You want to save lives? Then use some of your vast personal fortune to research and discover a cure for cancer, rather than try and convince me that I should give my private information to your company so you can get richer.
It is true, healthcare data mining could save many lives.
Sure, in the same way that running from a tiger could lead a person to stumble upon a long-lost burial chamber filled with gold.
Either way, the stated possibility is not likely to be the motivation for the action, considering the circumstances - The man running from the tiger isn't looking for gold, he's trying to stay alive.
Similarly, the man running the company that gets rich off invading people's privacy probably isn't advocating even more data mining for our health, so much as his own personal gain.
I must say, when I first switched from cigarettes to a pipe, I was shocked when people actually started complementing me for smoking. And if I'm being completely honest here, after 3 years off the coffin nails, even I can't stand the smell of those damn things.
It's because they don't smell like tobacco leaf.. they smell like... like... like a goddamn DuPont factory engulfed in flames. All chemically.
Einstein was known to smoke the occasional cigarette as well, but like you said, we know stuff now we didn't then (although I'm curious, did cigarettes of the past have all the poisons added like the ones today?).
Hey, fuck you and the high horse you rode in on, buddy. This ain't third grade, "you're a poo-poo head" is no longer a valid basis for argument.
Now, if you don't mind, the grown-ups are trying to have a conversation. Go back to screaming obscenities on CoD in your mother's basement, like a good little troll.
When a stressed-out man comes home, kills his wife and two children, then himself, we call that a "murder-suicide" and count 3 murders + 1 suicide. In Japan they call it "familial suicide" and count it as 4 suicides.
Tools for death cause death in exactly the same way that tools for construction cause construction:
It wasn't nearly as easy without them, and we know how much firearm prevalence increases suicide prevalence
Except, you know - Japan.
And don't give me that "fuh fuh culture fuh fuh" crap, we're talking pure statistics here, and the numbers say increased gun ownership does not equate to increased suicide rates.
Bloomberg is a billionaire. I don't believe for a second he's doing this out of the kindness of his heart. If the guy really gave a flying fark about the poor there's a thousand and one things he could be doing. Maybe this is punishment to the local soda manufacturers?
Nah, he's heavily invested in a company that makes 16 oz drink containers.
Of course I'm speculating, but the truth is probably closer to what I've said than we know.
In my experience as a smoker, what you've written is a gross mischaracterization of the situation - "rude smoker" didn't prompt the bans so much as well-funded propaganda which developed a public perception that smoking is tantamount to child murder.
Here's what happened in Australia. Non-smokers: Would you mind not smoking in the office please. Smoker: ITS MY RIGHT. I CAN DO WHATEVER I LIKE AN THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT, MY RIGHT, MY RIGHT, MY RIGHT (followed by stamping their feet) So smoking was banned indoors.
Non-smokers: Would you mind not smoking near the entrance? Smoker: ITS MY RIGHT. I CAN DO WHATEVER I LIKE AN THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT, MY RIGHT, MY RIGHT, MY RIGHT (followed by stamping their feet) So smokers must now smoke 5 metres away from building entrances.
Maybe that's an Aussie, thing; here in the USA, the non-smokers are hardly as polite as you make them seem here. Rather than, "would you mind not smoking here," their attitude is more "OMG you filthy fucking death-merchant, go die in a puddle of your own bile somewhere else!"
Now me, I've always tried to be courteous and take my smoking away from other people. Yet even when I walk 100 yards away from the building before lighting up, it seems like there's almost always some non-smoking jerk who suddenly decides they need to occupy that same space, and bitches at me. When I was in college there was one asshole in particular who would hobble up (big fat fuck who walked with a cane) to us no matter where we went, and start ranting about how we were harming his health, nevermind the fact that there was absolutely no reason for him to be where we were standing. But oh no, we were always in the wrong, by virtue of the fact that we were "filthy smokers."
That said, an interesting thing happened when I switched from cigarettes to a pipe; people not only stopped bothering me about my habit, they actually started complementing the smell of the tobacco, as well as the beauty of my meerschaum pipes. Surprisingly, a lot of people have told me, "oh, you can smoke in here, that smells way better than a cigarette" as I was walking towards the door to go smoke a bowl. Which leads me to believe that it's not the tobacco itself that's the issue, but rather the chemicals they hose cigarettes with, both voluntarily and as a result of government mandate.
Isn't that what NY's argument was here? Let's agree to do something to reduce the health care burden by "working together" to reduce the impact of gigantic sugary drinks?
That might have been the argument, but the fact is that forcing people to adhere to a certain behavior via legal coercion is the antithesis of "working together."
I say, let this stand as a lesson to those who listen to what politicians say rather than watching what they do.
I saw a gas station on the outskirts of town that sold ciggies for 25 cents each. Although, to be fair, this wasn't necessarily a poor neighborhood, and their primary clientele seemed to be high-school kids.
That was back when a pack could be had for around 3 bucks.
First off, they didn't "make up" the death panels - they intentionally mis-characterized a provision to make it sound more onerous than it really was. And they aren't the only major US political party that behaves in such a manner; Democrats spin just as hard when it suits them.
If you don't understand why politicians spin facts to sound better/worse depending on how it fits their agendas, you probably shouldn't vote, because you are not well-informed enough.
Since they're saying they aren't a government entity, then they do not have governmental authority to supersede the law, which makes them nothing more than brigands.
Also, as a private entity, that means they can be sued into bankruptcy. Which I, for one, would love to see.
Well, no, libertarians in the current erra are against 3rd party public oversight of initiated violence.
It never stops entertaining me when someone who's not a member of a group feels compelled to explain to people who are members of the group how the aforementioned group thinks.
I think you could do this same buisness with low tech. Just have a spot where worker scans a barcode on the drone, replaces the battery, and then checks a box on web form. Sort of a drone gass station.
Yea, but then they have to pay a human to work there, which, from what I gleaned off TFS, defeats the purpose.
>FYI, so you know - "dur, yer uh Luddite" is not a substitute for a valid argument
And ad hominem is soooo much better.
That's funny.
Mainly because your use of the term "ad hominem" in this instance indicates that you don't actually know what that term means. That, or we have a disagreement on my belief that your posts are indicative of an adolescent mindset. What you see as an ad hominem (also funny coming from someone who uses "Luddite" as a weapon against opposing opinions), I see as an accurate description. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
If you had actually read what I wrote you would have seen that my real suggestion was "Go to settings and turn 'GPS' to off".
Which, as we've learned from the NSA, does fuck-all worth of good. Also, your "real suggestion" indicates that you completely missed my point - it doesn't matter if it can be turned off or not, it matters that the feature is omnipresent, and thus, there is no such thing as an option to not have said feature. You're being very inconsistent with your arguments here:
GP: I don't want this stuff You: Then don't buy it Me: What about when "don't buy it" is no longer an option? You: Turn it off
That's not a well-reasoned response.
Could you really not tell that the luddite remark was sarcasm?
I can tell douchey cop-out bullshit when I see it. Like your claiming that your ad hominem attack on me was "sarcasm," for example.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Larry Page;
You want to save lives? Then use some of your vast personal fortune to research and discover a cure for cancer, rather than try and convince me that I should give my private information to your company so you can get richer.
Fuckhead.
It is true, healthcare data mining could save many lives.
Sure, in the same way that running from a tiger could lead a person to stumble upon a long-lost burial chamber filled with gold.
Either way, the stated possibility is not likely to be the motivation for the action, considering the circumstances - The man running from the tiger isn't looking for gold, he's trying to stay alive.
Similarly, the man running the company that gets rich off invading people's privacy probably isn't advocating even more data mining for our health, so much as his own personal gain.
I must say, when I first switched from cigarettes to a pipe, I was shocked when people actually started complementing me for smoking. And if I'm being completely honest here, after 3 years off the coffin nails, even I can't stand the smell of those damn things.
It's because they don't smell like tobacco leaf.. they smell like... like... like a goddamn DuPont factory engulfed in flames. All chemically.
Einstein was known to smoke the occasional cigarette as well, but like you said, we know stuff now we didn't then (although I'm curious, did cigarettes of the past have all the poisons added like the ones today?).
Hey, fuck you and the high horse you rode in on, buddy. This ain't third grade, "you're a poo-poo head" is no longer a valid basis for argument.
Now, if you don't mind, the grown-ups are trying to have a conversation. Go back to screaming obscenities on CoD in your mother's basement, like a good little troll.
When a stressed-out man comes home, kills his wife and two children, then himself, we call that a "murder-suicide" and count 3 murders + 1 suicide. In Japan they call it "familial suicide" and count it as 4 suicides.
Do you have any reference source for this claim?
Okay.
Point the first, you're an idiot.
... and you just destroyed any point you might have been about to make by opening up with an ad hominem.
I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post.
I wonder if the study included drunken fatal events/stunts that started with the phrase "Hey y'all, check this out"
No, no, no.
It's "hold my beer and watch this!"
Tools for death cause death in exactly the same way that tools for construction cause construction:
It wasn't nearly as easy without them, and we know how much firearm prevalence increases suicide prevalence
Except, you know - Japan.
And don't give me that "fuh fuh culture fuh fuh" crap, we're talking pure statistics here, and the numbers say increased gun ownership does not equate to increased suicide rates.
Bloomberg is a billionaire. I don't believe for a second he's doing this out of the kindness of his heart. If the guy really gave a flying fark about the poor there's a thousand and one things he could be doing. Maybe this is punishment to the local soda manufacturers?
Nah, he's heavily invested in a company that makes 16 oz drink containers.
Of course I'm speculating, but the truth is probably closer to what I've said than we know.
It runs against my larger political belief system, but living in a world of absolutes is dumber than smoking cigarettes.
Until then, I'll use them as a remote IQ detection mechanism.
So, you didn't think Einstein was all that smart?
"I believe that pipe smoking contributes to a somewhat calm and objective judgment in all human affairs" - A. E.
In my experience as a smoker, what you've written is a gross mischaracterization of the situation - "rude smoker" didn't prompt the bans so much as well-funded propaganda which developed a public perception that smoking is tantamount to child murder.
Here's what happened in Australia.
Non-smokers: Would you mind not smoking in the office please.
Smoker: ITS MY RIGHT. I CAN DO WHATEVER I LIKE AN THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT, MY RIGHT, MY RIGHT, MY RIGHT (followed by stamping their feet)
So smoking was banned indoors.
Non-smokers: Would you mind not smoking near the entrance?
Smoker: ITS MY RIGHT. I CAN DO WHATEVER I LIKE AN THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT, MY RIGHT, MY RIGHT, MY RIGHT (followed by stamping their feet)
So smokers must now smoke 5 metres away from building entrances.
Maybe that's an Aussie, thing; here in the USA, the non-smokers are hardly as polite as you make them seem here. Rather than, "would you mind not smoking here," their attitude is more "OMG you filthy fucking death-merchant, go die in a puddle of your own bile somewhere else!"
Now me, I've always tried to be courteous and take my smoking away from other people. Yet even when I walk 100 yards away from the building before lighting up, it seems like there's almost always some non-smoking jerk who suddenly decides they need to occupy that same space, and bitches at me. When I was in college there was one asshole in particular who would hobble up (big fat fuck who walked with a cane) to us no matter where we went, and start ranting about how we were harming his health, nevermind the fact that there was absolutely no reason for him to be where we were standing. But oh no, we were always in the wrong, by virtue of the fact that we were "filthy smokers."
That said, an interesting thing happened when I switched from cigarettes to a pipe; people not only stopped bothering me about my habit, they actually started complementing the smell of the tobacco, as well as the beauty of my meerschaum pipes. Surprisingly, a lot of people have told me, "oh, you can smoke in here, that smells way better than a cigarette" as I was walking towards the door to go smoke a bowl. Which leads me to believe that it's not the tobacco itself that's the issue, but rather the chemicals they hose cigarettes with, both voluntarily and as a result of government mandate.
Isn't that what NY's argument was here? Let's agree to do something to reduce the health care burden by "working together" to reduce the impact of gigantic sugary drinks?
That might have been the argument, but the fact is that forcing people to adhere to a certain behavior via legal coercion is the antithesis of "working together."
I say, let this stand as a lesson to those who listen to what politicians say rather than watching what they do.
Mods, the comment above is not a Troll. Even if you disagree with it. Sheesh people!
Somebody mod this guy Flamebait!
I saw a gas station on the outskirts of town that sold ciggies for 25 cents each. Although, to be fair, this wasn't necessarily a poor neighborhood, and their primary clientele seemed to be high-school kids.
That was back when a pack could be had for around 3 bucks.
I don't get why Republicans made up death panels
First off, they didn't "make up" the death panels - they intentionally mis-characterized a provision to make it sound more onerous than it really was. And they aren't the only major US political party that behaves in such a manner; Democrats spin just as hard when it suits them.
If you don't understand why politicians spin facts to sound better/worse depending on how it fits their agendas, you probably shouldn't vote, because you are not well-informed enough.
It is about as entertaining when a member of a group feels compelled to explain how other members of the group think.
Probably still more accurate than information you would get from a person who obviously hates said group.
My thoughts precisely.
Since they're saying they aren't a government entity, then they do not have governmental authority to supersede the law, which makes them nothing more than brigands.
Also, as a private entity, that means they can be sued into bankruptcy. Which I, for one, would love to see.
Well, no, libertarians in the current erra are against 3rd party public oversight of initiated violence.
It never stops entertaining me when someone who's not a member of a group feels compelled to explain to people who are members of the group how the aforementioned group thinks.
So, that makes suppliers and... executive level management?
Yea, that's a sustainable business model. /sarc
Were I a bettin' man, I'd put my money on the notion that they're trying to get away from having to pay anybody other than suppliers and shareholders.
You know, sometimes I absolutely hate it when you say things that make sense.
There's no profit in making a deal with you, you have no money you could offer.
This is one of those times.
Didn't realize pentesting was a $1,000,000/mo subscription service.
I've obviously been undercharging.
I think you could do this same buisness with low tech. Just have a spot where worker scans a barcode on the drone, replaces the battery, and then checks a box on web form. Sort of a drone gass station.
Yea, but then they have to pay a human to work there, which, from what I gleaned off TFS, defeats the purpose.
>FYI, so you know - "dur, yer uh Luddite" is not a substitute for a valid argument
And ad hominem is soooo much better.
That's funny.
Mainly because your use of the term "ad hominem" in this instance indicates that you don't actually know what that term means. That, or we have a disagreement on my belief that your posts are indicative of an adolescent mindset. What you see as an ad hominem (also funny coming from someone who uses "Luddite" as a weapon against opposing opinions), I see as an accurate description. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
If you had actually read what I wrote you would have seen that my real suggestion was "Go to settings and turn 'GPS' to off".
Which, as we've learned from the NSA, does fuck-all worth of good. Also, your "real suggestion" indicates that you completely missed my point - it doesn't matter if it can be turned off or not, it matters that the feature is omnipresent, and thus, there is no such thing as an option to not have said feature. You're being very inconsistent with your arguments here:
GP: I don't want this stuff
You: Then don't buy it
Me: What about when "don't buy it" is no longer an option?
You: Turn it off
That's not a well-reasoned response.
Could you really not tell that the luddite remark was sarcasm?
I can tell douchey cop-out bullshit when I see it. Like your claiming that your ad hominem attack on me was "sarcasm," for example.
Upon further review, I found that I was indeed mistaken, based off a misinterpretation of a newer FCC rule. Mea culpa on that one.
Let's try a different example:
So then don't buy and install these products.
Remember when people used to say that about cars without black-boxes? "Well, if you don't want one, don't buy one."
Now every car has a black box.
Better? Or are we not counting that one, either, since the mandate doesn't kick in until September?