That has to be the shittiest rationalization of crime ever.
If Mr. X steals something from Mr. Y and the cops accidentally arrest you before realizing their mistake; you're innocent, but you have a public record that people can look up on the internet.
You don't have to actually commit a crime to be listed online for having been arrested for one.
No. Just no. Nothing of the sort has been proposed.
Not on a government level but Facebook has been trying to share data with your bank account. All sorts of other private companies share data about you between themselves. We already have the first steps in place for a privately run civic score.
Why do you think Facebook wants your bank account information? It's so that they can place ads to people based on the money they have. "Check Into Cash" for poor people and "Apple Watches" for rich people.
Why do you think the Bank wants your Facebook information? You can learn a lot about a person by what they post to Facebook.
We've already got our foot in the door to a private version of what the Chinese government has started. What we need is for laws that make it harder for private companies to share data about you.
Everybody keeps throwing around all of these ways that China could abuse this system, like discrediting based on social media post or publishing dissenting material. Thing is, they haven't implemented anything like that. So far the only thing that dings your score is criminal charges, traffic violations, and defaulting on loans. So it's like a cross between a criminal record and a credit score. Not very dystopian..
That's not true.
Simply being friends with someone with a low civic score on social media DOES give you a lower civic score. Time spent playing video games (at least when connected to servers that they can monitor) DOES lower your civic score. Having comments censored DOES lower your civic score.
It IS very dystopian and they ARE abusing the system already.
That's what this bullshit sounds like: a bad parent, who never forgets anything bad their kid did, continually reminds them, and always suspects them before anyone else when something bad happens, always believes the so-called 'good kid'. 'Guilty until proven innocent'. You may as well just kill these people, it would be less cruel.
I'm a strong believer in that people live up to their expectations too. If you tell a kid he will never be up to any good... guess what- he won't. People tend to fill the expectations and moulds that other people provide for them.
We already have it. When someone has committed a felony or has been arrested (even if innocent) the action is on the record, making it harder for people to get jobs, apply for loans, and do things in general to help them improve their lives.
For a lot of criminals, they don't do crime because they want to be a bad person, they do it because they cannot see any better alternatives. Then if they get caught, and once they leave jail, even more better alternatives are now off the table.
As bad as that is, it impacts far fewer people than what China does; although, it's probably inevitable that we're sliding down the same path in the US unless some sort of regulation on how private data is shared.
Over here it might not be so much a government sponsored score; but one maintained by private companies.
AI identifies a tattoo on one guy on his facebook photo. Because on average the average person without tattoos probably does less jail time than the person with tattoos- he drops 40 points in his score (despite being law-abiding). His Amazon account shows he has bought a t-shirt with "it's 4:20 somewhere" written on it. He drops another 40 points. Wal-mart reports he bought a lot of beer in the last month (he threw a party)- he drops another 20 points. He goes to buy a plane ticket from Delta but the flights are all booked and so he is put on wait list.
A seat opens up, but a clean shaven guy who buys self-help books and metrosexual skin creams gets the seat instead; Delta could have given it to either guy but determines that the metrosexual is less likely to cause damage and cause a scene because he has a higher civic score.
However, I really really hope that some brave transhumanists chomping at the bit to be able to use this new technique on themselves, are allowed to do so
At some point, the military will wake up to this, and then the Special Forces guys will be using it (well, okay, it'll be tested on them), followed in a decade or three by "it's part of Boot Camp to have your vision augmented to include IR"
It's not really augmented though- it's modified. From the summary Infra-red shows up as green for the mice; so presumably the mice lost colour depth perception as a result of the IR- or at least lowered green light sensitivity.
It would be really cool to have IR ability- but not at the expense of becoming colour-blind. Having some troops with IR ability mixed with some troops without might maximize all benefits. You wouldn't want your entire army being colourblind though.
Its a question of perspective obviously. When I started working over 15 years ago I thought you had to be insane to pay over 15k for a car and we used to discuss what a stupid waste of money it was to spend so much to move from point a to point b.
These day I own a long range model 3 and it wasnt that big of a purchase. It was a bit of an indulgence but nothing too crazy. Shit compared to the home loans I have for various tenements its nothing, Iâ(TM)m millions down the hole in loans ( yeah that still sounds bizare to me to say that but it only take a few building and before you know it..)
Obviously what car people buy, and why they decide to buy it is an individual's decision and there are very few right or wrong answers.
However, multiple studies have shown that people's enjoyment of their car, and their satisfaction of their car is not related to how much they spend for their car. Customer satisfaction is no higher in higher priced cars than lower priced cars- nor is their expressed joy at driving more expensive cars. (yeah, I'm sure people will respond with personal anecdotes where they got a more expensive car and were happier... but overall there is no correlation for the population at whole).
I hope you enjoy your Tesla 3, I'd love to own an electric one day (or just a nicer car in general); but I think your initial thought wasn't necessarily wrong, owning a more expensive car isn't going to necessarily make your commute more enjoyable, although I hope in your case it does!
whether it is the National Park system which only the upper middle class can afford to go enjoy,
I go to National Parks BECAUSE I can't afford to go anywhere else. If you think you need to be wealthy to go to a National Park you're crazy. Some of the best places to go for those of us who don't have the money they would like.
For Tesla fanboys, the lower price will definitely drive more sales. Problem is: there is a limited amount of fanboys. Once they all have their car, you'll have to sell them to Regular Joe which is way, way harder.
Consumer Reports recently dropped Tesla Model 3 as a recomended car. They seem to be shipping with lots of defects.
I want Tesla to do well, I guess you would call me a semi-fanboy (I like the look of the Rivians more though- although that's definitely out of my price range). I wouldn't buy a Model 3 though because they are problematic. Dropping the price doesn't change that.
Dropping price will help sell to some Regular Joes- but any who do their homework will probably be put off. I am. I'll stick with Toyota or Honda for reliability until Tesla gets their act together on their cheaper model.
What else, Tesla branded phone, Tesla branded clothing and Tesla branded consumables,
I'm wearing Tesla branded underwear right now! Although, I suspect it has nothing to do with the car brand "Tesla"- got it off Amazon and actually some of the most comfortable undies I've worn!
So yeah, there is already a clothing company called Tesla, they make decent stuff... I suspect they're not the same "Tesla" though.
THis is another proof the flood of the bible didnt happen. Consider all the salt that would have destroyed the good land after the flood waters disappeared.
I'm not a Christian, and I certainly don't believe in the bible or the flood story. However, surely any being that could create the earth, and flood the earth, could also keep the salt from the oceans from blending with the "water flood" that covered the land.
If you consider how large the earth is- and how high some of the mountains are... that's a crap load of water and would not come from natural sources- that's more than all the water in the atmosphere added to the oceans; so for it to happen it would have to have supernatural origins... as long as we're talking about supernatural origins logic and science is thrown out the window... the floods could have been saltless.
As long as countries like the US, Russia and the rest of the modern world refuses to fund
Out of curiosity, why Russia highlighted? They're not even in the top 10 economies and even lower down the list when compared to per-capita income. Russia is far off the pace when it comes to modern wealthy economies.
Salted rain ? What could possibly go wrong with that ?
Not much. It is 10 m^3/sec of seawater. On a global scale that is an infinitesimal amount of salt, and is harmless.
Which is great, if it were evenly spread out across the globe- but it wouldn't be. It would be concentrated where the machines to produce the salt spray are located. This could result in permement ecological damage to specific areas. We could try putting them where weather conditions USUALLY take the salt away from land- but we know how unpredictable weather systems can be, and we also should know that we can't predict how sending so much salt water up into the atmosphere at localized sites might impact weather conditions. Winds that blow out to sea might alter and blow across a poor country's only fertile stretch.
I wondered that. How can we prevent the extra salt from travelling over land and adjusting the chemical composition of farm land. It almost seems like that could lead to a worse environmental disaster for places along the wind currents of these salt sprayers than global warming.
This is the end of comments on the web as we know it. As usual, a handful of assholes ruined something for everybody else.
That's a bit of an exaggeration- it's one site. A few others might stop sensitive topics; there was an article just yesterday about an uncensored add-in that lets you discuss any web page even if it doesn't have a built in comment section.
Some options for communication will close and others are open.
If you donâ(TM)t want a smart TV, donâ(TM)t connect it to the internet. How hard is this?
I think you miss the point. Of course I can just not set up the smart parts of the TV... I just don't want them. Or the extra costs involved in making the smart TV. Why pay extra for a feature I have no use for?
$20 you can get a superior external device that you can replace- why would I want an inferior product, that I can't replace, and have to pay more for it as a result?
Very few. Most people buy a TV because it's a good deal for the size in a big box store. They don't understand any specs except buzzwords like HD, smart, and 4k.
I understand all that... I just don't want my TV to be "smart" or have "4K".
I have more Rokus and Firesticks than I have televisions (I didn't buy most of them)- and I'd much rather use a replaceable and upgradable external device of my choice to make my TV "smart" than have one prebaked.
As for 4K- seems superfluous to my demands, it would be nice, be don't need the extra cost, and the cable ISP that has a monopoly in my area isn't good enough to really support 4K straming so it's a waste on me anyway.
Just give me a cheap 1080 TV from a 2010 catalogue.
Netflix made 16 billion in profit last year. I wish that I could be "victimized" like that.
Playing devil's advocate; this is the feast before the famine.
There are a lot of Netflix wannabes. Disney, CBS, BBC, etc, are all pulling a lot of content off of Netflix. Netflix is a veritable wasteland of well-known content compared to what it was even three years ago, and it's only going to get worse. They're having to make their own stuff to maintain content.
I highly doubt Netflix are going to go under- but Netflix execs are probably looking at their cheques with concern- are their end of year bonuses going to be so well padded in 5 years from now? How are they ever going to be able to afford the bigger yacht if they lose half their marketshare in the upcoming years.
Netflix is bathing in money right now, but, it is potentially facing a less rosy future. They're not going to become the next blockbusters and disappear, but they may not dominate the landscape in the near future either. They're looking for ways to scrape the barrel.
The friend doesn't own the content, he merely has a subscription to stream it. And I bet the terms & conditions have something to say about when and where sharing that stream is allowed; generally that only includes members of one household, or a limited number of devices. That's not an unreasonable limitation.
I can see both sides of this.
I mean, in the old days of VHS, if I leant my friend my VHS cassette, you would be hard pressed to say that he was "stealing the content."
On the other hand, some people stream Netflix for free because they can; some would probably pay for subscription, others probably wouldn't. My wife lets her mother watch Netflix on our account, her mother is well off and probably wouldn't think twice about paying for her own subscription if she couldn't use ours for free.
It is a grey area, and anyone who says it is "definitely piracy" or "definitely not piracy" is over simplifying. No one would say that a parent couldn't let their child use their account. What about when they're at a friend's house; or off to college... where do you draw the line.
Overall, I see this as not an issue for the courts but an issue for Netflix themselves. They already limit lines. We get two, so, if we're watching and the mother in law is watching no one else can. Netflix makes you pay for lines, so they can restrict you from going crazy and sharing with everyone you know. They might in the future use a technical solution to fix this.
"2 lines at a time" - but only if being channeled through the same router. They can cut off the grey area by policing it better themselves... but will customers be OK with that?
Slashdot Mirror
You may as well just kill these people, it would be less cruel.
If they killed them, they wouldn't have a constant and visible reminder for everyone else to stay in line.
I almost hesitate to suggest this in case someone in Chinese government is reading Slashdot... but...
You could always line the roads in and out of major cities with crucified criminals, rebels, and runaway slaves like the Romans did.
Fuck China.
I'll try- but there's far too many of them and I need more downtime between encounters than I did as a teenager.
That has to be the shittiest rationalization of crime ever.
If Mr. X steals something from Mr. Y and the cops accidentally arrest you before realizing their mistake; you're innocent, but you have a public record that people can look up on the internet.
You don't have to actually commit a crime to be listed online for having been arrested for one.
No. Just no. Nothing of the sort has been proposed.
Not on a government level but Facebook has been trying to share data with your bank account. All sorts of other private companies share data about you between themselves. We already have the first steps in place for a privately run civic score.
Why do you think Facebook wants your bank account information? It's so that they can place ads to people based on the money they have. "Check Into Cash" for poor people and "Apple Watches" for rich people.
Why do you think the Bank wants your Facebook information? You can learn a lot about a person by what they post to Facebook.
We've already got our foot in the door to a private version of what the Chinese government has started. What we need is for laws that make it harder for private companies to share data about you.
Everybody keeps throwing around all of these ways that China could abuse this system, like discrediting based on social media post or publishing dissenting material. Thing is, they haven't implemented anything like that. So far the only thing that dings your score is criminal charges, traffic violations, and defaulting on loans. So it's like a cross between a criminal record and a credit score. Not very dystopian. .
That's not true.
Simply being friends with someone with a low civic score on social media DOES give you a lower civic score. Time spent playing video games (at least when connected to servers that they can monitor) DOES lower your civic score. Having comments censored DOES lower your civic score.
It IS very dystopian and they ARE abusing the system already.
That's what this bullshit sounds like: a bad parent, who never forgets anything bad their kid did, continually reminds them, and always suspects them before anyone else when something bad happens, always believes the so-called 'good kid'. 'Guilty until proven innocent'. You may as well just kill these people, it would be less cruel.
I'm a strong believer in that people live up to their expectations too. If you tell a kid he will never be up to any good... guess what- he won't. People tend to fill the expectations and moulds that other people provide for them.
We already have it.
When someone has committed a felony or has been arrested (even if innocent) the action is on the record, making it harder for people to get jobs, apply for loans, and do things in general to help them improve their lives.
For a lot of criminals, they don't do crime because they want to be a bad person, they do it because they cannot see any better alternatives. Then if they get caught, and once they leave jail, even more better alternatives are now off the table.
As bad as that is, it impacts far fewer people than what China does; although, it's probably inevitable that we're sliding down the same path in the US unless some sort of regulation on how private data is shared.
Over here it might not be so much a government sponsored score; but one maintained by private companies.
AI identifies a tattoo on one guy on his facebook photo. Because on average the average person without tattoos probably does less jail time than the person with tattoos- he drops 40 points in his score (despite being law-abiding). His Amazon account shows he has bought a t-shirt with "it's 4:20 somewhere" written on it. He drops another 40 points. Wal-mart reports he bought a lot of beer in the last month (he threw a party)- he drops another 20 points. He goes to buy a plane ticket from Delta but the flights are all booked and so he is put on wait list.
A seat opens up, but a clean shaven guy who buys self-help books and metrosexual skin creams gets the seat instead; Delta could have given it to either guy but determines that the metrosexual is less likely to cause damage and cause a scene because he has a higher civic score.
Its probably better than our present habit of making stupid people famous.
I'm still unknown! :(
At some point, the military will wake up to this, and then the Special Forces guys will be using it (well, okay, it'll be tested on them), followed in a decade or three by "it's part of Boot Camp to have your vision augmented to include IR"
It's not really augmented though- it's modified. From the summary Infra-red shows up as green for the mice; so presumably the mice lost colour depth perception as a result of the IR- or at least lowered green light sensitivity.
It would be really cool to have IR ability- but not at the expense of becoming colour-blind. Having some troops with IR ability mixed with some troops without might maximize all benefits. You wouldn't want your entire army being colourblind though.
Its a question of perspective obviously. When I started working over 15 years ago I thought you had to be insane to pay over 15k for a car and we used to discuss what a stupid waste of money it was to spend so much to move from point a to point b.
These day I own a long range model 3 and it wasnt that big of a purchase. It was a bit of an indulgence but nothing too crazy. Shit compared to the home loans I have for various tenements its nothing, Iâ(TM)m millions down the hole in loans ( yeah that still sounds bizare to me to say that but it only take a few building and before you know it..)
Obviously what car people buy, and why they decide to buy it is an individual's decision and there are very few right or wrong answers.
However, multiple studies have shown that people's enjoyment of their car, and their satisfaction of their car is not related to how much they spend for their car. Customer satisfaction is no higher in higher priced cars than lower priced cars- nor is their expressed joy at driving more expensive cars. (yeah, I'm sure people will respond with personal anecdotes where they got a more expensive car and were happier... but overall there is no correlation for the population at whole).
I hope you enjoy your Tesla 3, I'd love to own an electric one day (or just a nicer car in general); but I think your initial thought wasn't necessarily wrong, owning a more expensive car isn't going to necessarily make your commute more enjoyable, although I hope in your case it does!
whether it is the National Park system which only the upper middle class can afford to go enjoy,
I go to National Parks BECAUSE I can't afford to go anywhere else. If you think you need to be wealthy to go to a National Park you're crazy. Some of the best places to go for those of us who don't have the money they would like.
For Tesla fanboys, the lower price will definitely drive more sales. Problem is: there is a limited amount of fanboys. Once they all have their car, you'll have to sell them to Regular Joe which is way, way harder.
Consumer Reports recently dropped Tesla Model 3 as a recomended car. They seem to be shipping with lots of defects.
I want Tesla to do well, I guess you would call me a semi-fanboy (I like the look of the Rivians more though- although that's definitely out of my price range). I wouldn't buy a Model 3 though because they are problematic. Dropping the price doesn't change that.
Dropping price will help sell to some Regular Joes- but any who do their homework will probably be put off. I am. I'll stick with Toyota or Honda for reliability until Tesla gets their act together on their cheaper model.
"Your wife was a virgin when you met."
Mine most certainly was!
(she was still 14 when we met... we didn't date until 6 years after we met)
What else, Tesla branded phone, Tesla branded clothing and Tesla branded consumables,
I'm wearing Tesla branded underwear right now!
Although, I suspect it has nothing to do with the car brand "Tesla"- got it off Amazon and actually some of the most comfortable undies I've worn!
So yeah, there is already a clothing company called Tesla, they make decent stuff... I suspect they're not the same "Tesla" though.
THis is another proof the flood of the bible didnt happen. Consider all the salt that would have destroyed the good land after the flood waters disappeared.
I'm not a Christian, and I certainly don't believe in the bible or the flood story. However, surely any being that could create the earth, and flood the earth, could also keep the salt from the oceans from blending with the "water flood" that covered the land.
If you consider how large the earth is- and how high some of the mountains are... that's a crap load of water and would not come from natural sources- that's more than all the water in the atmosphere added to the oceans; so for it to happen it would have to have supernatural origins... as long as we're talking about supernatural origins logic and science is thrown out the window... the floods could have been saltless.
As long as countries like the US, Russia and the rest of the modern world refuses to fund
Out of curiosity, why Russia highlighted? They're not even in the top 10 economies and even lower down the list when compared to per-capita income. Russia is far off the pace when it comes to modern wealthy economies.
Salted rain ? What could possibly go wrong with that ?
Not much. It is 10 m^3/sec of seawater. On a global scale that is an infinitesimal amount of salt, and is harmless.
Which is great, if it were evenly spread out across the globe- but it wouldn't be. It would be concentrated where the machines to produce the salt spray are located. This could result in permement ecological damage to specific areas. We could try putting them where weather conditions USUALLY take the salt away from land- but we know how unpredictable weather systems can be, and we also should know that we can't predict how sending so much salt water up into the atmosphere at localized sites might impact weather conditions. Winds that blow out to sea might alter and blow across a poor country's only fertile stretch.
It will soon be raining salt water .
I wondered that. How can we prevent the extra salt from travelling over land and adjusting the chemical composition of farm land. It almost seems like that could lead to a worse environmental disaster for places along the wind currents of these salt sprayers than global warming.
I've been counting the number of polar bears in my back yard since the early 90's. They have shown no significant decline.
I suspect that the polar bears in your back yard are locally extinct. Thus showing we're long overdue for reform.
This is the end of comments on the web as we know it.
As usual, a handful of assholes ruined something for everybody else.
That's a bit of an exaggeration- it's one site. A few others might stop sensitive topics; there was an article just yesterday about an uncensored add-in that lets you discuss any web page even if it doesn't have a built in comment section.
Some options for communication will close and others are open.
If you donâ(TM)t want a smart TV, donâ(TM)t connect it to the internet. How hard is this?
I think you miss the point. Of course I can just not set up the smart parts of the TV... I just don't want them. Or the extra costs involved in making the smart TV. Why pay extra for a feature I have no use for?
$20 you can get a superior external device that you can replace- why would I want an inferior product, that I can't replace, and have to pay more for it as a result?
Very few. Most people buy a TV because it's a good deal for the size in a big box store. They don't understand any specs except buzzwords like HD, smart, and 4k.
I understand all that... I just don't want my TV to be "smart" or have "4K".
I have more Rokus and Firesticks than I have televisions (I didn't buy most of them)- and I'd much rather use a replaceable and upgradable external device of my choice to make my TV "smart" than have one prebaked.
As for 4K- seems superfluous to my demands, it would be nice, be don't need the extra cost, and the cable ISP that has a monopoly in my area isn't good enough to really support 4K straming so it's a waste on me anyway.
Just give me a cheap 1080 TV from a 2010 catalogue.
Netflix made 16 billion in profit last year. I wish that I could be "victimized" like that.
Playing devil's advocate; this is the feast before the famine.
There are a lot of Netflix wannabes. Disney, CBS, BBC, etc, are all pulling a lot of content off of Netflix. Netflix is a veritable wasteland of well-known content compared to what it was even three years ago, and it's only going to get worse. They're having to make their own stuff to maintain content.
I highly doubt Netflix are going to go under- but Netflix execs are probably looking at their cheques with concern- are their end of year bonuses going to be so well padded in 5 years from now? How are they ever going to be able to afford the bigger yacht if they lose half their marketshare in the upcoming years.
Netflix is bathing in money right now, but, it is potentially facing a less rosy future. They're not going to become the next blockbusters and disappear, but they may not dominate the landscape in the near future either. They're looking for ways to scrape the barrel.
The friend doesn't own the content, he merely has a subscription to stream it. And I bet the terms & conditions have something to say about when and where sharing that stream is allowed; generally that only includes members of one household, or a limited number of devices. That's not an unreasonable limitation.
I can see both sides of this.
I mean, in the old days of VHS, if I leant my friend my VHS cassette, you would be hard pressed to say that he was "stealing the content."
On the other hand, some people stream Netflix for free because they can; some would probably pay for subscription, others probably wouldn't. My wife lets her mother watch Netflix on our account, her mother is well off and probably wouldn't think twice about paying for her own subscription if she couldn't use ours for free.
It is a grey area, and anyone who says it is "definitely piracy" or "definitely not piracy" is over simplifying. No one would say that a parent couldn't let their child use their account. What about when they're at a friend's house; or off to college... where do you draw the line.
Overall, I see this as not an issue for the courts but an issue for Netflix themselves. They already limit lines. We get two, so, if we're watching and the mother in law is watching no one else can. Netflix makes you pay for lines, so they can restrict you from going crazy and sharing with everyone you know. They might in the future use a technical solution to fix this.
"2 lines at a time" - but only if being channeled through the same router. They can cut off the grey area by policing it better themselves... but will customers be OK with that?
Psword123
Did you mean "Password123"