You don't need autoplay for infection. Most viruses in the times of DOS spread in floppy disks, and there was no autoplay feature in DOS. Whatever system you are using, it has to access the media in order to learn about things like its filesystem, even before that, there has to be a driver of some sort for the actual hardware. If there is a bug in the code handling any of these things, an infection can occur long time before any autorun feature would even kick in.
Did you have the light on when you had breakfast? Me thinks you ate a bowl full of thick pills instead of your wheeties! I hope so - because otherwise you are barking mad.
In the days of MS/PC/4/IMB-DOS malware (like "del. > nul" in a setup.bat) on floppy drives required the user to actually execute the.exe/.com/.bat file.
If you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, then go home and burn all your records, all your tapes, and all your CDs because every one of those artists who have made brilliant music and enhanced your lives? RrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrEAL fucking high on drugs. The Beatles were so fucking high they let Ringo sing a few songs.
Music is simply sound which inspires emotion or thought. So what even is 'music' is subjective to the listener. The art of making music is basically the art of the manipulation of the human mind through applied use of psychology through a non-typical medium of doing so.
So to start with saying any music is objectively 'better' than any other is a very difficult task.
When looked at from an analytical perspective all of the properties we associate with music are maths related. Our sense of tone is logarithmic and the space between two octaves when viewed logarithmically has the same dissonance properties from octave to octave. There are composers out there who are cold and mathematical such as beethoven that appeal to the masses just fine.
I have never seen two people on pot get in a fight because it is fucking IMPOSSIBLE. "Hey, buddy!" "Hey, what?" "Ummmmmmm...." End of argument.
You are incapacitating the mind as such that you cannot fight, so does this mean we should legalize all drugs that effect your mind in such a way to incapacitate you? So tranquilizer drugs can now be easily acquired too?
They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference.
So.. you are saying that when you smoke pot, you don't see why anything is worth the effort of doing, and yet saying it doesn't make you unmotivated?!? That is a complete contradiction.
I don't get the egg references or how this has anything to do with christianity in the slightest.
Here's a hint - try re-reading from the start. That is start at the top left - and continue down from left to right.
But wait - there's more! It starts with a "quote". Now the thing about a quote in a response to a post in a thread.... oh wait. This could take a very, very, fucking long time to explain to someone so unrepentantly, and irretrievably obtuse. And it's bound to be a pointless excercise given that you couldn't comprehend a fire warning without rejecting it out of hand - coz that'd just imply you didn't understand something.
Christianity has a built-in defense system: anything that questions a belief, no matter how logical the argument is, is the work of Satan by the very fact that it makes you question a belief. It's a very interesting defense mechanism and the only way to get by it -- and believe me, I was raised Southern Baptist -- is to take massive amounts of mushrooms, sit in a field, and just go, "Show me." ` Bill Hicks (I'm sure he had you in mind when he said it)
It's not a waste, since that's not the results of the report. Let me help out.
How the Internet Has Improved Journalism
---
Greater Depth
Improved Quality of Commentary and Analysis
Enabling Citizen Engagement
Speed and Ease
Expanding Hyperlocal Coverage
Serving Highly Specific Interests
Cheaper Content Distribution
Cheaper Content Creation
Direct Access to Community and Civic News
Sound different from TFS?
Yep. Same report. Time to fork slashdot to make it less inflammatory. They took the only concern, "lack of clarity how well trained bloggers are" and made it into a siren favoring Big Media.
Time to insert a Bill Hicks quote - I'll leave it to those with brains to work out the relevance to TFA:-
By the way, if anyone here is in advertising or marketing, kill yourself. Thank you, thank you. Just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day they'll take root. I don't know. You try. You do what you can. Kill yourselves. Seriously though, if you are, do. No really, there's no rationalisation for what you do, and you are Satan's little helpers, OK? Kill yourselves, seriously. You're the ruiner of all things good. Seriously, no, this is not a joke. "There's gonna be a joke coming..." There's no fucking joke coming, you are Satan's spawn, filling the world with bile and garbage, you are fucked and you are fucking us, kill yourselves, it's the only way to save your fucking soul. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show.
"You know what Bill's doing now, he's going for the righteous indignation dollar, that's a big dollar, a lot of people are feeling that indignation, we've done research, huge market. He's doing a good thing." Godammit, I'm not doing that, you scumbags, quit putting a godamn dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet!
Is no one else concerned with the fact that these guys get to do whatever they want, to whom ever they want, and there are no repercussions? I understand the way Anonymous works, it's difficult to track these people down. But you can't tell me that with the recent trend in public hacks that many of them aren't performed by the same group of people.
Anonymous doesn't have any type of real leadership, and there has never been a very active group of core members, it's more or less "hey we're going to attack this site" and then a bunch of basement dwellers rise up and start DDoS'ing. After they get bored they leave and move on.. But many of these recent attacks have seemed more organized than previous Anonymous doings.
Are people not concerned with their actions? I understand that so far they've been doing things that people can agree with "LOLSONYREVIL" "TURKEYCENSORINTERNETS" and blah blah. But the more attention we give them, the bolder they're going to become.. what happens when they decide that they want to fuck with the US or the some major company in the States.. I don't think people will be quite so willing to wave off their actions then.
I hear you brother! And I'd be with you too, but, but - all those young people flaunting their youth, and all those women flaunting their their, um, attractiveness, and all those successful people flaunting their success, and all those people doing things and thinking and standing up to the pricks and threatening the bullies. Oh I'm with you brother - if we don't stop this now people *will* walk on my lawn.
BTW how's that "Hope and Change" thing working out? Turned out to be nothing but Dubya dipped in chocolate huh? I'm afraid the late Bill Hicks nailed it more than 20 years ago. How sad is it the man has been gone for two decades and if anything his words are even more true now?
Bill Hicks:-
I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth.
Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you.
"This is your brain." I've seen a lot of weird shit on drugs. I have never ever ever ever EVER looked at a fucking egg and thought it was a brain.
If you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, then go home and burn all your records, all your tapes, and all your CDs because every one of those artists who have made brilliant music and enhanced your lives? RrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrEAL fucking high on drugs. The Beatles were so fucking high they let Ringo sing a few songs.
I have never seen two people on pot get in a fight because it is fucking IMPOSSIBLE. "Hey, buddy!" "Hey, what?" "Ummmmmmm...." End of argument.
Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally upon our planet. Doesn't the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit... unnatural? You know what I mean? It's nature. How do you make nature against the fucking law?
I believe that God left certain drugs growing naturally upon our planet to help speed up and facilitate our evolution. OK, not the most popular idea ever expressed. Either that or you're all real high and agreeing with me in the only way you can right now. (Starts blinking)
They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference.
No, I don't do drugs anymore, either. But I'll tell you something about drugs. I used to do drugs, but I'll tell you something honestly about drugs, honestly, and I know it's not a very popular idea, you don't hear it very often anymore, but it is the truth: I had a great time doing drugs. Sorry. Never murdered anyone, never robbed anyone, never raped anyone, never beat anyone, never lost a job, a car, a house, a wife or kids, laughed my ass off, and went about my day.
Christianity has a built-in defense system: anything that questions a belief, no matter how logical the argument is, is the work of Satan by the very fact that it makes you question a belief. It's a very interesting defense mechanism and the only way to get by it -- and believe me, I was raised Southern Baptist -- is to take massive amounts of mushrooms, sit in a field, and just go, "Show me."
That's an act, that's a frying pan, that's a stove, you're an alcoholic! Dude, I'm tripping right now, and I still see that that's a fucking egg, alright? I see the UFO's around it, but that's a goddamn egg in the middle. There's a hobbit eating it, but goddammit that hobbit's eating a fucking egg! He's on a unicorn. But, no, th-th-th-that's a fucking egg. How dare you have a wino tell me not to do drugs!
The worst kind of non-smokers are the ones that come up to you and cough. That's pretty fucking cruel isn't it? Do you go up to cripples and dance too?
A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. You think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a fucking cross? It's like going up to Jackie Onassis wearing a rifle pendant.
More than a century ago Tea was promoted to suppress appetite. Nicotine at least in ancient virginia slims ads promised the same.
The old joke about Diet came to mind.
Nicotine and Caffeine are the "Model": Diet.
As in - about the only thing they consume is Nicotine and Caffeine (excessive dieting) came the moronic conclusion that models were rail-thin "because" of nicotine and caffeine. And that started in the 90s when heroin, which does suppress appetite (and depresses the repository system) was very common in the modelling industry. (the "waif" era)
Actually, you just can't die with dignity period. It's hard to be dignified when your last actions are, well, undignified.
Lots of people die with dignity. They say something pithy, go to sleep, and never wake up. By the time they void their bowels they aren't there any more; they're dead.
...lying in there own effluence. Very dignified. Not that there isn't degrees of undignified. Spending your last years lying in your own effluence for instance.
LMAO! Proof he's nothing but a damned troll, because he runs from clearcut evidence he is nothing but another "ne'er-do-well" slashdot troll.
No argument there - at least his username is honest. drinkypoos is the pastime of bitter shirtlifters, which technically are a sub-class of troll. Whereas trolls derive pleasure from offending, drinkpoos likes to offend but is never happy.
Maybe you could whip up a special host file entry for her?
I've just had a lecture from a relative about this same story (it was running in our national press last week). Apparently it's bullshit. [...] The key points my cousin has pointed out are "there is little evidence to support the appetite suppressing ability of substances like tartaric acid (it's common in food)", "2-acetylpyridine is naturally found in tobacco (and many other products coffee, beans etc) and it is used to help people give up cigarettes " "the mice study dosed mice with levels no smoker would ever reach" "the (mice) studies were funded by a group associated with a North American tobacco company" "some (European) cigarettes in the early nineties might have had additives for the purposes of appetite suppression" "nicotine is toxic in fairly small amounts - the bodies reaction to strong toxins is to reduce appetite" "residue from kerosene is the most common post harvest additive to tobacco - it will suppress appetite too".
Naturally found? But not in the same amounts. Water is naturally found in rain but lying face down in just two inches of it can kill you. Used to help people give up cigarettes? So is nicotine. The mice were superdosed? That's meaningful, but it indicates a need for human trials to see at what point there IS a meaningful effect on humans. The studies were funded by a NA tobacco company, yet they still showed an effect, that's an argument for and not against. Some cigs might have had? Many cigs might still have, they're not labeled with what is in them. Nicotine is an appetite suppressant, that doesn't mean that adding another one can't have an additional effect. Repeat that argument for Kerosene.
Did your relative have any valid arguments beyond the issue of superdosing?
No - not in anywhere near the same amounts. (derrrr - it's an "additive") Apparently it was a big earner for a Chicago based food additive manufacturer (are they based anywhere else but Chicago?). During the early '70s they came up with the idea that if your nose and tongue thought something was food - you wouldn't be hungry (kind of counter-intuitive). 2-acetylpyridine was one of products they sold as being able to do that. Apparently it wasn't just tried as a cigarette additive (and it is still used as a food flavouring and scent) and at one time a big US health food chain owned the rights to this miracle weight loss product. The miracle being that anyone fell for the claim in the first place.
Your water analogy is off with your follower (APK). But hey, what ever makes you feel less marginalized.
There's still "herbal" anti smoking treatments on the market that contain it. The "help people give up cigarettes" is their claim not mine. (the only way to break the nicotine addiction is quit, smoking is a habit, nicotine use is an addiction).
"the mice study dosed mice with levels no smoker would ever reach" Some of them died from nicotine poisoning. Ever heard of a person dying of nicotine poisoning because of smoking? The rest of your "superdosing" comments make no sense.
OK "residue from kerosene is the most common post harvest additive to tobacco - it will suppress appetite too". Wait until your stomach is growling from hunger - then go siphon some petrol. Still feel hungry.? Ever seen a fat petrol sniffer?
Feel free to test your theory about nicotine as an appetite suppressant the next time you're hungry. It's bullshit too - the sort of crap that's perpetuated by spoon fed morons like yourself. Armchair apathetics whose inflated sense of self-worth demands the world "prove" things to them. Feel free to get off you fat arse and do your own research. You could learn to read properly at the same time.
Do you have anything valid? Ever?
I'll hand you back to APK now. You're better matched, and he's certainly got you worked out.
so all the research to the contrary is just a big conspiracy then?
Yes. A combination of "it's not my fault" and "hey I'm just trying to pay my mortgage". Ditto sex addiction, food addiction.
Lock a heroin addict in a padded cell and a heavy smoker in a padded cell, deny them their drug of choice, and see which one asks you to kill them first. I think you'd be a little surprised if you think nicotine is more addictive than heroin.
:-D Might be the basis of a new treatment for those that "can't" stop smoking.... cluck, cluck? And you thought you'd kill for a cigarette? But would you rent out your arse for one? Would you gladly let someone beat the crap out of you after you had the cigarette just to get the cigarette? (wake up!)
Nicotine and smoking - nice for so many reasons, but absolutely no pain involved in the withdrawal - maybe all smokers should be locked up with someone going cold turkey - preferably in an un-vented cell!.
Stupid was the wrong thing to say, and I am sorry for that.
Don't be sorry. It is stupid.
Past stupidity is a good thing. It implies progression.
A life un-reviewed is not a life.
Those that never make mistakes are either liars - or they just never tried. Which is generally why they feel the need to constantly lecture others. Ex-smokers being the worst. As my grandfather used to say - "the hardest thing about giving up smoking is not telling others".
Get real. Everyone I know who smokes (including me) started when they were 14, 15, or 16 years old. At that age it's not about being stupid, it's about doing what your friends are doing because you don't want to look like a pussy or a killjoy or a doofus. Damn you, the first time I took a drag off a cigarette I knew it was stupid and I didn't want to be doing it at all, but the fear of being laughed at or pushed around outweighed the logic. I was not stupid, and I did know about the dangers
Agreed - except for the knowing the dangers - I didn't know it was addictive or deadly (40 years ago). And I was stupid. It made me sick - yet, like every other (juvenile) smoker I persevered due to peer group pressure. When had my first cigarettes I was in primary school - the only teacher who did not smoke was the drama teacher. Every single role model I had - smoked. Good children played sport - sponsored by tobacco. Rebellious children admired movie and rock stars - who all smoked. The local shops sold single cigarettes. The leaders of industry and politics - all smoked. It was pretty pervasive marketing. Paid a lot of mortgages.
I have personally known many people who smoke because they *think* it helps suppress appetite. In fact they often justify the cost by claiming they save on food. I've always assumed this is one of the many reasons young females choose to smoke.
I haven't heard the part about saving money on food. That's a bit bizarre. It's not unreasonable to think that smoking helps people to lose weight though. Nicotine is a known appetite suppressant and it is also a stimulant. So eat less and burn more.
I have heard from those that tried to quit, gained weight, and used that as an excuse to resume smoking.
If it is found that that most of the weight loss is from the additives and not from the nicotine, then it might convince some of the vanity smokers to give it up. Why smoke if you can get same weight control effect from an over the counter pill that doesn't leave tar if your lungs?
I've just had a lecture from a relative about this same story (it was running in our national press last week). Apparently it's bullshit. I'm told that smoking reduces your ability to process food - when you smoke (tobacco). When addicted smokers stop smoking they quite ofter seek other forms of oral gratification - so not only does their usual amount of food "go further" - they eat more. And it's not just smokers - it's anyone recovering from a (reall) addiction. The key points my cousin has pointed out are "there is little evidence to support the appetite suppressing ability of substances like tartaric acid (it's common in food)", "2-acetylpyridine is naturally found in tobacco (and many other products coffee, beans etc) and it is used to help people give up cigarettes" "the mice study dosed mice with levels no smoker would ever reach" "the (mice) studies were funded by a group associated with a North American tobacco company" "some (European) cigarettes in the early nineties might have had additives for the purposes of appetite suppression" "nicotine is toxic in fairly small amounts - the bodies reaction to strong toxins is to reduce appetite" "residue from kerosene is the most common post harvest additive to tobacco - it will suppress appetite too".
From the referenced pdf:- Background: Smoking is thought to produce an appetite-suppressing effect by many smokers. Thus, the fear of body weight
gain often outweighs the perception of health benefits associated with smoking cessation, particularly in adolescents. We
examined whether the tobacco industry played a role in appetite and body weight control related to smoking and smoking
cessation. Methods: We performed a systematic search within the archives of six major US and UK tobacco companies (American
Tobacco, Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Lorillard, Brown & Williamson and British American Tobacco) that were Defendants in
tobacco litigation settled in 1998. Findings are dated from 1949 to 1999. Results: The documents revealed the strategies planned
and used by the industry to enhance effects of smoking on weight and appetite, mostly by chemical modifications of cigar-
ettes contents. Appetite-suppressant molecules, such as tartaric acid and 2-acetylpyridine were added to some cigarettes.
Conclusion: These tobacco companies played an active and not disclaimed role in the anti-appetite effects of smoking, at
least in the past, by adding appetite-suppressant molecules into their cigarettes.
Despite the tantalizing insights into the tobacco industry strategies - they fail to quote any evidence.
Disclaimer:- I have no doubt tobacco companies happily sell slow death - or that smoking would kill you without the companies adding radioactive metal refining waste to the fertilizer - it just wouldn't be death by cancer. I smoked for 30 years. I stopped last year. I deliberately didn't take up sweets, chocolate, deserts, nuts, seeds, nicotine patches etc, or extra sugar. I haven't gained any weight. (YMMV).
Being found not guilty of a crime doesn't mean that you didn't do it, You're thinking of innocence in moral or religious terms.
Um no. You're not comprehending "!=" are you?:-) [hint: not equals]
Legal information is where Wikipedia really falls down (which is what many of the posters are relying on).
No I'm thinking specifically of those cases where there is a "reversal of onus" - which means specifically that should you fail to demonstrate reasonable doubt then you will be found guilty. Eg. You are arrested because the police claim they found a joint in your glovebox. See how quick silence gets the case thrown out of court. Innocent until proven guilt means you do not have to demonstrate doubt or innocence - the prosecution have to prove beyond doubt you are guilty. In this instance the law requires the defendant be proven guilty.
My comments where in response to blanket statements about innocent until proven guilty. The laws are not uniform in the USA, particularly with drug and terrorism "offences". If you require a defence it's usually a good sign that you are not truly presumed innocent.
It's unusual - but it is possible to be declared innocent by a court - generally it takes the conviction of the person who did the crime you're accused of.
It doesn't even have to be profitable, there just needs to be somebody with a message they want sent. Spammers aren't paid to push products, they are paid to deliver n-thousand messages. That's why we hear stories about it taking millions of messages to earn $100.
Kind of hard to believe. They used to pay children to deliver newspapers until it became too expensive checking up on deliveries - and there were too many complaints about newspapers being dumped. I could tell you I'm going to deliver 10 million spam/ads but would you pay me on my word - or on the basis of sales? Even without first-hand experience of the industry (Bulk Data's business of contract data entry for merchants and medical transcription service, and a "cosy" relationship with Melbourne IT). There's thousands of script kiddie spam king wanna-be's - but they're not the ones making the money. It's the "direct marketing" people that are making the bucks. And the idea that all these viagra merchants are getting rich without having any association with the spam that drives their sales.... bullshit. If you make money off products marketed with spam - you should lose the money - unless we can prove you are linked to the spammers - in which case you should lose the money and go to jail. And quick - before ISPs take the Post Offices line that it (junk mail) keeps people in jobs.
Perhaps a law that says if you're caught spamming you have to go around to every household you spammed, and try and deliver that porn ad in person.
Don't ask the teachers - if they knew the answers they'd wouldn't be teaching;-p
As the library staff or the student union, ask the support people. Or use Google.
I've never had any problems accessing any of the major East coast uni networks.
Monash
Melbourne will tell you they don't support Linux - but then they're barely capable of reading the side of a Windows box... if you find translating the instructions for Windows users too hard (you should probably give up Linux and uni) ask the local LUG (the members can be found huddled over laptops without guis in the bar).
Have phun
Yes it is; you're innocent until proven guilty, regardless of how much prosecutors, police, and the government don't want to believe it sometimes. If the government can't be burdened to prove that he's guilty, he's innocent.
Pardon me (pun intended) - except where there's a reversal of onus
As much as I dislike Microsoft and it's products/excrement this story is just bullshit. 600+ posts != legions. As for the claim of 7 million views before Microsoft shut it down - pretty fucking unlikely given it's not shutdown. Storm in a self-promoting-blog. One brief video promotion spells doom!
Actually, the promo didn't show any security holes so by that logic Windoof 8 won't be insecure either (sigh).
I want my two minutes back - did Rupert Murdoch buy Slashdot?
I wonder if they're pointing it at the data itself looking for inconsistencies or flaws. In all that data, some fraction of it will be erroneous. Watson would be the best equipped to dig that out.
How else could it possibly work? Randomise decisions to cope with a knowledge base built on conflicting information?
I was just thinking it might be a useful tool even if it's not attempting to diagnose an individual patient at that moment (or session, or thread,...).
Eg., Watson's asked to diagnose a patient. It does so to the best of its ability, and that fires up housekeeping jobs in the background that notice that five prestigious sources said $blah on the subject, while another contradicted or added value the others didn't mention. Which data needs to be followed up? Is the one source under-informed or incorrect, or are the other five?
Like when I said:-
The use of these sorts of programs to process and make sense of huge amounts of incomplete data is truly interesting though. It's not uncommon to hear of identical symptoms receiving identical treatment, with differing outcomes - logically the diagnosis was made with insufficient data. Programs similar to Watson that could post process huge amounts of data the doctors don't have access to, might produce some useful knowledge.
Do you have a reading problems as well?
As for all your other tinhat ravings,
It's a joke Mr "takes himself to seriously oooh Sony's got universal root kit". Though many of those systems have been proposed, and some of them are being worked on.
I suspect Watson's subject to medical privacy law.
Watson is a program. I suspect you don't have any more of an idea about medical privacy law than you do about expert systems. Catch Data, Data Warehouse, and many others - have all your medical records. We do a lot of work for a local variant - cataloguing xray results for a nation. Only last month we worked on a research project processing the entire DNA database for Orkney - and the client was many companies with access to that data. You don't own your medical information, indeed you don't own your DNA.
I wonder if they're pointing it at the data itself looking for inconsistencies or flaws. In all that data, some fraction of it will be erroneous. Watson would be the best equipped to dig that out.
How else could it possibly work? Randomise decisions to cope with a knowledge base built on conflicting information? Weighting doesn't lead to decisions suitable for treatment - just decisions to make further tests.
The use of these sorts of programs to process and make sense of huge amounts of incomplete data is truly interesting though. It's not uncommon to hear of identical symptoms receiving identical treatment, with differing outcomes - logically the diagnosis was made with insufficient data. Programs similar to Watson that could post process huge amounts of data the doctors don't have access to, might produce some useful knowledge. Your doctor doesn't know what you really eat. Do you? Your doctor doesn't know who you have contact with, or what you think. But a program that was plugged into the banks would know about your finances, and Facebook could give useful information about your state of mind. And if Facebook bought Redtube (and Nintendo) they could contribute data on your sex life. Maybe Google and Microsoft (Melissa and Bill care about us, a lot) could kick in somehow? Did StreetView see you snarfing a double big whopper?. Maybe if Microsoft gets enough data about you they can cure cancer! Apple (though I know Steve thinks a bong cures everything) could send in data from iPhones to show how much exercise your getting, and what you've been downloading from iTunes.
Feeling a bit ill and you go to viist Watson.... who sees you've been downloading heavy metal, knows who's been sleeping with the people you've been sleeping with (and seen the movies), and what you've been buying with your "untraceable bitcoins" (damn smart meters, and, told you not to torrent while you tor!) - prescribes antidepressants, penicillin, treatment for anal warts, signs you up for rehab, and puts you on suicide watch. Which will teach you to secure your wireless modem in future..
Most people today might as well live with pigs as in the middle ages the only difference is that they can text via their cell phone to another PIG. This was not possible in the Dark Ages.
And Twitter. You forgot Twitter, and Facebook. And Fox news.
I for one am looking forward to the age of the drive through robotic doctor. It's kinda like a carwash - with MRIs and X-Rays built in.:p
Yeah *right*!
The "clinic" will have Golden fucking Arches out the front, you'll order a renal transplant with anaesthetic, it's a two minute wait for the transplant but the anaesthetic won't be ready for twenty minutes.
The pimply kid that served you added cigarette butts, pubic hair, and a dead mouse for lolz, and yeah, you *did* say *no* pickles with that.... You enter smart and thin, and exit dumb and fat!
Oh, I can't wait for the robotic fly-thru medical clinic. It'll be fly-thru coz we'll all have flying cars then. They'll run on hydrogen and be made out of recycled bamboo. And there'll be happy magical animals made out of marshmellow and chocolate and, ooh....
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need autoplay for infection. Most viruses in the times of DOS spread in floppy disks, and there was no autoplay feature in DOS. Whatever system you are using, it has to access the media in order to learn about things like its filesystem, even before that, there has to be a driver of some sort for the actual hardware. If there is a bug in the code handling any of these things, an infection can occur long time before any autorun feature would even kick in.
Did you have the light on when you had breakfast? Me thinks you ate a bowl full of thick pills instead of your wheeties! I hope so - because otherwise you are barking mad.
In the days of MS/PC/4/IMB-DOS malware (like "del. > nul" in a setup.bat) on floppy drives required the user to actually execute the .exe/.com/.bat file.
If you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, then go home and burn all your records, all your tapes, and all your CDs because every one of those artists who have made brilliant music and enhanced your lives? RrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrEAL fucking high on drugs. The Beatles were so fucking high they let Ringo sing a few songs.
Music is simply sound which inspires emotion or thought. So what even is 'music' is subjective to the listener. The art of making music is basically the art of the manipulation of the human mind through applied use of psychology through a non-typical medium of doing so.
So to start with saying any music is objectively 'better' than any other is a very difficult task.
When looked at from an analytical perspective all of the properties we associate with music are maths related. Our sense of tone is logarithmic and the space between two octaves when viewed logarithmically has the same dissonance properties from octave to octave. There are composers out there who are cold and mathematical such as beethoven that appeal to the masses just fine.
I have never seen two people on pot get in a fight because it is fucking IMPOSSIBLE. "Hey, buddy!" "Hey, what?" "Ummmmmmm...." End of argument.
You are incapacitating the mind as such that you cannot fight, so does this mean we should legalize all drugs that effect your mind in such a way to incapacitate you? So tranquilizer drugs can now be easily acquired too?
They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference.
So.. you are saying that when you smoke pot, you don't see why anything is worth the effort of doing, and yet saying it doesn't make you unmotivated?!? That is a complete contradiction.
I don't get the egg references or how this has anything to do with christianity in the slightest.
Here's a hint - try re-reading from the start. That is start at the top left - and continue down from left to right.
But wait - there's more! It starts with a "quote". Now the thing about a quote in a response to a post in a thread.... oh wait. This could take a very, very, fucking long time to explain to someone so unrepentantly, and irretrievably obtuse. And it's bound to be a pointless excercise given that you couldn't comprehend a fire warning without rejecting it out of hand - coz that'd just imply you didn't understand something.
Christianity has a built-in defense system: anything that questions a belief, no matter how logical the argument is, is the work of Satan by the very fact that it makes you question a belief. It's a very interesting defense mechanism and the only way to get by it -- and believe me, I was raised Southern Baptist -- is to take massive amounts of mushrooms, sit in a field, and just go, "Show me." ` Bill Hicks (I'm sure he had you in mind when he said it)
It's not a waste, since that's not the results of the report. Let me help out.
How the Internet Has Improved Journalism --- Greater Depth Improved Quality of Commentary and Analysis Enabling Citizen Engagement Speed and Ease Expanding Hyperlocal Coverage Serving Highly Specific Interests Cheaper Content Distribution Cheaper Content Creation Direct Access to Community and Civic News
Sound different from TFS?
Yep. Same report. Time to fork slashdot to make it less inflammatory. They took the only concern, "lack of clarity how well trained bloggers are" and made it into a siren favoring Big Media.
Time to insert a Bill Hicks quote - I'll leave it to those with brains to work out the relevance to TFA:-
By the way, if anyone here is in advertising or marketing, kill yourself. Thank you, thank you. Just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day they'll take root. I don't know. You try. You do what you can. Kill yourselves. Seriously though, if you are, do. No really, there's no rationalisation for what you do, and you are Satan's little helpers, OK? Kill yourselves, seriously. You're the ruiner of all things good. Seriously, no, this is not a joke. "There's gonna be a joke coming..." There's no fucking joke coming, you are Satan's spawn, filling the world with bile and garbage, you are fucked and you are fucking us, kill yourselves, it's the only way to save your fucking soul. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show.
"You know what Bill's doing now, he's going for the righteous indignation dollar, that's a big dollar, a lot of people are feeling that indignation, we've done research, huge market. He's doing a good thing." Godammit, I'm not doing that, you scumbags, quit putting a godamn dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet!
Is no one else concerned with the fact that these guys get to do whatever they want, to whom ever they want, and there are no repercussions? I understand the way Anonymous works, it's difficult to track these people down. But you can't tell me that with the recent trend in public hacks that many of them aren't performed by the same group of people. Anonymous doesn't have any type of real leadership, and there has never been a very active group of core members, it's more or less "hey we're going to attack this site" and then a bunch of basement dwellers rise up and start DDoS'ing. After they get bored they leave and move on.. But many of these recent attacks have seemed more organized than previous Anonymous doings. Are people not concerned with their actions? I understand that so far they've been doing things that people can agree with "LOLSONYREVIL" "TURKEYCENSORINTERNETS" and blah blah. But the more attention we give them, the bolder they're going to become.. what happens when they decide that they want to fuck with the US or the some major company in the States.. I don't think people will be quite so willing to wave off their actions then.
I hear you brother! And I'd be with you too, but, but - all those young people flaunting their youth, and all those women flaunting their their, um, attractiveness, and all those successful people flaunting their success, and all those people doing things and thinking and standing up to the pricks and threatening the bullies. Oh I'm with you brother - if we don't stop this now people *will* walk on my lawn.
Dick
BTW how's that "Hope and Change" thing working out? Turned out to be nothing but Dubya dipped in chocolate huh? I'm afraid the late Bill Hicks nailed it more than 20 years ago. How sad is it the man has been gone for two decades and if anything his words are even more true now?
Bill Hicks:-
I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth.
Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you.
"This is your brain." I've seen a lot of weird shit on drugs. I have never ever ever ever EVER looked at a fucking egg and thought it was a brain.
If you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, then go home and burn all your records, all your tapes, and all your CDs because every one of those artists who have made brilliant music and enhanced your lives? RrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrEAL fucking high on drugs. The Beatles were so fucking high they let Ringo sing a few songs.
I have never seen two people on pot get in a fight because it is fucking IMPOSSIBLE. "Hey, buddy!" "Hey, what?" "Ummmmmmm...." End of argument.
Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally upon our planet. Doesn't the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit... unnatural? You know what I mean? It's nature. How do you make nature against the fucking law?
I believe that God left certain drugs growing naturally upon our planet to help speed up and facilitate our evolution. OK, not the most popular idea ever expressed. Either that or you're all real high and agreeing with me in the only way you can right now. (Starts blinking)
They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference.
No, I don't do drugs anymore, either. But I'll tell you something about drugs. I used to do drugs, but I'll tell you something honestly about drugs, honestly, and I know it's not a very popular idea, you don't hear it very often anymore, but it is the truth: I had a great time doing drugs. Sorry. Never murdered anyone, never robbed anyone, never raped anyone, never beat anyone, never lost a job, a car, a house, a wife or kids, laughed my ass off, and went about my day.
Christianity has a built-in defense system: anything that questions a belief, no matter how logical the argument is, is the work of Satan by the very fact that it makes you question a belief. It's a very interesting defense mechanism and the only way to get by it -- and believe me, I was raised Southern Baptist -- is to take massive amounts of mushrooms, sit in a field, and just go, "Show me."
That's an act, that's a frying pan, that's a stove, you're an alcoholic! Dude, I'm tripping right now, and I still see that that's a fucking egg, alright? I see the UFO's around it, but that's a goddamn egg in the middle. There's a hobbit eating it, but goddammit that hobbit's eating a fucking egg! He's on a unicorn. But, no, th-th-th-that's a fucking egg. How dare you have a wino tell me not to do drugs!
The worst kind of non-smokers are the ones that come up to you and cough. That's pretty fucking cruel isn't it? Do you go up to cripples and dance too?
A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. You think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a fucking cross? It's like going up to Jackie Onassis wearing a rifle pendant.
More than a century ago Tea was promoted to suppress appetite. Nicotine at least in ancient virginia slims ads promised the same. The old joke about Diet came to mind. Nicotine and Caffeine are the "Model": Diet.
As in - about the only thing they consume is Nicotine and Caffeine (excessive dieting) came the moronic conclusion that models were rail-thin "because" of nicotine and caffeine. And that started in the 90s when heroin, which does suppress appetite (and depresses the repository system) was very common in the modelling industry. (the "waif" era)
Actually, you just can't die with dignity period. It's hard to be dignified when your last actions are, well, undignified.
Lots of people die with dignity. They say something pithy, go to sleep, and never wake up. By the time they void their bowels they aren't there any more; they're dead.
...lying in there own effluence. Very dignified. Not that there isn't degrees of undignified. Spending your last years lying in your own effluence for instance.
From a simple question: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2225174&cid=36390518
?
LMAO! Proof he's nothing but a damned troll, because he runs from clearcut evidence he is nothing but another "ne'er-do-well" slashdot troll.
No argument there - at least his username is honest. drinkypoos is the pastime of bitter shirtlifters, which technically are a sub-class of troll. Whereas trolls derive pleasure from offending, drinkpoos likes to offend but is never happy.
Maybe you could whip up a special host file entry for her?
;-p
I've just had a lecture from a relative about this same story (it was running in our national press last week). Apparently it's bullshit. [...] The key points my cousin has pointed out are "there is little evidence to support the appetite suppressing ability of substances like tartaric acid (it's common in food)", "2-acetylpyridine is naturally found in tobacco (and many other products coffee, beans etc) and it is used to help people give up cigarettes " "the mice study dosed mice with levels no smoker would ever reach" "the (mice) studies were funded by a group associated with a North American tobacco company" "some (European) cigarettes in the early nineties might have had additives for the purposes of appetite suppression" "nicotine is toxic in fairly small amounts - the bodies reaction to strong toxins is to reduce appetite" "residue from kerosene is the most common post harvest additive to tobacco - it will suppress appetite too".
Naturally found? But not in the same amounts. Water is naturally found in rain but lying face down in just two inches of it can kill you. Used to help people give up cigarettes? So is nicotine. The mice were superdosed? That's meaningful, but it indicates a need for human trials to see at what point there IS a meaningful effect on humans. The studies were funded by a NA tobacco company, yet they still showed an effect, that's an argument for and not against. Some cigs might have had? Many cigs might still have, they're not labeled with what is in them. Nicotine is an appetite suppressant, that doesn't mean that adding another one can't have an additional effect. Repeat that argument for Kerosene.
Did your relative have any valid arguments beyond the issue of superdosing?
No - not in anywhere near the same amounts. (derrrr - it's an "additive") Apparently it was a big earner for a Chicago based food additive manufacturer (are they based anywhere else but Chicago?). During the early '70s they came up with the idea that if your nose and tongue thought something was food - you wouldn't be hungry (kind of counter-intuitive). 2-acetylpyridine was one of products they sold as being able to do that. Apparently it wasn't just tried as a cigarette additive (and it is still used as a food flavouring and scent) and at one time a big US health food chain owned the rights to this miracle weight loss product. The miracle being that anyone fell for the claim in the first place.
Your water analogy is off with your follower (APK). But hey, what ever makes you feel less marginalized.
There's still "herbal" anti smoking treatments on the market that contain it. The "help people give up cigarettes" is their claim not mine. (the only way to break the nicotine addiction is quit, smoking is a habit, nicotine use is an addiction).
"the mice study dosed mice with levels no smoker would ever reach" Some of them died from nicotine poisoning. Ever heard of a person dying of nicotine poisoning because of smoking? The rest of your "superdosing" comments make no sense.
OK "residue from kerosene is the most common post harvest additive to tobacco - it will suppress appetite too". Wait until your stomach is growling from hunger - then go siphon some petrol. Still feel hungry.? Ever seen a fat petrol sniffer?
Feel free to test your theory about nicotine as an appetite suppressant the next time you're hungry. It's bullshit too - the sort of crap that's perpetuated by spoon fed morons like yourself. Armchair apathetics whose inflated sense of self-worth demands the world "prove" things to them. Feel free to get off you fat arse and do your own research. You could learn to read properly at the same time.
Do you have anything valid? Ever?
I'll hand you back to APK now. You're better matched, and he's certainly got you worked out.
Wow, I want what you're smoking...
He's not smoking it - but he'll sell you a pack.
For a moment I thought he was talking about television.
so all the research to the contrary is just a big conspiracy then?
Yes. A combination of "it's not my fault" and "hey I'm just trying to pay my mortgage". Ditto sex addiction, food addiction.
Lock a heroin addict in a padded cell and a heavy smoker in a padded cell, deny them their drug of choice, and see which one asks you to kill them first. I think you'd be a little surprised if you think nicotine is more addictive than heroin.
:-D Might be the basis of a new treatment for those that "can't" stop smoking.... cluck, cluck? And you thought you'd kill for a cigarette? But would you rent out your arse for one? Would you gladly let someone beat the crap out of you after you had the cigarette just to get the cigarette? (wake up!)
Nicotine and smoking - nice for so many reasons, but absolutely no pain involved in the withdrawal - maybe all smokers should be locked up with someone going cold turkey - preferably in an un-vented cell!.
Stupid was the wrong thing to say, and I am sorry for that.
Don't be sorry. It is stupid.
Past stupidity is a good thing. It implies progression.
A life un-reviewed is not a life.
Those that never make mistakes are either liars - or they just never tried. Which is generally why they feel the need to constantly lecture others. Ex-smokers being the worst. As my grandfather used to say - "the hardest thing about giving up smoking is not telling others".
The above poster is a retard who doesn't remember what childhood is like.
The above poster is a retarded child.
There, fixed it for you.
Get real. Everyone I know who smokes (including me) started when they were 14, 15, or 16 years old. At that age it's not about being stupid, it's about doing what your friends are doing because you don't want to look like a pussy or a killjoy or a doofus. Damn you, the first time I took a drag off a cigarette I knew it was stupid and I didn't want to be doing it at all, but the fear of being laughed at or pushed around outweighed the logic. I was not stupid, and I did know about the dangers
Agreed - except for the knowing the dangers - I didn't know it was addictive or deadly (40 years ago). And I was stupid. It made me sick - yet, like every other (juvenile) smoker I persevered due to peer group pressure. When had my first cigarettes I was in primary school - the only teacher who did not smoke was the drama teacher. Every single role model I had - smoked. Good children played sport - sponsored by tobacco. Rebellious children admired movie and rock stars - who all smoked. The local shops sold single cigarettes. The leaders of industry and politics - all smoked. It was pretty pervasive marketing. Paid a lot of mortgages.
hey, my mother said it true; you can't die with dignity if you can't breathe!
Actually, you just can't die with dignity period. It's hard to be dignified when your last actions are, well, undignified.
Having watched someone die of lung cancer - it's about as pleasant to die from as mesothelioma, just quicker.
I have personally known many people who smoke because they *think* it helps suppress appetite. In fact they often justify the cost by claiming they save on food. I've always assumed this is one of the many reasons young females choose to smoke.
I haven't heard the part about saving money on food. That's a bit bizarre. It's not unreasonable to think that smoking helps people to lose weight though. Nicotine is a known appetite suppressant and it is also a stimulant. So eat less and burn more.
I have heard from those that tried to quit, gained weight, and used that as an excuse to resume smoking.
If it is found that that most of the weight loss is from the additives and not from the nicotine, then it might convince some of the vanity smokers to give it up. Why smoke if you can get same weight control effect from an over the counter pill that doesn't leave tar if your lungs?
I've just had a lecture from a relative about this same story (it was running in our national press last week). Apparently it's bullshit. I'm told that smoking reduces your ability to process food - when you smoke (tobacco). When addicted smokers stop smoking they quite ofter seek other forms of oral gratification - so not only does their usual amount of food "go further" - they eat more. And it's not just smokers - it's anyone recovering from a (reall) addiction. The key points my cousin has pointed out are "there is little evidence to support the appetite suppressing ability of substances like tartaric acid (it's common in food)", "2-acetylpyridine is naturally found in tobacco (and many other products coffee, beans etc) and it is used to help people give up cigarettes " "the mice study dosed mice with levels no smoker would ever reach" "the (mice) studies were funded by a group associated with a North American tobacco company" "some (European) cigarettes in the early nineties might have had additives for the purposes of appetite suppression" "nicotine is toxic in fairly small amounts - the bodies reaction to strong toxins is to reduce appetite" "residue from kerosene is the most common post harvest additive to tobacco - it will suppress appetite too".
From the referenced pdf:- Background: Smoking is thought to produce an appetite-suppressing effect by many smokers. Thus, the fear of body weight gain often outweighs the perception of health benefits associated with smoking cessation, particularly in adolescents. We examined whether the tobacco industry played a role in appetite and body weight control related to smoking and smoking cessation. Methods: We performed a systematic search within the archives of six major US and UK tobacco companies (American Tobacco, Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Lorillard, Brown & Williamson and British American Tobacco) that were Defendants in tobacco litigation settled in 1998. Findings are dated from 1949 to 1999. Results: The documents revealed the strategies planned and used by the industry to enhance effects of smoking on weight and appetite, mostly by chemical modifications of cigar- ettes contents. Appetite-suppressant molecules, such as tartaric acid and 2-acetylpyridine were added to some cigarettes. Conclusion: These tobacco companies played an active and not disclaimed role in the anti-appetite effects of smoking, at least in the past, by adding appetite-suppressant molecules into their cigarettes.
Despite the tantalizing insights into the tobacco industry strategies - they fail to quote any evidence.
Disclaimer:- I have no doubt tobacco companies happily sell slow death - or that smoking would kill you without the companies adding radioactive metal refining waste to the fertilizer - it just wouldn't be death by cancer. I smoked for 30 years. I stopped last year. I deliberately didn't take up sweets, chocolate, deserts, nuts, seeds, nicotine patches etc, or extra sugar. I haven't gained any weight. (YMMV).
Not guilty != Innocent
Being found not guilty of a crime doesn't mean that you didn't do it, You're thinking of innocence in moral or religious terms.
Um no. You're not comprehending "!=" are you? :-) [hint: not equals]
Legal information is where Wikipedia really falls down (which is what many of the posters are relying on).
No I'm thinking specifically of those cases where there is a "reversal of onus" - which means specifically that should you fail to demonstrate reasonable doubt then you will be found guilty. Eg. You are arrested because the police claim they found a joint in your glovebox. See how quick silence gets the case thrown out of court. Innocent until proven guilt means you do not have to demonstrate doubt or innocence - the prosecution have to prove beyond doubt you are guilty. In this instance the law requires the defendant be proven guilty.
My comments where in response to blanket statements about innocent until proven guilty. The laws are not uniform in the USA, particularly with drug and terrorism "offences". If you require a defence it's usually a good sign that you are not truly presumed innocent.
It's unusual - but it is possible to be declared innocent by a court - generally it takes the conviction of the person who did the crime you're accused of.
It doesn't even have to be profitable, there just needs to be somebody with a message they want sent. Spammers aren't paid to push products, they are paid to deliver n-thousand messages. That's why we hear stories about it taking millions of messages to earn $100.
Kind of hard to believe. They used to pay children to deliver newspapers until it became too expensive checking up on deliveries - and there were too many complaints about newspapers being dumped. I could tell you I'm going to deliver 10 million spam/ads but would you pay me on my word - or on the basis of sales? Even without first-hand experience of the industry (Bulk Data's business of contract data entry for merchants and medical transcription service, and a "cosy" relationship with Melbourne IT). There's thousands of script kiddie spam king wanna-be's - but they're not the ones making the money. It's the "direct marketing" people that are making the bucks. And the idea that all these viagra merchants are getting rich without having any association with the spam that drives their sales.... bullshit. If you make money off products marketed with spam - you should lose the money - unless we can prove you are linked to the spammers - in which case you should lose the money and go to jail. And quick - before ISPs take the Post Offices line that it (junk mail) keeps people in jobs.
Perhaps a law that says if you're caught spamming you have to go around to every household you spammed, and try and deliver that porn ad in person.
Don't ask the teachers - if they knew the answers they'd wouldn't be teaching ;-p
As the library staff or the student union, ask the support people. Or use Google.
I've never had any problems accessing any of the major East coast uni networks.
Monash
Melbourne will tell you they don't support Linux - but then they're barely capable of reading the side of a Windows box... if you find translating the instructions for Windows users too hard (you should probably give up Linux and uni) ask the local LUG (the members can be found huddled over laptops without guis in the bar).
Have phun
Yes it is; you're innocent until proven guilty, regardless of how much prosecutors, police, and the government don't want to believe it sometimes. If the government can't be burdened to prove that he's guilty, he's innocent.
Pardon me (pun intended) - except where there's a reversal of onus
Not guilty != Innocent
Did you study law in your lounge room?
Actually, the promo didn't show any security holes so by that logic Windoof 8 won't be insecure either (sigh).
I want my two minutes back - did Rupert Murdoch buy Slashdot?
I was just thinking it might be a useful tool even if it's not attempting to diagnose an individual patient at that moment (or session, or thread, ...).
Eg., Watson's asked to diagnose a patient. It does so to the best of its ability, and that fires up housekeeping jobs in the background that notice that five prestigious sources said $blah on the subject, while another contradicted or added value the others didn't mention. Which data needs to be followed up? Is the one source under-informed or incorrect, or are the other five?
Like when I said:-
The use of these sorts of programs to process and make sense of huge amounts of incomplete data is truly interesting though. It's not uncommon to hear of identical symptoms receiving identical treatment, with differing outcomes - logically the diagnosis was made with insufficient data. Programs similar to Watson that could post process huge amounts of data the doctors don't have access to, might produce some useful knowledge.
Do you have a reading problems as well?
As for all your other tinhat ravings,
It's a joke Mr "takes himself to seriously oooh Sony's got universal root kit". Though many of those systems have been proposed, and some of them are being worked on.
I suspect Watson's subject to medical privacy law.
Watson is a program. I suspect you don't have any more of an idea about medical privacy law than you do about expert systems. Catch Data, Data Warehouse, and many others - have all your medical records. We do a lot of work for a local variant - cataloguing xray results for a nation. Only last month we worked on a research project processing the entire DNA database for Orkney - and the client was many companies with access to that data. You don't own your medical information, indeed you don't own your DNA.
It doesn't need to know who the patient is.
You don't get out much do you?
.
I wonder if they're pointing it at the data itself looking for inconsistencies or flaws. In all that data, some fraction of it will be erroneous. Watson would be the best equipped to dig that out.
How else could it possibly work? Randomise decisions to cope with a knowledge base built on conflicting information? Weighting doesn't lead to decisions suitable for treatment - just decisions to make further tests.
The use of these sorts of programs to process and make sense of huge amounts of incomplete data is truly interesting though. It's not uncommon to hear of identical symptoms receiving identical treatment, with differing outcomes - logically the diagnosis was made with insufficient data. Programs similar to Watson that could post process huge amounts of data the doctors don't have access to, might produce some useful knowledge. Your doctor doesn't know what you really eat. Do you? Your doctor doesn't know who you have contact with, or what you think. But a program that was plugged into the banks would know about your finances, and Facebook could give useful information about your state of mind. And if Facebook bought Redtube (and Nintendo) they could contribute data on your sex life. Maybe Google and Microsoft (Melissa and Bill care about us, a lot) could kick in somehow? Did StreetView see you snarfing a double big whopper?. Maybe if Microsoft gets enough data about you they can cure cancer! Apple (though I know Steve thinks a bong cures everything) could send in data from iPhones to show how much exercise your getting, and what you've been downloading from iTunes.
Feeling a bit ill and you go to viist Watson.... who sees you've been downloading heavy metal, knows who's been sleeping with the people you've been sleeping with (and seen the movies), and what you've been buying with your "untraceable bitcoins" (damn smart meters, and, told you not to torrent while you tor!) - prescribes antidepressants, penicillin, treatment for anal warts, signs you up for rehab, and puts you on suicide watch. Which will teach you to secure your wireless modem in future..
Most people today might as well live with pigs as in the middle ages the only difference is that they can text via their cell phone to another PIG. This was not possible in the Dark Ages.
And Twitter. You forgot Twitter, and Facebook. And Fox news.
They change everything.
I for one am looking forward to the age of the drive through robotic doctor. It's kinda like a carwash - with MRIs and X-Rays built in. :p
Yeah *right*!
The "clinic" will have Golden fucking Arches out the front, you'll order a renal transplant with anaesthetic, it's a two minute wait for the transplant but the anaesthetic won't be ready for twenty minutes.
The pimply kid that served you added cigarette butts, pubic hair, and a dead mouse for lolz, and yeah, you *did* say *no* pickles with that.... You enter smart and thin, and exit dumb and fat!
Oh, I can't wait for the robotic fly-thru medical clinic. It'll be fly-thru coz we'll all have flying cars then. They'll run on hydrogen and be made out of recycled bamboo. And there'll be happy magical animals made out of marshmellow and chocolate and, ooh....
:-D