It makes sense to me that company might offer a cheaper-but-spyware-riddled version of a phone.
So, using that same reasoning, you believe it's perfectly acceptable for a landlord to install cameras and microphones in apartments, as long as their upfront about it when you sign the rental agreement? Really? Of course, this can be avoided by owning your own home... oh, wait - most "homeowners" are actually indebted to banks, so again using your 'logic' the banks should be allowed to monitor you inside your home until you pay the loan off.
Well, According to the Constitution, that power should be in the hands of the individual states; the Commerce Clause wasn't written to be a catch-all giving the fed ultimate power over everything, you know.
If we, as Americans, demanded that the Constitution was followed to a T, no liberal (in the non-political, dictionary sense) interpretations, no exceptions, we probably wouldn't be in nearly the mess that we are.
Jefferson wrote that to maintain fundamental rights, men form governments that derive their just powers from the governed.
He also said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it... the policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
I doubt I need to explain how that applies to this given circumstance.
If a government is broken, fix it - don't tear it all down in frustration.
Now I'm curious; considering how thoroughly broken our government is, how do you propose we do that without starting over?
The way I see it, where the line is drawn is less important a factor than who is in charge of drawing it... and judging by the behavior of the federal government over the past 30 years, I think many of us can agree that they are definitely not the folks we want holding that particular pen.
Oh, and speaking of fallacies, you are engaged in two; specifically, Appeal to Ridicule, and the good old strawman.
Fallacy begets fallacy, I guess. Maybe we should be running for Congress:)
Finally, maybe if we'd had the foresight to limit population growth, pollution and resource consumption, we wouldn't be in agreement that the Petri dish is now full and the bacteria within are poisoning and consuming each other as they are...
Despite the "funny" mod, I'm totally serious. If openmoko isn't an option I'll be buying a non-subsidized android phone from a manufacturer that doesn't install carrierIQ. I'm happy that my iPhone seems to be okay, but I know Apple will abuse it eventually.
Agreed, although I do take issue with the concept of having to pay more to not have a keylogger on my phone.
If privacy is contingent on paying a premium, than only the wealthy will have any privacy.
Fallacy of Equivocation, my friend, which becomes obvious when you apply your method to other areas:
Food causes obesity, which burdens the healthcare system, so the government should regulate how much of what kind of food you can eat;
Alcohol causes people to die, which costs other people money, so alcohol should be banned by the government (which we've tried, and things actually got worse);
Automobiles accidents cost other people money, so automobiles should be banned by the government;
Pedophiles use computers and the internet, so the government should decide who gets to use computers and the internet;
"Terrorists" use cell phones, so the government should monitor all cell phone communications.
See the problem? Anyone can justify any amount of government intrusion using this particular fallacy.
Not to mention, you're also ignoring the Law of Unintended Consequences; organic compounds in landfills generate landfill gas, which in turn can be used to produce power. While not the cleanest source of energy, it does allow poorer countries to exploit what little resources they may have to join the rest of us in the 21st century (yea, I know, doesn't apply to the U.S... byte me).
BTW, I do compost my organics (great for my Victory Garden), pay the (private) trash company extra so I can have a recycle bin, wear my helmet/seatbelt, et. al. It's just that I understand and agree with the Constitution explicitly denying the government from legislating our morality as individuals.
And here's where it gets worse: unless we check population density and growth, the list of things that impact others is just going to keep growing.
At least there's one thing we can come to a consensus on; overpopulation is the biggest threat to ever face mankind. Barring a sudden explosion in space colonization, I'd say we're about due for a good plague or world war, wouldn't you?
I thought you were joking but then I realized you're probably just not very smart. Have a look at your Social Contract, you agreed to it by being born.
Uh, you do realize that the "social contract" is purely theoretical, varies from culture to culture, and does not correspond to any particular real document... right?
I thought you weren't that smart but then I realized you're really, really dumb.
Absolutely they do have that right for any action that has a negative impact on others.
I see; so, if I feel your, say, electricity consumption is causing a negative affect on me, I have the right to demand your access to electricity be limited?
...you aren't allowed to punch me in the nose
If you're trespassing on my property, I very much am. Hell, in the state I live in, I can straight up cap your ass if I "feel my life or property is threatened." Neat, huh?
...nor walk into my house and take my stuff
Uh, isn't that pretty much what you're advocating; having control over other people's property because they engage in activities you don't approve of? That sure is what it sounds like...
The nice thing, though, is that people aren't allowed to do this to you either.
OK, now you're really confusing me; should others be able to control what I do on my property or not?
Civilization is a set of laws, most of which boil down to, "Don't steal". Don't steal life, wealth, innocence, health, well being.
Gotta love those open statements; while you're at it, why not add "don't steal liberty" to the list? Because that's exactly what every law designed to control "morality" does; steal my liberty to live as wisely or stupidly as I wish. This is America, after all. If I (or anyone else, for that matter) want to be an idiot and drive without a seatbelt, ride without a helmet, smoke grass clippings, not sort my trash, etc., it has no real negative impact on anyone else, and thus the state has no right to force me to do otherwise.
P.S. Regarding my comment, "Wow, that's the dumbest shit I've read in a long time...," after posting I remembered hearing all the stupid crap spewed by Bush II and III (my pet name for Obama), not to mention countless other politicians and thus retract the statement.
That's part of living in society, dipshit. Or are you under the impression that your right to swing your fist doesn't end at my nose?
If your nose is trespassing on my property, then yea.
Or are you one of those control-freak ass-hats that are under the impression you can use the fallacy of equivocation as an excuse to control the behavior of others on property you don't own?
Stay off my land, don't get your nose broken; doesn't get much simpler than that.
Your rights end when you start crapping in my yard.
So, yes.
Industry dumping deadly chemicals, your Hummer, the crap that leads to the algee blooms in the ocean, all of it has a direct impact on me. And thus, yes, I and the rest of the world get to tell you to stop shitting in the nest.
So, in other words, unless I am a hermit living in a cave thousands of miles from any and all civilization, everyone and their brother has a right to force me into certain activities?
Wow, that's the dumbest shit I've read in a long time...
It is fully decentralized, all users of the search engine network are equal, the network does not store user search requests and it is not possible for anyone to censor the content of the shared index.
However, that seems to be all the information there is on the process... doesn't quite assuage the ol' paranoia circuits, does it?
Once you've basically turned the computers into dumb terminals managed remotely and the only thing required is a connection to the net, you no longer need a network administrator.
... until one (or more) of those dumb terminals is unable to connect to its remote services. Then you'll be right back where you started, except now you have to pay that same netadmin outrageous consulting wages 'cuz he's not on the payroll.
Putting all your eggs in one basket is never a good idea.
Putting all your eggs in someone else's basket, one that is hosted God knows where, is an even worse idea.
Something tells me this cloud fad is just that; a passing trend. Oh, sure, non-technical management might love the idea of being able to cut staff and equipment costs by putting all their eggs in the cloud basket, but the first time said non-technical management is unable to access their remotely-stored eggs, for whatever reason, the shiny luster will fade and they'll come to the realization that the sysadmins they let go were far more valuable than previously thought.
Remote backups are always a good idea, but remote everything is not a winning strategy, IMO.
I'd really be interested in hearing your "ADHD doesn't exist" argument. Because you've obviously never dealt with anyone with it and obviously don't have it yourself.
I could, but would you be able to pay attention long enough to read it? Lolz!
On a serious note, I guess I should have clarified; I believe ADD and ADHD are the exact same thing, and an actual condition (that, incidentally, used to be diagnosed as 'hyperactivity' back in the 70's). Both are overdiagnosed, and far too often used by what amounts to lazy worthless parents wanting to control their children with drugs instead of parenting, for no reason other than the fact it's far easier to dope a kid up and put him in front of a screen than to be an actual parent.
Still with me?
I find the suggestion that computer time 'causes' ADHD laughable because it's a difference in brain chemistry.
OK, well, I never said anything about that, so...
Amphetamines calm us down. I met a guy that when he was 'up' would take a small hit of meth and sit down and paint. Alcohol makes me hyper. Amphetamines settle me down.
Ask any person who spends a lot of time around drugs or drug users and they will tell you that all drugs affect all people differently. I also know people who can do amazing art work while tweaking, and I myself get pretty worked up when I've had a shot or two. Guess what "condition" none of us have been diagnosed with? I should mention, I've been go to my doctor regularly since I was a kid, so it's not like they haven't had the chance to diagnose it.
The main argument against ADHD is "Well duh. I can obviously pay attention to stuff I like." Yes. I can easily app attention to something I like. I can go into a piece of code or a project and come out 12 hours later having not moved, eaten or done anything but what I threw my self into. The problem with the ADHD brain is you can't relax... Cleaning the house doesn't get done because my mind jumps like that. "Oh, this be longs in the garage" Go to the garage. Start to put it away and find in the garage that needs to go somewhere. Eventually bouncing around the entire house doing 'nothing' and putting away small stuff.... If I'm with my girlfriend and we're talking about something in the car I can be 5-10 subjects away when I break the silence a minute later and say something and get some odd looks...
This reminded me of something my doctor told me when I asked him if it was possible I might have ADD. You see, all the activities you detailed describe my mental process to a T. Hell, I have to watch myself to make sure I don't accidentally put the milk in the cabinet and the cereal in the fridge when I make breakfast. But, I digress; when I asked my doctor that, he asked me one question:
Professionally Trained, Well-Respected Physician:Can you focus, on ANYTHING, for more than a few seconds?
Me: Well, yea...
PTWRP:Guess what? You don't have ADD.
Really, I should have known that from the start, as my uncle and both his sons suffer from hyperactivity, AKA ADD. Oh, did I forget to mention that I actually know a hell of a lot about that particular condition, learned from growing up with people who actually suffer from it? I guarantee you none of them would be able to focus long enough to turn on a computer, let alone bang out a lengthy, narcissistic rant at a complete stranger. I personally wouldn't have wasted the time either, if not for the next part.
So fuck you and everyone else who thinks its made up. Why not go around the old folks home and yell at the alzheimers patients about their 'made up disease'
Fuck you right back, you doped addicted hypochondriac. My grandmother died from Alzheimers, which is a horrific disease that literally steals your mind from you, and it's very likely I will die from it as well.
The point is, these deaths easily be avoided. 35,000 a year is a lot. You can take.014 and multiply by 80-100 for each year of your life and it's a 1% chance.
And my point that the fact you're more likely to die from bad pork than a fatal crash renders your "point" invalid still stands.
And people are always going to drive drunk, no matter how much you educate them. And some people are just going to be bad drivers. And sometimes there will just be human error, fog, or other hazards that a computer will avoid.
Lol, right, because computers, and by extension, programmers, NEVER fuck up, do they?
This freedom argument is garbage when you're endangering other people's lives.
I would claim that idiotic, non sequitur comments from narcissistic asshats endangers my life if it would get you to not be a narcissistic asshat.
That's ADD not ADHD, ADHD actually effects the way the brain operates, if the brain wave patterns are not affected it is ADD. http://newideas.net/adhd/neurology
Some advice - when attempting to argue that an ailment is real and not a fabrication of the pharmaceutical lobby, you may want to avoid linking to a website that exists for the sole purpose of peddling pharmaceuticals...
Made up ailments aside (Yes, I believe ADHD, along with a host of other "new diseases," are totally nonexistent and serve only to fatten the wallets of the healthcare industry fatcats by getting humans hooked on their products as early as possible, thus creating entire generations of addicted "customers"), one would have to weigh the individual pro's and con's, and come up with their own determination.
Personally, I would not let my kids (if I had any) spend their entire existence in front of some sort of screen, allowing corporations to raise my kids for me. Of course, when it comes to education I can see certain advantages over the technology (or lack thereof) used back in my day; kids could be reading the latest history as it is being made, as opposed to textbooks that still refer to Reagan as the sitting President. But again, that goes back to the whole 'corporate control' issue; who decides what goes into a history etextbook? Actual, educated historians, or the salespeople and marketers at Houghton-Mifflin?
Yet no one seems to care. 500 US troops die a year in the middle east and it's a huge deal. These are 35,000 deaths that can easily be avoided. And that's only in the United States Yeah there'll be a few deaths, but probably 99% of the 35,000 will be avoided.
For the record, 35,000 fatal crashes out of 230,000,000 cars on the road =.014 percent fatality rate. Eating pork has a higher fatality rate; thus, your argument is non-existent.
Everyone should be forced to own one of these considering how many pedestrians are run over. People have to get over their own greed to drive a car fast though.
I completely agree; I was merely pointing out that this is one time that the consideration of corporations as people might actually work out to our advantage.
A phrase I have been trying to coin of late: everything is a two way street, if you can figure out where the lines are painted.
According to the Fifth Amendment, no person (which includes corporations) can be deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without being convicted ina court of law.
Oh, wait, I forgot that the Constitution, which used to be the supreme law of the land and could only be superceded by a 2/3 majority vote by the states, is just a goddamn piece of paper.
Slashdot Mirror
It makes sense to me that company might offer a cheaper-but-spyware-riddled version of a phone.
So, using that same reasoning, you believe it's perfectly acceptable for a landlord to install cameras and microphones in apartments, as long as their upfront about it when you sign the rental agreement? Really? Of course, this can be avoided by owning your own home... oh, wait - most "homeowners" are actually indebted to banks, so again using your 'logic' the banks should be allowed to monitor you inside your home until you pay the loan off.
I'm curious. Who, then, would you have draw it?
Well, According to the Constitution, that power should be in the hands of the individual states; the Commerce Clause wasn't written to be a catch-all giving the fed ultimate power over everything, you know.
If we, as Americans, demanded that the Constitution was followed to a T, no liberal (in the non-political, dictionary sense) interpretations, no exceptions, we probably wouldn't be in nearly the mess that we are.
Jefferson wrote that to maintain fundamental rights, men form governments that derive their just powers from the governed.
He also said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it... the policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
I doubt I need to explain how that applies to this given circumstance.
If a government is broken, fix it - don't tear it all down in frustration.
Now I'm curious; considering how thoroughly broken our government is, how do you propose we do that without starting over?
It's a matter of where you draw the line.
The way I see it, where the line is drawn is less important a factor than who is in charge of drawing it... and judging by the behavior of the federal government over the past 30 years, I think many of us can agree that they are definitely not the folks we want holding that particular pen.
Oh, and speaking of fallacies, you are engaged in two; specifically, Appeal to Ridicule, and the good old strawman.
Fallacy begets fallacy, I guess. Maybe we should be running for Congress :)
Finally, maybe if we'd had the foresight to limit population growth, pollution and resource consumption, we wouldn't be in agreement that the Petri dish is now full and the bacteria within are poisoning and consuming each other as they are...
Yea, hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it?
Despite the "funny" mod, I'm totally serious. If openmoko isn't an option I'll be buying a non-subsidized android phone from a manufacturer that doesn't install carrierIQ. I'm happy that my iPhone seems to be okay, but I know Apple will abuse it eventually.
Agreed, although I do take issue with the concept of having to pay more to not have a keylogger on my phone.
If privacy is contingent on paying a premium, than only the wealthy will have any privacy.
Food causes obesity, which burdens the healthcare system, so the government should regulate how much of what kind of food you can eat;
Alcohol causes people to die, which costs other people money, so alcohol should be banned by the government (which we've tried, and things actually got worse);
Automobiles accidents cost other people money, so automobiles should be banned by the government;
Pedophiles use computers and the internet, so the government should decide who gets to use computers and the internet;
"Terrorists" use cell phones, so the government should monitor all cell phone communications.
See the problem? Anyone can justify any amount of government intrusion using this particular fallacy.
Not to mention, you're also ignoring the Law of Unintended Consequences; organic compounds in landfills generate landfill gas, which in turn can be used to produce power. While not the cleanest source of energy, it does allow poorer countries to exploit what little resources they may have to join the rest of us in the 21st century (yea, I know, doesn't apply to the U.S... byte me).
BTW, I do compost my organics (great for my Victory Garden), pay the (private) trash company extra so I can have a recycle bin, wear my helmet/seatbelt, et. al. It's just that I understand and agree with the Constitution explicitly denying the government from legislating our morality as individuals.
And here's where it gets worse: unless we check population density and growth, the list of things that impact others is just going to keep growing.
At least there's one thing we can come to a consensus on; overpopulation is the biggest threat to ever face mankind. Barring a sudden explosion in space colonization, I'd say we're about due for a good plague or world war, wouldn't you?
I thought you were joking but then I realized you're probably just not very smart. Have a look at your Social Contract, you agreed to it by being born.
Uh, you do realize that the "social contract" is purely theoretical, varies from culture to culture, and does not correspond to any particular real document... right?
I thought you weren't that smart but then I realized you're really, really dumb.
Absolutely they do have that right for any action that has a negative impact on others.
I see; so, if I feel your, say, electricity consumption is causing a negative affect on me, I have the right to demand your access to electricity be limited?
...you aren't allowed to punch me in the nose
If you're trespassing on my property, I very much am. Hell, in the state I live in, I can straight up cap your ass if I "feel my life or property is threatened." Neat, huh?
...nor walk into my house and take my stuff
Uh, isn't that pretty much what you're advocating; having control over other people's property because they engage in activities you don't approve of? That sure is what it sounds like...
The nice thing, though, is that people aren't allowed to do this to you either.
OK, now you're really confusing me; should others be able to control what I do on my property or not?
Civilization is a set of laws, most of which boil down to, "Don't steal". Don't steal life, wealth, innocence, health, well being.
Gotta love those open statements; while you're at it, why not add "don't steal liberty" to the list? Because that's exactly what every law designed to control "morality" does; steal my liberty to live as wisely or stupidly as I wish. This is America, after all. If I (or anyone else, for that matter) want to be an idiot and drive without a seatbelt, ride without a helmet, smoke grass clippings, not sort my trash, etc., it has no real negative impact on anyone else, and thus the state has no right to force me to do otherwise.
P.S. Regarding my comment, "Wow, that's the dumbest shit I've read in a long time...," after posting I remembered hearing all the stupid crap spewed by Bush II and III (my pet name for Obama), not to mention countless other politicians and thus retract the statement.
That's part of living in society, dipshit. Or are you under the impression that your right to swing your fist doesn't end at my nose?
If your nose is trespassing on my property, then yea.
Or are you one of those control-freak ass-hats that are under the impression you can use the fallacy of equivocation as an excuse to control the behavior of others on property you don't own?
Stay off my land, don't get your nose broken; doesn't get much simpler than that.
Your rights end when you start crapping in my yard.
So, yes.
Industry dumping deadly chemicals, your Hummer, the crap that leads to the algee blooms in the ocean, all of it has a direct impact on me. And thus, yes, I and the rest of the world get to tell you to stop shitting in the nest.
So, in other words, unless I am a hermit living in a cave thousands of miles from any and all civilization, everyone and their brother has a right to force me into certain activities?
Wow, that's the dumbest shit I've read in a long time...
It's about time we launched terraforming bacteria at all the planets and moons in the solar system.
Where, if the bacteria didn't outright die, it would proceed at a pace which would make glaciers appear as a blur.
That's why we send a shit-ton of them.
I believe the military refers to this practice as "Accuracy by Volume."
In fact, such objections can be found in just about every single thread over 100 comments, regardless of the actual topic of the thread.
A new variation on Godwin's Law?
Wunderbar!
Will one client be able to view the queries of its peers?
If yes, how is that an improvement? If no, how does it work?
From TFA:
It is fully decentralized, all users of the search engine network are equal, the network does not store user search requests and it is not possible for anyone to censor the content of the shared index.
However, that seems to be all the information there is on the process... doesn't quite assuage the ol' paranoia circuits, does it?
Once you've basically turned the computers into dumb terminals managed remotely and the only thing required is a connection to the net, you no longer need a network administrator.
... until one (or more) of those dumb terminals is unable to connect to its remote services. Then you'll be right back where you started, except now you have to pay that same netadmin outrageous consulting wages 'cuz he's not on the payroll.
Hindsight is always 20/20.
Putting all your eggs in one basket is never a good idea.
Putting all your eggs in someone else's basket, one that is hosted God knows where, is an even worse idea.
Something tells me this cloud fad is just that; a passing trend. Oh, sure, non-technical management might love the idea of being able to cut staff and equipment costs by putting all their eggs in the cloud basket, but the first time said non-technical management is unable to access their remotely-stored eggs, for whatever reason, the shiny luster will fade and they'll come to the realization that the sysadmins they let go were far more valuable than previously thought.
Remote backups are always a good idea, but remote everything is not a winning strategy, IMO.
... is that your idea is logical, rational, and sensible, and therefore will not be considered an acceptable solution.
I recommend inventing some bloated bureaucratic process that involves miles of red tape, and doesn't actually address the issue at hand.
Hell, they might give you a fucking medal for that.
The 'Law of Unintended Consequences' strikes again!
75% off is a seriously deep discount, what did she expect would happen?
in my language: SOPA -> stick PIPA -> touching
Funny, I PIPA my SOPA almost daily...
... you doped addicted hypochondriac
OK, that was a bit harsh; I don't know you from Adam, so it is entirely possible you are indeed hyperactive.
The 'fuck you' stands, however.
I'd really be interested in hearing your "ADHD doesn't exist" argument. Because you've obviously never dealt with anyone with it and obviously don't have it yourself.
I could, but would you be able to pay attention long enough to read it? Lolz!
On a serious note, I guess I should have clarified; I believe ADD and ADHD are the exact same thing, and an actual condition (that, incidentally, used to be diagnosed as 'hyperactivity' back in the 70's). Both are overdiagnosed, and far too often used by what amounts to lazy worthless parents wanting to control their children with drugs instead of parenting, for no reason other than the fact it's far easier to dope a kid up and put him in front of a screen than to be an actual parent.
Still with me?
I find the suggestion that computer time 'causes' ADHD laughable because it's a difference in brain chemistry.
OK, well, I never said anything about that, so...
Amphetamines calm us down. I met a guy that when he was 'up' would take a small hit of meth and sit down and paint. Alcohol makes me hyper. Amphetamines settle me down.
Ask any person who spends a lot of time around drugs or drug users and they will tell you that all drugs affect all people differently. I also know people who can do amazing art work while tweaking, and I myself get pretty worked up when I've had a shot or two.
Guess what "condition" none of us have been diagnosed with? I should mention, I've been go to my doctor regularly since I was a kid, so it's not like they haven't had the chance to diagnose it.
The main argument against ADHD is "Well duh. I can obviously pay attention to stuff I like." Yes. I can easily app attention to something I like. I can go into a piece of code or a project and come out 12 hours later having not moved, eaten or done anything but what I threw my self into. The problem with the ADHD brain is you can't relax... Cleaning the house doesn't get done because my mind jumps like that. "Oh, this be longs in the garage" Go to the garage. Start to put it away and find in the garage that needs to go somewhere. Eventually bouncing around the entire house doing 'nothing' and putting away small stuff.... If I'm with my girlfriend and we're talking about something in the car I can be 5-10 subjects away when I break the silence a minute later and say something and get some odd looks...
This reminded me of something my doctor told me when I asked him if it was possible I might have ADD. You see, all the activities you detailed describe my mental process to a T. Hell, I have to watch myself to make sure I don't accidentally put the milk in the cabinet and the cereal in the fridge when I make breakfast. But, I digress; when I asked my doctor that, he asked me one question:
Professionally Trained, Well-Respected Physician:Can you focus, on ANYTHING, for more than a few seconds?
Me: Well, yea...
PTWRP:Guess what? You don't have ADD.
Really, I should have known that from the start, as my uncle and both his sons suffer from hyperactivity, AKA ADD. Oh, did I forget to mention that I actually know a hell of a lot about that particular condition, learned from growing up with people who actually suffer from it? I guarantee you none of them would be able to focus long enough to turn on a computer, let alone bang out a lengthy, narcissistic rant at a complete stranger. I personally wouldn't have wasted the time either, if not for the next part.
So fuck you and everyone else who thinks its made up. Why not go around the old folks home and yell at the alzheimers patients about their 'made up disease'
Fuck you right back, you doped addicted hypochondriac. My grandmother died from Alzheimers, which is a horrific disease that literally steals your mind from you, and it's very likely I will die from it as well.
Feel good about yourself now?
The point is, these deaths easily be avoided. 35,000 a year is a lot. You can take .014 and multiply by 80-100 for each year of your life and it's a 1% chance.
And my point that the fact you're more likely to die from bad pork than a fatal crash renders your "point" invalid still stands.
And people are always going to drive drunk, no matter how much you educate them. And some people are just going to be bad drivers. And sometimes there will just be human error, fog, or other hazards that a computer will avoid.
Lol, right, because computers, and by extension, programmers, NEVER fuck up, do they?
This freedom argument is garbage when you're endangering other people's lives.
I would claim that idiotic, non sequitur comments from narcissistic asshats endangers my life if it would get you to not be a narcissistic asshat.
That's ADD not ADHD, ADHD actually effects the way the brain operates, if the brain wave patterns are not affected it is ADD. http://newideas.net/adhd/neurology
Some advice - when attempting to argue that an ailment is real and not a fabrication of the pharmaceutical lobby, you may want to avoid linking to a website that exists for the sole purpose of peddling pharmaceuticals...
Made up ailments aside (Yes, I believe ADHD, along with a host of other "new diseases," are totally nonexistent and serve only to fatten the wallets of the healthcare industry fatcats by getting humans hooked on their products as early as possible, thus creating entire generations of addicted "customers"), one would have to weigh the individual pro's and con's, and come up with their own determination.
Personally, I would not let my kids (if I had any) spend their entire existence in front of some sort of screen, allowing corporations to raise my kids for me. Of course, when it comes to education I can see certain advantages over the technology (or lack thereof) used back in my day; kids could be reading the latest history as it is being made, as opposed to textbooks that still refer to Reagan as the sitting President. But again, that goes back to the whole 'corporate control' issue; who decides what goes into a history etextbook? Actual, educated historians, or the salespeople and marketers at Houghton-Mifflin?
Yet no one seems to care. 500 US troops die a year in the middle east and it's a huge deal. These are 35,000 deaths that can easily be avoided. And that's only in the United States Yeah there'll be a few deaths, but probably 99% of the 35,000 will be avoided.
For the record, 35,000 fatal crashes out of 230,000,000 cars on the road = .014 percent fatality rate. Eating pork has a higher fatality rate; thus, your argument is non-existent.
Everyone should be forced to own one of these considering how many pedestrians are run over. People have to get over their own greed to drive a car fast though.
Lemme guess; cyclist, right?
Get over yourself, Lance Armstrong.
I completely agree; I was merely pointing out that this is one time that the consideration of corporations as people might actually work out to our advantage.
A phrase I have been trying to coin of late: everything is a two way street, if you can figure out where the lines are painted.
According to the Fifth Amendment, no person (which includes corporations) can be deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without being convicted ina court of law.
Oh, wait, I forgot that the Constitution, which used to be the supreme law of the land and could only be superceded by a 2/3 majority vote by the states, is just a goddamn piece of paper.
As you were.