I was ashamed too when Harper was elected to become the next PM. He keeps doing the same BS that George Bush did a few years ago so much and so often he is known as Mini-Bush for a reason.
Business as usual in a big city would meet my description as a "large event" where people at like "hooligans" and can have riots (beyond Soccer games). And as you mentioned, it could be mis-used for anything they want. That much power is ripe for abuse and since it won't be monitored by the public, who can really say/report what it ends up truly being used for?
What I just don't understand is why, if crime rates have been going steadily down for some decades now, do they feel like they need to be more invasive and offensive in their fight against crime
Because they see it as why settle for a low crime rate when they can (in bad logical theory) turn it into a no crime rate.
Thats a slippery slope to tread. When mentioned under the right words, that could be used with concepts of the global power rise of China, the nuclear ambitions of Iran, ect... hell, enough spin and it could be used with consideration of the Taliban. Just need to frame it right to the correct people and suddenly your in a pseudo-Cold War with whom ever you can demonize enough (that is also unable to stand against you too much).
ask "Is it moral in general to pay for prostitutes?"
How about asking "Is it moral for me to tell others how to live and what they can and cannot do?" What ever happened to freedom? Freedom of choice and to chose? Just because you don't approve of it doesn't magically make it wrong. Consider that some things you do are no doubt considered morally wrong to others.
Yes, there have been cases of woman being abused/forced into prostitution, but if you look, every job has cases were people have been abused, with a much higher degree of these problems when the job/service is forced underground. Same thing happened during the prohibition, suddenly places that served alcohol had more problems/issues.
As for prostitutes being happy with their job, there are reports that woman choose to do it, and are happy doing it. The only problems come up when people feel this burning urge to demonize them and their job choice. As for it being morally wrong, where do you get this opinion/information from? How is it morally wrong if both people are consenting adults that are quite happy and fine with the choice that they are making?
Or you could try to do some parenting and learn to tell the child "No" and then enforce it (punishment) if they ignore you (similar goes with rewards, don't promise a reward and then look for a way out with cheap excuses like "I'm tired, next time ok?"). I have never been able to understand when I watch people that always look for the easy way out of parenting and refuse to act like a parent turn around and complain that their children won't listen. Thing is with children is that good behavior is a process, not an action, and does take time. Yes, it is hard to be a parent but when all you do is just say a hollow/repeated answers that has no punishment if refused or ignored then your child won't stop yelling because they quickly learn that "Screaming = Mommy/Daddy gives me what I want, regardless of what they say". And yes, I've been through this, and children will learn real fast that if you keep all promises (punishments and rewards) that listening and behaving tend to be the best option for both of you.
Sure, here is the download link for their previous movie, Big Buck Bunny where you can download the movie in multiple formats and video sizes, and at the bottom is the entire studio back up (over 200 gig) where you can download every part of the movie made and used.
It would be interesting to run this a few times... not sequentially, but maybe once every few months to give yourself time to reset (for the lack of a better word), and rewatch whatever it was you recorded with this device and then diff the results to see if their was a drift, and in what area's. I have to assume you wouldn't always respond the same way, and the results could be highly interesting, perhaps even moreso to the field of psychiatry in allowing a more exact gauging of the effectiveness of whatever drug they are administering to a patient.
I doubt you'd get nearly the same reactions. Things like boredom (reruns don't always get everyones attention) and (since these are static videos) predictability can and will cause detachment of your emotions and their intensity to what your watching. Think of things like horror movies, sure they can make you feel fear greatly during the first watch, but rarely can cause that much fear during the second viewing, let alone the third, forth, ect...
How so? We've got cars that are quieter then ever before and you've been complaining that its not enough, that silence seems to be the only answer. I've pointed out that life isn't silent at all, but full of sounds and noise. Whether you like it or not, it doesn't change the facts.
Unless you are prepared to suggest that everything that can run into you and injure you must also have constant noise emitted from it, you are making a double standard. Are you prepared to add the noise to bikes, shopping carts, golf carts, movable food stands, people walking, baseballs, golf balls, etc, etc, etc...?
Funny, same could be said about your entire "argument". Everything makes noise, bike chimes, shopping carts rattle, golf carts shake with golf clubs in them, food stands have people talking, people don't always wear silent foot wear, ect, ect, ect... should we demand for everyone and everything to be silent to prevent this noise pollution? Seriously, take a walk around anywhere and you'll hear sounds that aren't just car sounds. Its a normal part of life.
People regularly walk around without the ability to hear cars around them. They do pretty well. Also, if we are going to start requiring flashing lights on every car because deaf people might not hear them coming? The argument that cars have sucked in the past, so we shouldn't fix them now that we can is just plain silly.
Trucks and other large vehicles already need to make noise when backing up and this issue about electric cars has become enough of an issue to merit companies to make these devices that add sound. These addons cost money that the companies could have saved but they put it on anyways. And in some countries, headlights need to be always on, which is pretty much what your complaining about with the idea of deaf people. And when did I say cars have sucked in the past? I said electric cars even with these sounds are quieter then cars in the past.
Whats your idea of people "suffering through unneeded noise pollution"? Its still quieter then conventional vehicles and is considered a safety option for more then the blind, its also for children, elderly, people just plain ass not paying attention. Or is your solution going to be that everyone should buy one of these receivers? Because then it makes the point of noise pollution moot and in total honesty worse. Tell you what, why don't you take on the added fee of buying yourself earplugs to not hear the sound. Its just you buying safety equipment for people that need it (many people like you) and it'll even go that extra mile to protect you from all noise pollution. Problem solved.
That puts an unfair "fee" (having to buy such a receiver) on the blind, expecting them to pony up more money due to an unforeseen issue with a silent car. Kinda like blaming the victim. These are still quieter then traditional cars and lets people know its there, doesn't limit its safety issue to the blind, doesn't have issues if the battery on the blind persons receiver dies, and is no doubt cheaper for everyone in the long term.
I'm looking forward to what Qualcomm's mirasol technology too, with its supposed week worth of battery life per charge, but time still will tell about what it can truly do in real settings. But if it does really last like that, its always a possible.
This was already noted by Nissan a while back when they decided to make their next electric cars sound like Blade Runner. Its a safety feature to make sure people like the blind can hear them so they don't walk right into a quiet electric car just as it's turning a corner at the lights.
Battery life, it has to be much longer than a laptop.
Since many laptops these days are getting battery life of 6-8 hours (around the same amount of time the iPad is getting), what kind of battery life are you hoping for?
Software support, if the screen resolution is greater than any other device then some software may not work or will appear small.
Price, if it's not much cheaper than the iPad then that's a failure.
How would it be a failure? Its running newer, faster parts and it seems like the screen might be a higher resolution. Better, newer parts will raise the price making it possibly match the iPad. And if people feel its a better unit, or even an "upgraded" version of the iPad for the same price, then they will buy it.
The actual OS is important, but given it's Android it's unlikely to present a problem.
The problem is, Android tablets have been on the market for almost a year in North America alone, not considering the cheap ones in China only. Apple brought them the lime light, but Androids were the ones to take the first steps and showed that a tablet computer running a minimalist OS was not only doable, but was very functional for day to day usage.
Slashdot Mirror
I was ashamed too when Harper was elected to become the next PM. He keeps doing the same BS that George Bush did a few years ago so much and so often he is known as Mini-Bush for a reason.
Business as usual in a big city would meet my description as a "large event" where people at like "hooligans" and can have riots (beyond Soccer games). And as you mentioned, it could be mis-used for anything they want. That much power is ripe for abuse and since it won't be monitored by the public, who can really say/report what it ends up truly being used for?
What I just don't understand is why, if crime rates have been going steadily down for some decades now, do they feel like they need to be more invasive and offensive in their fight against crime
Because they see it as why settle for a low crime rate when they can (in bad logical theory) turn it into a no crime rate.
People in government do read 1984. They've just confused it from a warning to a guide/how to book.
Surveillance is fine if theres... a Cold War
Thats a slippery slope to tread. When mentioned under the right words, that could be used with concepts of the global power rise of China, the nuclear ambitions of Iran, ect... hell, enough spin and it could be used with consideration of the Taliban. Just need to frame it right to the correct people and suddenly your in a pseudo-Cold War with whom ever you can demonize enough (that is also unable to stand against you too much).
Yes they do.
ask "Is it moral in general to pay for prostitutes?"
How about asking "Is it moral for me to tell others how to live and what they can and cannot do?" What ever happened to freedom? Freedom of choice and to chose? Just because you don't approve of it doesn't magically make it wrong. Consider that some things you do are no doubt considered morally wrong to others.
Yes, there have been cases of woman being abused/forced into prostitution, but if you look, every job has cases were people have been abused, with a much higher degree of these problems when the job/service is forced underground. Same thing happened during the prohibition, suddenly places that served alcohol had more problems/issues.
As for prostitutes being happy with their job, there are reports that woman choose to do it, and are happy doing it. The only problems come up when people feel this burning urge to demonize them and their job choice. As for it being morally wrong, where do you get this opinion/information from? How is it morally wrong if both people are consenting adults that are quite happy and fine with the choice that they are making?
Or you could try to do some parenting and learn to tell the child "No" and then enforce it (punishment) if they ignore you (similar goes with rewards, don't promise a reward and then look for a way out with cheap excuses like "I'm tired, next time ok?"). I have never been able to understand when I watch people that always look for the easy way out of parenting and refuse to act like a parent turn around and complain that their children won't listen. Thing is with children is that good behavior is a process, not an action, and does take time. Yes, it is hard to be a parent but when all you do is just say a hollow/repeated answers that has no punishment if refused or ignored then your child won't stop yelling because they quickly learn that "Screaming = Mommy/Daddy gives me what I want, regardless of what they say". And yes, I've been through this, and children will learn real fast that if you keep all promises (punishments and rewards) that listening and behaving tend to be the best option for both of you.
Sure, here is the download link for their previous movie, Big Buck Bunny where you can download the movie in multiple formats and video sizes, and at the bottom is the entire studio back up (over 200 gig) where you can download every part of the movie made and used.
Its pretty much this (no, you don't see the goatse picture here)
His test video he's watching is Sintel which is a free, open source CG movie soon to be finished.
It would be interesting to run this a few times... not sequentially, but maybe once every few months to give yourself time to reset (for the lack of a better word), and rewatch whatever it was you recorded with this device and then diff the results to see if their was a drift, and in what area's. I have to assume you wouldn't always respond the same way, and the results could be highly interesting, perhaps even moreso to the field of psychiatry in allowing a more exact gauging of the effectiveness of whatever drug they are administering to a patient.
I doubt you'd get nearly the same reactions. Things like boredom (reruns don't always get everyones attention) and (since these are static videos) predictability can and will cause detachment of your emotions and their intensity to what your watching. Think of things like horror movies, sure they can make you feel fear greatly during the first watch, but rarely can cause that much fear during the second viewing, let alone the third, forth, ect...
is right here.
How so? We've got cars that are quieter then ever before and you've been complaining that its not enough, that silence seems to be the only answer. I've pointed out that life isn't silent at all, but full of sounds and noise. Whether you like it or not, it doesn't change the facts.
Unless you are prepared to suggest that everything that can run into you and injure you must also have constant noise emitted from it, you are making a double standard. Are you prepared to add the noise to bikes, shopping carts, golf carts, movable food stands, people walking, baseballs, golf balls, etc, etc, etc...?
Funny, same could be said about your entire "argument". Everything makes noise, bike chimes, shopping carts rattle, golf carts shake with golf clubs in them, food stands have people talking, people don't always wear silent foot wear, ect, ect, ect... should we demand for everyone and everything to be silent to prevent this noise pollution? Seriously, take a walk around anywhere and you'll hear sounds that aren't just car sounds. Its a normal part of life.
People regularly walk around without the ability to hear cars around them. They do pretty well. Also, if we are going to start requiring flashing lights on every car because deaf people might not hear them coming? The argument that cars have sucked in the past, so we shouldn't fix them now that we can is just plain silly.
Trucks and other large vehicles already need to make noise when backing up and this issue about electric cars has become enough of an issue to merit companies to make these devices that add sound. These addons cost money that the companies could have saved but they put it on anyways. And in some countries, headlights need to be always on, which is pretty much what your complaining about with the idea of deaf people. And when did I say cars have sucked in the past? I said electric cars even with these sounds are quieter then cars in the past.
Ok, something seems wrong about this. Its coming from the makers of Cracked magazine, but I'm for once supposed to take them more or less seriously?
Its really a secret message to Mars...
Whats your idea of people "suffering through unneeded noise pollution"? Its still quieter then conventional vehicles and is considered a safety option for more then the blind, its also for children, elderly, people just plain ass not paying attention. Or is your solution going to be that everyone should buy one of these receivers? Because then it makes the point of noise pollution moot and in total honesty worse. Tell you what, why don't you take on the added fee of buying yourself earplugs to not hear the sound. Its just you buying safety equipment for people that need it (many people like you) and it'll even go that extra mile to protect you from all noise pollution. Problem solved.
Ask and you shall receive.
That puts an unfair "fee" (having to buy such a receiver) on the blind, expecting them to pony up more money due to an unforeseen issue with a silent car. Kinda like blaming the victim. These are still quieter then traditional cars and lets people know its there, doesn't limit its safety issue to the blind, doesn't have issues if the battery on the blind persons receiver dies, and is no doubt cheaper for everyone in the long term.
I'm looking forward to what Qualcomm's mirasol technology too, with its supposed week worth of battery life per charge, but time still will tell about what it can truly do in real settings. But if it does really last like that, its always a possible.
This was already noted by Nissan a while back when they decided to make their next electric cars sound like Blade Runner. Its a safety feature to make sure people like the blind can hear them so they don't walk right into a quiet electric car just as it's turning a corner at the lights.
The Archos 7 was released in September of last year (why its specs are bad for today). And without digging too far, the Android market in China (in Chinese) is quite large. And here is a video (surprisingly in English) of another Android 7 inch tablet in China only by Camangi.
Battery life, it has to be much longer than a laptop.
Since many laptops these days are getting battery life of 6-8 hours (around the same amount of time the iPad is getting), what kind of battery life are you hoping for?
Software support, if the screen resolution is greater than any other device then some software may not work or will appear small.
Screen size support has been addressed and pretty much fixed since Android 1.6 came out, so it shouldn't be a problem.
Price, if it's not much cheaper than the iPad then that's a failure.
How would it be a failure? Its running newer, faster parts and it seems like the screen might be a higher resolution. Better, newer parts will raise the price making it possibly match the iPad. And if people feel its a better unit, or even an "upgraded" version of the iPad for the same price, then they will buy it.
The actual OS is important, but given it's Android it's unlikely to present a problem.
And that its Android 2.2 should help too.
The problem is, Android tablets have been on the market for almost a year in North America alone, not considering the cheap ones in China only. Apple brought them the lime light, but Androids were the ones to take the first steps and showed that a tablet computer running a minimalist OS was not only doable, but was very functional for day to day usage.