maybe that's also the reason so many people wait to pirate the movies instead of going to the theaters.
The definition for a pound of force was even less helpful as it's related to an Avoirdupois pound, which is defined as:
The avoirdupois pound, also known as the wool pound, first came into general use c. 1300. It was initially equal to 6992 troy grains. The pound avoirdupois was divided into 16 ounces. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the avoirdupois pound was redefined as 7,000 troy grains. Since then, the grain has often been an integral part of the avoirdupois system. By 1758, two Elizabethan Exchequer standard weights for the avoirdupois pound existed, and when measured in troy grains they were found to be of 7,002 grains and 6,999 grains.
I don't have to explain them away. They're not associated with me or what I decide is true and what isn't.
Being Atheist doesn't mean I believe exactly the same thing as other Atheist. We're not an organized religion and we, at least I, don't gather in big rooms to talk about how great it is to believe in "the nothing" that rules our lives. By the reasoning that all Atheist believe the same thing you might as well say all white people are racist because some belong to the KKK or that all Women are feminist because some believe women to be superior. I'm my own person and came to my own realizations independently of other Atheists and then because I've chosen not to take a stance I'm grouped in with bad people that existed *WAY* before my time.
If anything, trying to stick me in a group with Mao or Stalin, etc, etc... is just a religious nuts way of rationalizing their own beliefs as being superior. "All Atheist are bad because these guys were.". It's a crock and just goes to show how woefully pitiful religion makes people.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but just because regular religious people take their marching orders from a central pillar, doesn't mean people who don't believe in religion do, which actually is one of my reasons for not being religious. Imagine and all powerful being creates the universe, then puts one old white guy, elected by other old white guys, in charge of telling everyone on Earth what to do, but doesn't give him anymore insight into what's going on than anyone else on Earth, but Millions blindly do as the old guy says anyway because he's a divine conduit, *who doesn't know any more than I do* about the guy he supposedly serves.
Or, not. I'm Atheist because there's no proof one way or the other. I choose not to take a stance other than the possibility that all could be wrong and choosing the right religion of the bunch is impossible. I have no more faith that I'm right in being Atheist than I have in the possibility that I'm wrong about it.
Basically, I'm choosing to not be something based on nothing because nothing isn't a good enough reason for me to chose to be something. All that matters is that I'm happy with who I am and what I do, I'll leave rituals, ceremonies and what happens after we die to people that care and have the time to waste on that sort of stuff.
Is that because they are Atheist, or is that because the government doesn't want their citizens answering to another leader (i.e. the Pope)? It seems like much more of a political issue than a religious one. The one thing all religions have in common is there is a structure and someone you as a member of that religion take direction from. This was part of the reason for the creation of the Protestant religion, The King wanted his people to obey him, not the Catholic Pope. Yes, he also wanted a divorce and didn't like the Pope telling him he couldn't get one. The Chinese Government wants its people to obey the government not the Pope or any other head of religion.
I hate to point it out, because the initial commentor was being a heavy handed idiot, but I think the initial comment meant people don't go around killing others because they're Atheists or in the name of Atheism. If someone just happens to be Atheist while doing something terrible we might as well say they're doing it because the like the color blue. It's not being used as a reason to kill people like Romans feeding Christians to the lions or Christians killing Muslims (crusades) or Muslims blowing up buildings, which I'm not really religion was the reason for that. I think it was more political or ideological.
Then why does it matter if it's a computer failing or a human? One of the most successful ways to "hack" into a company is to get on the phone with a person and trick them into giving away information, which computers don't normally just hand out. Same with self driving cars. Obfuscant posted a bunch of scenarios where humans would supposedly preform better than a computer, but I really don't believe any of those situations would be improved given peoples much greater capacity to be distracted and much slower reaction time.
Seriously, kid on an over pass throwing rocks at people, even if you did change lanes to be cautious the kid's going to see it and just redirect the projectile and if you react after the projectile is in motion you're already too late and more likely to cause an even larger accident given someone around you in another car isn't going to notice, know what to do or even care you're about to get a stone in the windshiled, as long as it's not them they'll just continue on.
I was going to say, it's entirely possible the wiring in the wall was bad.
This is one possible scenario which has happened in the past. Maybe it was aluminum wiring, which has a much lower thermal expansion rate than copper. Back in the 70's it was really common for developers to use aluminum wiring in houses because it was cheaper than copper. My house had aluminum wiring. The previous owners of my house were really underhanded. They ran copper off the electrical box up in behind some insulation and connected it to the aluminum from junction hidden junction boxes, and because home inspectors don't do "destructive" inspections, meaning they don't even move insulation, we didn't find out until years after we had bought the house. We had a wall socket stop working and when I opened it up to see what was wrong I found the aluminum wire had completely detached from the terminals. Luckily my father-in-law, who doesn't live near by, is an electrician because we had to have the whole house rewired. It's still not illegal to use aluminum wiring, copper is recommended, but it's not requried. The higher temperature of the adapter could cause the aluminum wire to expand and pop off the plug terminals in the wall box, which can lead to arcing and fires.
It really wouldn't be Tesla's fault if developers were using cheap materials when building the house, but it is nice of them to do something to try and mitigate future issues after it becomes a known possibility. We can't account for every scenario that will ever occur, but we can learn as we go along.