This problem, like all internet problems, is not new to the internet. It's not hard to put up a tent by the side of the road, put an apple-like logo onto it, and sell fake iphones.
How do you know, when you walk into a bank, that it's a bank, and not just some guy with a storefront that looks like a bank? When was the last time that you authenticated your bank branch as actually being a bank?
How about if my browser -- that has no problem parsing a URL -- simply asked me, the first time I wind up at a new domain, if I'm sure it is who I think it is? Maybe show me some of the basic information, a few lookups, consult a trusted white-list, and obviously spread that trust from certain sites to others -- maybe allow me to say that links from cnn.com can be trusted implicitly.
Why does it need to be any more complicated than asking me to be sure?
And, of course, I'll include my go-to advice: maybe we should start arresting criminals -- you know, like in every other part of life -- instead of trying to make consumers play their own game of cops and robbers every minute of every day.
"I want to stick with windows 7" and "I want the latest adobe" are simply incompatible. I wish it weren't, but hey, you can't have both old and new on the same machine. A year ago, I was fine with vista on my ten-year old machine. But then even firefox refused to connect to modern SSL web-sites.
So you get to decide, upgrade everything (occasionally), or stick with old everything.
But you've stepped on a landmine of mine. You loath Windows 10; but with about five hours of clicking, it becomes nearly identical to windows 7. You can adjust almost everything to be the way you have your windows 7 now. And the remaining things are, quite frankly, just minor cosmetic differences.
Take it from me. I spent six hours and got it almost the same as my vista setup.
You missed the point. I wasn't offending "you". I was showcasing that every "solution" just makes things worse -- which generally suggests that there is no objective problem in the first place.
Why would you say that one "owes" anything to any future anyone? The universe won't implode without you. Or it will anyway, and another will take its place just the same.
Here's a simple way to double the number of jobs, and therefore double the average salary -- only one adult per household can work full-time. subsequent adults would get their salaries significantly limited. Oh wait, you used to have exactly that. Maybe we tripped over that one.
otherwise, we'll live in a world where families who choose to have four generations in a single household would have eight adults earning full salaries. You'd never be able to afford a house as a regular two-adult family.
Oh wait, we've already tripped over that hurdle.
How about this one: maybe, if we weren't permitted to pay people less than a minimum livable wage...oh wait, tripped over that one too.
I got it. how about taxing corporate profits so companies don't grow larger than their employees? No, that didn't work. How about giving grants to corporations so that they trickle down to the employees. No, wait, that was even worse!
Oh yeah, free money for everybody! That's my favourite one. That's the communism effect -- you know, where the generation who wanted it, benefits greatly, and every subsequent generation dodges it until it backfires miserably.
Oh, by the way, your "reproduction is a critical function for our species to survive"? That's your choice, not mine. It's an arbitrary choice. No more valid than the much simpler enjoy-the-life-you-have-and-let-the-species-end-as-it-is choice. I promise, the earth will keep on spinning without your brood -- likely much better actually.
I'm not paying you to have children. It's that simple. You can take your own business risks, start your own company, and take off as much time as you like, risk losing all of your clients, and have a child. That's what I did, and now I have a perfect puppy -- and I still have my business, and I'm short about $100'000 over a three year period as a result.
Maybe, if you can't afford two-months' salary, maybe, just maybe, you won't be able to afford your child either. Maybe, just maybe, they'll grow up to suck as much as you. I don't want them around.
Evolution favours procreation over intelligence. Perhaps you're now seeing that the future might tie those two just a little bit more than ever before. Maybe, just maybe, children of stupid people who can't earn more than they spend will die of malnutrition from nothing-but-walmart food.
So tell me: have you ever seen the human being who makes your food? Do you know the name of one person who grew your tomato? Or your cow? Maybe you're not too bright.
You know, I would be joking, but I took off about six months to train my puppy (self-employed, so zero pay) and my friend has a completely untrained puppy, with no time to train it.
So, maybe I'm not joking.
Really, I'm laughing at the concept that any lifestyle choice gets job consideration in the first place. I'm not going to pay my employees to stay at home and not generate any revenue. That's insane. With what would I pay them?
Also, last I checked, employers aren't allowed to keep employees working in-excess without consideration pay. So why is the employer involved in raising their children?
It's just a whole whack of stupid. And it comes only from the fact that people work way too much. This is simply an enforced work-life balance. I wouldn't have thought that adults, especially those with families, would need to be forced to work less.
I'm happy when language evolves -- when that evolution is intentional. But when that evolution is the result of really very stupid people, or just plain error and mistake, well then those evolutions are to be resisted.
AN example of semantic bleaching INCLUDES EXAMPLES of semantic bleaching INCLUDE
You don't get to label your own errors as evolution when you don't even realize that you're making them.
As for "literally", well, I've spent twenty years saying "I'm using the word 'literally' figuratively." -- which is, of course, completely valid since any word can be used figuratively. See? Intentional.
When it comes to books, music, and movies, I think the OP is backwards. Bards used to travel and tell stories. The concept of writing them down and selling them to own was new. Now that we're streaming such story content is actually a return to the original, where the value is in its novelty and temporal relevance, rather than in repeated accessibility and reproduction.
But I've noticed this issue in something that I feel is much worse. Household contents.
Think about furniture. Think about art. Think about tools and dishes and plant holders and pillows and photo albums and records and record players and rugs. And impressive chrome strollers -- basonettes? And classic cars. And fur coats.
My grandparents inherited these types of family heirlooms. My parents did too. Owning 100+ year old family furniture, of course. The furniture can last that long, and it's good, who would throw it out?
Now look today. How much will you take of your parents' stuff? Do you want their wood furniture? Ikea's cheap, get new stuff. Do you want their painting? Digital screens.
And tomorrow? How much do you have that you're saving for your children to inherit? Old strollers? You likely lease your car, and no one wants your own one anyway.
Planned obsolescence. ..of ownership, of families, of pride in anything.
anything requiring "more" work, of any kind, would be refused. police got sold a system that is being used. that's a win.
i wouldn't be surprised to learn that officers refused to plug in a usb after each shift: "we stow our guns, and we go home to our families. it's always a long and dangerous day, and it's already one more device to be carried around. i already don't want it."
Cameras are defeated very very easily. Between a mask, crowds, and a long silent get-away, it's over.
Here's what a six-digit uid gets you. Home cameras aren't for robbery prevention, and they aren't for security. They are to prove to the insurance company that you were robbed. That's it.
Another six-digit story.
I was driving, in a minivan, with my family, downtown, in traffic, stopped at a red light, third-car back. a big ugly sedan came up behind us, mounted the sidewalk, side-swiped my van, drove over a lawn, and turned the corner, all at real speed (~40 mph). Immediately behind it was a police car, which did the same (without side-swiping us). Two hours later, we were at the collision reporting section (such damaged is covered, after all) discussing what happened. The officer said they got away. The bad guys ditched the car a block later, and (in the officer's words) "turned their backwards hats around, and disappeared into the night-time restaurant crowds".
They store a big car, and were chased by a police car not ten feet off their rear bumper. There were at least three passengers.
Everything that you've said is absolutely true. Unfortunately, while every crime CAN be solved, I'll even give you that absolute, the resource costs, financial costs, and opportunity costs just don't make it feasible.
That's what a six-digit uid gives you. It gives you the pattern recognition to see just how many times all of this has happened and been said oh so many times before.
I don't need to prove to anyone that bodycams can't be secured. I just need to show you that there are hundreds of similar scenarios that have gone awry in my own lifetime. This is just yet one more.
Now, tell me, how would you stop someone in a rural area from poisoning a farmer's corn? How many people could that kill? I promise, there are no cameras in the middle of nowhere farm land, and no humans either -- for miles.
Yeah, they are "supposed" to be guarded and locked. And perhaps at night, when small departments are closed, they actually are. However, in reality, they are in-use all day, and no one's going to sit there and lock and unlock and lock and unlock the same filing cabinet hundreds of times every day. No one's going to fabricate a dozen keys to the same cabinet for the dozen users either.
And filing cabinet locks aren't exactly secure to begin with. Nor are the cabinet walls.
Me tossing dandelion seeds onto your lawn at midnight leaves a trail?
Me, with a small pocket knife in a crowded sidewalk stabbing you and walking away with the crowd leaves a trail? I wear gloves for half the year around here.
Dropping debris onto the highway leaves a trail?
My unplugging your air conditioner? Or stuffing a banana into your tailpipe, or into your furnace exhaust?
You either catch me doing it while I'm doing it, or I'm gone, never to be found. Same with wifi hacking -- presuming any degree of nearby.
The costs to securing a bodycam is effectively astronomical. Either you're removing features of convenience -- which then costs personnel to support -- or you're updating and maintaining and patching that security as a matter of routine -- which also costs personnel to support. In either case, you then need an office or workbench for said personnel and devices, along with procedures and workflows and supervision.
Without security, the body cam never needs to leave the uniform. Its content is accessed remotely, as needed, by the personnel who already need it. Done.
It's just not worth securing most things. We're the only consumer industry that touts security as the answer to crime.
Your grocery store doesn't have a cage stopping you from stealing fruit. They even put some of that fruit on a stand OUTSIDE the store, in the parking lot!
This is the only industry that thinks security should be everywhere. Absolutely no other consumer-based industry cares about security at all.
Nothing stops my car from driving into another car on the highway. There is no security. We call it laws. We enforce laws.
We don't stop anyone from hurting anyone else with a knife. Hell, you can walk down the street with a baseball bat over your shoulder, ready to swing. You can kill anyone with one swing to the head.
We don't complain that baseball bats should come with anti-swing mechanisms that only get unlocked by baseballs and batting cages.
Demanding security in bodycams is like demanding security in filing cabinets. It just ain't worth it. Instead, go ahead and demand laws that make it illegal to hack into police bodycams. Then enforce those laws and arrest those criminals.
That's how we've solved murderous rampage killings, and high-noon gun-fights, and train robberies, and bank robberies, and basically everything else from the days of the wild wild west.
Your house is about as critical as it gets for your life. Most locks are defeatable with a plastic card. deadbolts are defeatable with lock picks.
Neither batters because you have glass windows.
Maybe you have ugly steel bars on your windows. You have none around your air conditioner. In fact, your air conditioner likely has shut-off switch right outside where anyone can simply turn it off with the flip of a switch.
But a lack of air conditioning doesn't cause death in this country. So how about that conspicuously white vent sticking out of your house? You know, the one from your furnace? The one carrying toxic fumes? What stops any passer-by from shoving a sock in there, and just killing you in your sleep?
How much do you trust your carbon monoxide detector?
Oh yeah. I bought this handful of dandelion seeds. What stops me from tossing them onto your nice green lawn?
Imagine what a few ball bearings tossed onto a highway would do.
So many animals! People forget that lots of animals have no trouble surviving natural forest fires all the time. This is just plain mean to them. Kinda screwing with natural selection.
I'm looking at a news article about my local fire-fighters upcoming fire-fighters challenge event. It's on august 22nd. There's a video of last year's event.
Because I've read this article, I now know about the event, and have decided to attend or not to attend.
As a result, I have the information that I need.
So what magical insight-recommendation-engine is going to suggest that I learn more about an event that I just read from official announcements?
What do I want? I want an engine that correctly says "congratulations on finding the first-party official web-site. there's no more information about this event that isn't derived from here or is just plain conjecture. you're done reading. just go to bed."
What if the robot simply said "updating, do not reboot". What if there was a paper sticker that said "do not turn off". What if there was a sign on the wall that said "do not turn off robot". What if the robot simply started reciting pi, or reading the dictionary. What if the robot is well-known for repeating whatever it hears, and the "please don't turn me off" is witnessed being echoed from a nearby tvision -- such that our human subject realizes that the robot begging is merely a blind echo.
Humans were slower when there was continued stimuli -- duh. Humans refused to act when given contradictory instructions -- duh.
The robot is either intelligent and giving instructions to the human, or the robot is programmed and relaying instructions from the programmer to the human. In either case, respecting the instruction is valid.
This reminds me of the stupid fake automated pizza delivery van, and the observations that customers tend to thank the self-driving car. a) it's not self driving, it's just a dickhead driver refusing to respond; and b) any actual self-driving pizza delivery van would be recording customer feedback and relaying it to HQ, so the thank-you is ultimately feedback to remote humans.
This isn't any tree-falling-in-the-forest philosophical puzzle. Someone said it. Someone heard it. It's valid.
I don't understand. We now live in a world where education is free and never ending. You can learn anything you want. Libraries of books became the internet of infinite websites. You don't need college to learn things. So the right to education has absolutely nothing to do with college anymore.
College is, what it always was: a certification of advanced skills. When brick-layer was basic, engineer required college. Great. In a world where few had college degrees, college degrees meant better employment. Great.
That's not today. That hasn't been today for two decades now.
Today, college means not entering the workforce for 5-to-15 more years. Today, there are more can't-find-work surgeons than there are brick-layers. Full stop.
If you can't afford to go to college to become and out-of-work doctor, brick-layer is something you can do at HALF THE AGE, for what has become an increasing wage (because no one wants to do it). And with the extra 5-to-15 years of income, and the better hours, and the better lifestyle, I don't know why anyone short on money would ever choose college.
My neighbour's a seasoned municipal plumber of twenty years (think sewers). My housekeeper's a new school janitor for six months. The janitor makes more money than the plumber.
The janitor works full time, with a pension and paid vacation, in her own community. The plumber takes any hours he can find, and that's it -- unless he chooses a 36 transport to northern nowheresville to start building a new city for three weeks at a time away from his family for triple the money.
This stupid propaganda that advanced education a) means college; b) means paying for; c) is required; and d) is beneficial at all -- is just foolish.
Again, if you want to be a doctor and specialize in the back of the knee, and you've got the mind and the money to do it, by all means go pay for college and go work through residency and spend twenty years of your life working with the [ehem] guarantee that you'll earn the big bucks by the time you're 40, and that you'll survive and still want to do it by then.
But, if you don't have the money, or don't have the intellect, or don't have the desire to invest 25 years all at once into nothing but your career, then there are countless careers that require little education and absolutely zero accreditation.
Slashdot Mirror
This problem, like all internet problems, is not new to the internet. It's not hard to put up a tent by the side of the road, put an apple-like logo onto it, and sell fake iphones.
How do you know, when you walk into a bank, that it's a bank, and not just some guy with a storefront that looks like a bank? When was the last time that you authenticated your bank branch as actually being a bank?
How about if my browser -- that has no problem parsing a URL -- simply asked me, the first time I wind up at a new domain, if I'm sure it is who I think it is? Maybe show me some of the basic information, a few lookups, consult a trusted white-list, and obviously spread that trust from certain sites to others -- maybe allow me to say that links from cnn.com can be trusted implicitly.
Why does it need to be any more complicated than asking me to be sure?
And, of course, I'll include my go-to advice: maybe we should start arresting criminals -- you know, like in every other part of life -- instead of trying to make consumers play their own game of cops and robbers every minute of every day.
"I want to stick with windows 7" and "I want the latest adobe" are simply incompatible. I wish it weren't, but hey, you can't have both old and new on the same machine. A year ago, I was fine with vista on my ten-year old machine. But then even firefox refused to connect to modern SSL web-sites.
So you get to decide, upgrade everything (occasionally), or stick with old everything.
But you've stepped on a landmine of mine. You loath Windows 10; but with about five hours of clicking, it becomes nearly identical to windows 7. You can adjust almost everything to be the way you have your windows 7 now. And the remaining things are, quite frankly, just minor cosmetic differences.
Take it from me. I spent six hours and got it almost the same as my vista setup.
You missed the point. I wasn't offending "you". I was showcasing that every "solution" just makes things worse -- which generally suggests that there is no objective problem in the first place.
Why would you say that one "owes" anything to any future anyone? The universe won't implode without you. Or it will anyway, and another will take its place just the same.
Here's a simple way to double the number of jobs, and therefore double the average salary -- only one adult per household can work full-time. subsequent adults would get their salaries significantly limited. Oh wait, you used to have exactly that. Maybe we tripped over that one.
otherwise, we'll live in a world where families who choose to have four generations in a single household would have eight adults earning full salaries. You'd never be able to afford a house as a regular two-adult family.
Oh wait, we've already tripped over that hurdle.
How about this one: maybe, if we weren't permitted to pay people less than a minimum livable wage...oh wait, tripped over that one too.
I got it. how about taxing corporate profits so companies don't grow larger than their employees? No, that didn't work. How about giving grants to corporations so that they trickle down to the employees. No, wait, that was even worse!
Oh yeah, free money for everybody! That's my favourite one. That's the communism effect -- you know, where the generation who wanted it, benefits greatly, and every subsequent generation dodges it until it backfires miserably.
Oh, by the way, your "reproduction is a critical function for our species to survive"? That's your choice, not mine. It's an arbitrary choice. No more valid than the much simpler enjoy-the-life-you-have-and-let-the-species-end-as-it-is choice. I promise, the earth will keep on spinning without your brood -- likely much better actually.
I'm not paying you to have children. It's that simple. You can take your own business risks, start your own company, and take off as much time as you like, risk losing all of your clients, and have a child. That's what I did, and now I have a perfect puppy -- and I still have my business, and I'm short about $100'000 over a three year period as a result.
Maybe, if you can't afford two-months' salary, maybe, just maybe, you won't be able to afford your child either. Maybe, just maybe, they'll grow up to suck as much as you. I don't want them around.
Evolution favours procreation over intelligence. Perhaps you're now seeing that the future might tie those two just a little bit more than ever before. Maybe, just maybe, children of stupid people who can't earn more than they spend will die of malnutrition from nothing-but-walmart food.
So tell me: have you ever seen the human being who makes your food? Do you know the name of one person who grew your tomato? Or your cow? Maybe you're not too bright.
You know, I would be joking, but I took off about six months to train my puppy (self-employed, so zero pay) and my friend has a completely untrained puppy, with no time to train it.
So, maybe I'm not joking.
Really, I'm laughing at the concept that any lifestyle choice gets job consideration in the first place. I'm not going to pay my employees to stay at home and not generate any revenue. That's insane. With what would I pay them?
Also, last I checked, employers aren't allowed to keep employees working in-excess without consideration pay. So why is the employer involved in raising their children?
It's just a whole whack of stupid. And it comes only from the fact that people work way too much. This is simply an enforced work-life balance. I wouldn't have thought that adults, especially those with families, would need to be forced to work less.
Twelve weeks is a good amount of time to properly train a puppy. I'll happily take it.
"dictionary". Do you mean "lexicon"?
I'm happy when language evolves -- when that evolution is intentional. But when that evolution is the result of really very stupid people, or just plain error and mistake, well then those evolutions are to be resisted.
AN example of semantic bleaching INCLUDES
EXAMPLES of semantic bleaching INCLUDE
You don't get to label your own errors as evolution when you don't even realize that you're making them.
As for "literally", well, I've spent twenty years saying "I'm using the word 'literally' figuratively." -- which is, of course, completely valid since any word can be used figuratively. See? Intentional.
So there.
When it comes to books, music, and movies, I think the OP is backwards. Bards used to travel and tell stories. The concept of writing them down and selling them to own was new. Now that we're streaming such story content is actually a return to the original, where the value is in its novelty and temporal relevance, rather than in repeated accessibility and reproduction.
But I've noticed this issue in something that I feel is much worse. Household contents.
Think about furniture. Think about art. Think about tools and dishes and plant holders and pillows and photo albums and records and record players and rugs. And impressive chrome strollers -- basonettes? And classic cars. And fur coats.
My grandparents inherited these types of family heirlooms. My parents did too. Owning 100+ year old family furniture, of course. The furniture can last that long, and it's good, who would throw it out?
Now look today. How much will you take of your parents' stuff? Do you want their wood furniture? Ikea's cheap, get new stuff. Do you want their painting? Digital screens.
And tomorrow? How much do you have that you're saving for your children to inherit? Old strollers? You likely lease your car, and no one wants your own one anyway.
Planned obsolescence. . .of ownership, of families, of pride in anything.
My point is that security isn't a realistically practical solution to these problems. Law enforcement is.
agreed on all but your last point.
anything requiring "more" work, of any kind, would be refused. police got sold a system that is being used. that's a win.
i wouldn't be surprised to learn that officers refused to plug in a usb after each shift: "we stow our guns, and we go home to our families. it's always a long and dangerous day, and it's already one more device to be carried around. i already don't want it."
and i wouldn't blame them either.
Cameras are defeated very very easily. Between a mask, crowds, and a long silent get-away, it's over.
Here's what a six-digit uid gets you. Home cameras aren't for robbery prevention, and they aren't for security. They are to prove to the insurance company that you were robbed. That's it.
Another six-digit story.
I was driving, in a minivan, with my family, downtown, in traffic, stopped at a red light, third-car back. a big ugly sedan came up behind us, mounted the sidewalk, side-swiped my van, drove over a lawn, and turned the corner, all at real speed (~40 mph). Immediately behind it was a police car, which did the same (without side-swiping us). Two hours later, we were at the collision reporting section (such damaged is covered, after all) discussing what happened. The officer said they got away. The bad guys ditched the car a block later, and (in the officer's words) "turned their backwards hats around, and disappeared into the night-time restaurant crowds".
They store a big car, and were chased by a police car not ten feet off their rear bumper. There were at least three passengers.
Everything that you've said is absolutely true. Unfortunately, while every crime CAN be solved, I'll even give you that absolute, the resource costs, financial costs, and opportunity costs just don't make it feasible.
That's what a six-digit uid gives you. It gives you the pattern recognition to see just how many times all of this has happened and been said oh so many times before.
I don't need to prove to anyone that bodycams can't be secured. I just need to show you that there are hundreds of similar scenarios that have gone awry in my own lifetime. This is just yet one more.
Now, tell me, how would you stop someone in a rural area from poisoning a farmer's corn? How many people could that kill? I promise, there are no cameras in the middle of nowhere farm land, and no humans either -- for miles.
Yeah, they are "supposed" to be guarded and locked. And perhaps at night, when small departments are closed, they actually are. However, in reality, they are in-use all day, and no one's going to sit there and lock and unlock and lock and unlock the same filing cabinet hundreds of times every day. No one's going to fabricate a dozen keys to the same cabinet for the dozen users either.
And filing cabinet locks aren't exactly secure to begin with. Nor are the cabinet walls.
Sorry, I don't know what that is. I'm just a 40-year old, with a house, a car, a family, a career, and a bank account.
What are you? Oh says right there, a coward.
I described the immense amount of resources to secure bodycams. Perhaps you didn't read them.
They were:
IT personnel
IT workspace
Device storage space
IT procedures
IT training
IT supervision
HR support of IT
Tech support
In most businesses today, I can't think of a department that costs more than the IT department.
My health care system actually does work that way. Does yours need to verify your identity while you're unconscious and bleeding to death?
Me tossing dandelion seeds onto your lawn at midnight leaves a trail?
Me, with a small pocket knife in a crowded sidewalk stabbing you and walking away with the crowd leaves a trail? I wear gloves for half the year around here.
Dropping debris onto the highway leaves a trail?
My unplugging your air conditioner? Or stuffing a banana into your tailpipe, or into your furnace exhaust?
You either catch me doing it while I'm doing it, or I'm gone, never to be found. Same with wifi hacking -- presuming any degree of nearby.
The costs to securing a bodycam is effectively astronomical. Either you're removing features of convenience -- which then costs personnel to support -- or you're updating and maintaining and patching that security as a matter of routine -- which also costs personnel to support. In either case, you then need an office or workbench for said personnel and devices, along with procedures and workflows and supervision.
Without security, the body cam never needs to leave the uniform. Its content is accessed remotely, as needed, by the personnel who already need it. Done.
It's just not worth securing most things. We're the only consumer industry that touts security as the answer to crime.
Your grocery store doesn't have a cage stopping you from stealing fruit. They even put some of that fruit on a stand OUTSIDE the store, in the parking lot!
This is the only industry that thinks security should be everywhere. Absolutely no other consumer-based industry cares about security at all.
Nothing stops my car from driving into another car on the highway. There is no security. We call it laws. We enforce laws.
We don't stop anyone from hurting anyone else with a knife. Hell, you can walk down the street with a baseball bat over your shoulder, ready to swing. You can kill anyone with one swing to the head.
We don't complain that baseball bats should come with anti-swing mechanisms that only get unlocked by baseballs and batting cages.
Demanding security in bodycams is like demanding security in filing cabinets. It just ain't worth it. Instead, go ahead and demand laws that make it illegal to hack into police bodycams. Then enforce those laws and arrest those criminals.
That's how we've solved murderous rampage killings, and high-noon gun-fights, and train robberies, and bank robberies, and basically everything else from the days of the wild wild west.
Your house is about as critical as it gets for your life. Most locks are defeatable with a plastic card. deadbolts are defeatable with lock picks.
Neither batters because you have glass windows.
Maybe you have ugly steel bars on your windows. You have none around your air conditioner. In fact, your air conditioner likely has shut-off switch right outside where anyone can simply turn it off with the flip of a switch.
But a lack of air conditioning doesn't cause death in this country. So how about that conspicuously white vent sticking out of your house? You know, the one from your furnace? The one carrying toxic fumes? What stops any passer-by from shoving a sock in there, and just killing you in your sleep?
How much do you trust your carbon monoxide detector?
Oh yeah. I bought this handful of dandelion seeds. What stops me from tossing them onto your nice green lawn?
Imagine what a few ball bearings tossed onto a highway would do.
"hackers" can insert or change files in filing cabinets throughout virtually every police station!
last I checked, this would fall under obstruction of justice, at the very least.
it's not surprising that criminals can perform crimes.
start arresting them.
So many animals! People forget that lots of animals have no trouble surviving natural forest fires all the time. This is just plain mean to them. Kinda screwing with natural selection.
I'm looking at a news article about my local fire-fighters upcoming fire-fighters challenge event. It's on august 22nd. There's a video of last year's event.
Because I've read this article, I now know about the event, and have decided to attend or not to attend.
As a result, I have the information that I need.
So what magical insight-recommendation-engine is going to suggest that I learn more about an event that I just read from official announcements?
What do I want? I want an engine that correctly says "congratulations on finding the first-party official web-site. there's no more information about this event that isn't derived from here or is just plain conjecture. you're done reading. just go to bed."
I think the study missed a few control groups.
What if the robot simply said "updating, do not reboot".
What if there was a paper sticker that said "do not turn off".
What if there was a sign on the wall that said "do not turn off robot".
What if the robot simply started reciting pi, or reading the dictionary.
What if the robot is well-known for repeating whatever it hears, and the "please don't turn me off" is witnessed being echoed from a nearby tvision -- such that our human subject realizes that the robot begging is merely a blind echo.
Humans were slower when there was continued stimuli -- duh.
Humans refused to act when given contradictory instructions -- duh.
The robot is either intelligent and giving instructions to the human, or the robot is programmed and relaying instructions from the programmer to the human. In either case, respecting the instruction is valid.
This reminds me of the stupid fake automated pizza delivery van, and the observations that customers tend to thank the self-driving car. a) it's not self driving, it's just a dickhead driver refusing to respond; and b) any actual self-driving pizza delivery van would be recording customer feedback and relaying it to HQ, so the thank-you is ultimately feedback to remote humans.
This isn't any tree-falling-in-the-forest philosophical puzzle. Someone said it. Someone heard it. It's valid.
I don't understand. We now live in a world where education is free and never ending. You can learn anything you want. Libraries of books became the internet of infinite websites. You don't need college to learn things. So the right to education has absolutely nothing to do with college anymore.
College is, what it always was: a certification of advanced skills. When brick-layer was basic, engineer required college. Great. In a world where few had college degrees, college degrees meant better employment. Great.
That's not today. That hasn't been today for two decades now.
Today, college means not entering the workforce for 5-to-15 more years.
Today, there are more can't-find-work surgeons than there are brick-layers. Full stop.
If you can't afford to go to college to become and out-of-work doctor, brick-layer is something you can do at HALF THE AGE, for what has become an increasing wage (because no one wants to do it). And with the extra 5-to-15 years of income, and the better hours, and the better lifestyle, I don't know why anyone short on money would ever choose college.
My neighbour's a seasoned municipal plumber of twenty years (think sewers). My housekeeper's a new school janitor for six months. The janitor makes more money than the plumber.
The janitor works full time, with a pension and paid vacation, in her own community. The plumber takes any hours he can find, and that's it -- unless he chooses a 36 transport to northern nowheresville to start building a new city for three weeks at a time away from his family for triple the money.
This stupid propaganda that advanced education a) means college; b) means paying for; c) is required; and d) is beneficial at all -- is just foolish.
Again, if you want to be a doctor and specialize in the back of the knee, and you've got the mind and the money to do it, by all means go pay for college and go work through residency and spend twenty years of your life working with the [ehem] guarantee that you'll earn the big bucks by the time you're 40, and that you'll survive and still want to do it by then.
But, if you don't have the money, or don't have the intellect, or don't have the desire to invest 25 years all at once into nothing but your career, then there are countless careers that require little education and absolutely zero accreditation.
We've discussed this before.
Good thing Ali isn't murdering anyone in your neighbourhood.
Yes. Law enforcement has always had problems with borders and jurisdictions. Fix that.