I would certainly kick people out of my property if I disapprove of what they are doing. I have not had to do it for a T-shirt or tie, but I can imagine T-shirts and ties that would piss me off enough.
I am also very much OK with a bar/restaurant's owner/manager kicking out people they do not like. Depending on their reasons, I will be more or less likely to patronize their establishment.
In my book, it does not matter whether you are using a Google Glass, a phone, or a hand-held camera. If it looks as if you are filming people who have made it clear they do not want to be filmed, you have to be prepared to deal with the repercussions. If you are on the property of someone who will not allow it, you may be asked to leave. If you are in a place where you cannot defend yourself, you may see your toy in pieces.
One human judge, who knows that he is dealing with one human test subject and one computer test subject. The judge talks to the computer and the human for five minutes, then tries to guess which is the human. If the judge guesses incorrectly, both he and human subject get whipped for five minutes.
I bet you that if you were to test the program from the article my way, you would not get anywhere close to 30% of judges guessing incorrectly. If you restrict your judges and test subjects to non-masochists with an IQ above 90, you probably could not break 10%, either.
Three days ago, I had my first experience with a Glasshole.
I was in a bar at the edge of Chino's industrial park. Most of the patrons were people who stopped for a few beers after work. At some point a few people in their thirties showed up, and one of them was wearing Google Glass. His girlfriend or whatever kept a running commentary on the bar, the dartboard action, and how they were going to see "The Edge of Tomorrow."
At some point one of the other patrons got pissed off and asked the Glasshole to get rid of his toy. Before the situation could escalate, the barmaid stepped from behind the bar and told the guy he would have to leave unless he removed the glasses. He started to say something about having paid for the drinks, but at some point realized that he was getting really dirty looks from almost everyone, and got lost.
I fully expect that as Google Glass and similar devices become more popular, some places will welcome them, and other won't. As far as I am concerned, this is how things should be. I certainly know which kind of bars/restaurants/clubs I'll choose to patronize.
It's no different from Thad Starner at MIT back in the 90s. He got asked to leave quite a few parties, but he was also welcomed by many. I didn't particularly enjoy meeting him in E14 after pulling an all-nighter and feeling/looking like shit, but at least I knew that no one was looking at his feed.
Now that storage is cheap, and processing is becoming much cheaper, I am even more leery of being recorded in some specific situations. A friend of mine has the device, and I hope she has the bad taste to use it when I am hosting a party at my house.
The original article makes it absolutely clear that she is able to communicate. The only person who should decide whether she will live like this or be unplugged is the woman herself.
That was "should". In the real world, the costs of keeping her alive matter. But suggesting to unplug a human being who can think and communicate is in no way different from advocating murder.
Hale and happy as I am today, I think that I would like to be unplugged in her situation. But I may feel very different if I actually were in the state she's in.
So, try to help the original poster and his sister with their predicament, and please keep your sociopathic tenancies to yourself.
1) Name one. The term "Spinoff" was coined to describe exactly this. NASA publishes a list, which was up to 1500 last time I checked... but I guess your Google is broken.
So, I'll just mention something I learned last week, when I had some Teflon-coated fiberglass installed. The contractor mentioned it was developed by NASA for astronauts' suits, and I checked it - he was right.
2) Sounds an awful lot like circular reasoning... like a religion!
"Do this, and you may have a result similar to what has as has occurred 1500 times for NASA, and innumerable times for other people (Viagra, aspirin, porcelain)..."
May I inquire which religion you are referring to, so that I hurry up and join?
Well, your post does deserve a counter-argument, if not a down-vote, and not for the misused vocabulary, either.
First of all, I can't really get very upset over 1.5 billions, because the US government is spending a lot more on things I like a lot less. But we do have a set of laws that govern how money is collected, allocated and spent, and if there's a country that does better by me on all three, I'm not aware of it.
Second, I actually personally know two different groups of people who hope to hitch their projects on this horse. One of their projects has immediate applications to alleviating the frequency shortage that the US is experiencing, and the other may end up with some interesting applications for jet engines, which may eventually trickle down to civilian aviation. So just because the rover is a near copy, there's no reason to expect that there are not a number of significant improvements along for the ride (or on the ground)
Third, space exploration has had unexpected benefits, and the thing about unexpected benefits is that you can't tell what they are before hand. This goes for all branches of research, and if we had anyone who does not like a specific 'useless' project stop it, you'd be probably arguing that urine is perfectly fine for tanning hides, thank you.
And fourth, the people who are going to get those 1.5 billions are scientists/engineers/technicians in the existing facilities of entities which already have their claws deep inside the hide of the US government. This money will go on buying votes and influence, one way or another - best politicians money can buy, and all that. So it may as well go to Boeing/JPL for a flight to Mars, rather to be spent of 'clean' coal and pushing corn into everything you can think of.
They ask. They hear something from their friends and colleagues, and retain a garbled version ranging from "OMG, everything Microsoft needs to be erased!" to "Go to this website and it will fix your IE". If you are lucky, they call you before they try to do something astoundingly stupid.
I'm the IT director for a aftermarket auto-manufacturer, and we keep our Internet facing network and our production/POS/ERP networks physically separate. Each of our Internet facing PCs has IE, and a crippled version of Chrome (same idea as Iron) installed.
A few nights ago, I ran a script that stored everyone's IE bookmarks in a backup, and overwrote them with a list of less than a twenty bookmarks, including the company's website, the banking sites for scanning checks, the website that stores our scanned invoices... you get the idea.
I sent an email instructing them to use IE only for the sites for which there is a bookmark, and use the crippled Chrome for everything else. Last night I restored the bookmarks, and while I was at it, checked a few histories here and there. People seem to have complied with the instructions. I saw only one clear violation, and it was work related, to a website that I may have added to the bookmarks, if I had thought of it.
Today, according to my assistant, there have been three calls from people who did not get their bookmarks back, and a few from people who did not know about bookmarks before, and now want the 'official list' back.
If I thought that I needed a gun at home, I would have a good, reliable gun. (It would probably be a newer CZ with a similar grip to my old one - not that there aren't better guns, but because familiarity is more important that subtle differences in performance)
If I didn't think I need a gun at home, I'd have no gun at home. (Which is the case right now)
In no case would I have an expensive, gimmicky contraption like the iP1 at home, nor I would I recommend anyone gets it - I do not think that the watch is any more useful a control than a key for the trigger lock, and kids have defeated these to shoot themselves before.
This said, feel free to get one, and feel good about it. Chances are, you will benefit from the positive emotions, and will never be harmed from the decreased reliability.
A good gun is a fairly simple machine, I agree with you there. But I would not go as far as assuming that the gun we're talking about is a good one, or a simple one.
If I had somehow agreed to design something like this, and, for some unfathomable reason, had avoiding positive failure as the highest priority, I would not go for something as tested and true as a firing pin.
No, I would have specialized ammunition, that can be only fired when some kind of electronic challenge-response has taken place. Hell, the ammunition would be paired with the watch, the gun would be only be supplying the power for the communications, to truly insure a logistic nightmare and at least three points of failure! Sounds like an abomination to you? You must not have dealt with enough upper management yet, and I am told politicians are even worse:-)
By the way, the Armatix in question uses electronic magazine disconnection. Sure, there still may be a simple mechanical way to insure the gun fires reliably, and you may be able to figure it out in two hours. But I would rather find a way to reliably and cheaply unlock any gun of that model. Once you have physical possession of two guns, it should be possible.
Of course, the manufacturers could have made it very hard to get at the electronics... but that would increase the price of the gun and possible repairs... of course, $400 is already an awful lot for a rather crappy.22L
For a long time I thought of myself as a gun enthusiast. I kept my old Army service CZ for decades, and I kept replacing the barrel, as I was firing thousands upon thousands of rounds to 'keep my hand'.
Then I got married, and now my gun stays at the range, where we go and fire it once in a blue moon. Now that I think about it, I have not touched it since last August.
I live in a much nicer community than the one in which I used to live, and really do not think that my gun would be much extra protection over my swords and bows. (Not that they would be much protection, either) Furthermore, a few months ago, agun owner 20 miles away, in San Bernadino, got killed when he interrupted a home invasion (by unarmed people) He got two, the third strangled him. So three people dead, one in jail for life (I hope)... which probably would not have happened if he had not had a gun.
All of this said, I cannot imagine for the fuck of it a situation where I would want a fucking piece of shit that only fires if I am wearing a watch. I do not sleep with my watch, and I am not replacing my watch with another, for any reason. This is a stupid gimmick that will eventually screw a legitimate owner up. And I bet that if you give me two of these guns, the associated watches, and leave me alone with my PC, in my office at the plant, I'll have the gun 'unlocked' within a week.
Your comprehension of this article seems to be very different from mine.
The smell of males seems to make other mammals feel endangered, and in this state, they feel less pain. This is similar to how people under great stress (for other reasons than being in the presence of He-man) will ignore the pain from even serious injuries.
Now, if your goal is to make sure people around you are less bothered by pain, sure, share your smell with everyone. But if you would like to keep stress levels around you down, you should suppress your smell. It all depends on what your goal is.
As for those who 'cannot handle that information', you'd be surprised how often people confused those who cannot handle something, with those who are actually thinking over what they just learned, and considering the implications. There are times where inaction is worse than the the worst action. In the modern world, such situations are few and far between.
If an institution accepts a higher percentage of Asians than the percentage in the US population (or amongst the applicants, or the amongst the qualified applicants?), is that a bias that needs to be corrected?
If an institution accepts a lower percentage of males than the percentage in the US population, is that a bias that needs to be corrected?
If an institution accepts a higher percentage of Alumni relatives?
If an institution accepts a lower percentage of people with Down syndrome?
If an institution accepts a higher percentage of people who were interested in a particular subject in high school?
What about correlation and causation amongst the above, as in one gender being more involved in one particular subject, or parents from one race being more likely to steer their progeny towards a particular subject?
There are no easy ways to account for all the obstacles a person encounters before he applies for college. Low income families, broken households, abusive parents, devastating medical conditions, high crime neighborhood, toxic cultural environment, etc, etc, etc...
I know for a fact that some of the people in charge of admission cannot even agree on what the end goal is. Equal chance of success independent on the student's qualifications? Equal chance of success independent of the student's skill in choosing the right family to be born in?
People in the US love to pretend that they are using affirmative action to mitigate the effects of their racist society. Somehow, when you give a middle class, black kid from a two parent family an advantage over a low income, single mother Asian kid, you are striking a blow for social justice... But suggest that Alumni do not get an advantage, and that income is never taken into account during admission (the best schools already do the latter) and you are dirty Commie.
When I lived in France, I would get in my car for two reasons: go to the Cora (big supermarket) once a week, and go on weekend trips around Alsace. During the week, it was public transportation all the way. I didn't know many people who commuted in their cars... the two that did commute did it on gas-sipping motorcycles.
Today I live in California, and drive 34 miles per day to get to work, my wife drives a bit less, in a different direction. Our commutes are shorter than most of the people we know. Comparing California to Alsace, the driving cultures are completely different. My daily commuter is a 24 year old 270hp Toyota Supra, the car I take to see customers a 460hp Volvo (I'm in IT, but I work for an aftermarket auto-manufacturer)
With cars like this, I would be regarded like a wasteful pig by most people I knew in Europe. Amongst the people I know in the US, my cars get good MPG.
I wonder how easy it will be for someone unauthorized to force a cellphone off the air. And how easy it will be to get someone authorized to do it through social engineering.
I just hope that however they implement it, they make sure that emergency calls can still be made.
> Goddamn mathematician wasting precious ammunition to have a statistics wank-fest after MY goddamn zombie apocalypse?
Yes, especially because you do not need to waste the shells if you are after an approximation. Get a string, trace a circle. Stretch the string across the circle, through the center, marked when you were tracing it. Measure the diameter string, in shells. Line shells around the circle, bases touching each other. Divide the two numbers, multiply by two, and you will get decent accuracy.
Of course, you will get better accuracy, if you stick 200 or so sticks on the circle's circumference, wrap a string around them, and measure that in shells.
And you can improve on that, by expressing the error for going straight between sticks using Pi, and solving the resulting equation.
But if you are actually able to do math, you can just use one of the series that converge on Pi.
> People are not so that stupid that large numbers are going to stay where there is no food.
You do not seem to understand. Anything that qualifies as Apocalypse is going to disrupt things enough that there will be NO way to get enough food to large metropolitan areas. Hell, who would want to head into the death trap with food?
Nine millions New Yorkers. How far get they get before they cannot get any further? How are they going to share the food they get to? How is the second million going to survive going through where the first million went? They will descend like locusts on the New York state farmers, and it will be a bloodbath...
If you have a functioning farm that can, without an outside supply of fertilizer, feed your family and maybe twenty more people if everyone tightens heir belt, what will you do when a thousand people show up at your door? Feed them your seed reserve? (if you even have that, as opposed to buying your seed from a supplier come planting season)
If only twenty people show up, are you going to feed them on your property without expecting anything in return? Who is going to protect you from people who did not find a nice farmer? What are you going to do if someone amongst your tenants decides that they would rather lord it over everyone else?
Look at any evacuation that has been performed, even recently. Now subtract any aid coming from the outside (because everyone is experiencing the same disaster) No one to bring food, to direct traffic, to set up camp... to set up a bloody port-a-potti.
And then, at some point, someone realizes that there is no functioning law and order anywhere. Sure, hothead Jim will try to bully people alone. Big Bad Bob will get three friends together first, and pick on easier targets, recruiting everyone that's too much trouble to intimidate.
This is all true... But people with a grasp of the history of, well, history, will know that the people most useful to themselves while be the ones (1) with familiarity with whatever weaponry still functions and (2) with a glib tongue to unite likely minded people.
It won't be an apocalypse if we can feed everyone. When we cannot feed everyone, there will be violence. When there is violence, the people will be triaged into three groups: - the tough and glib (lords) - the useful professionals (craftsmen) - the manual laborers, when needed (serfs) Those who can't cut it as thugs, and do not know something useful will be lucky to be allowed to pick at the dirt and retain enough to feed themselves. In highly populated regions, about one in a hundred will be lucky to be needed as a serf.
This does not apply to regions where the population is sparse enough and the land productive enough so that food is not an issue. But without modern tech, there will not be enough food for the everyone... and big cities will be littered with the dead and dying within a week.
Twenty years ago, I would have tried for lord. Today, I think I may still qualify for 'craftsman'. Twenty years from now, I probably will be a good fit only for 'dead'. So can we not have an Apocalypse, please?
As for South Florida... you do realize 99% of the people you are referring to are dead now right? Most of the ones you're thinking of would be at least 80 years old, some well over 100. The Cuban exiles really don't matter any more either.
You're living in the 1960s and seem to have missed the evidence of the last 60 years.
Did you miss the part where I repeatedly said "or their descendents"? I am talking from personal experience with not just individuals, but families which have "Castro and Cuba" as a berserk button - my wife's grandmother (still alive) immigrated from Cuba. Two of her sons (not my father in law) still cannot be rational about anything to do with the subject.
By the way, why don't you see how many Miami HIGH profile politicians are descendants of Cuban immigrants... Hell, check the congressmen, while you are at it.
The embargo is a serious problem. With it gone, Cuba would be able to develop one hell of a tourist industry, and replace its aging hotels and a lot of its infrastructure in months. I've been there (as a Bulgarian citizen, in the Cold War days) and as a vacation destination, it has amazing potential.
When I first came to the States, I had a very hard time understanding why the hell the US is still keeping the embargo going. Nowadays, I have a theory.
The US has a rather weird election system. Look it up if you want to know the specifics, but one of its effects is that all of a state's votes go one of the candidates, even if he wins the state with a very slim majority. Thus, the outcome of a presidential election may change if you flip just few thousands of votes in a few contested states.
One of these contested states is Florida, which is home to a a relatively small population of Cuban exiles and their descendants. Small, that is, compared to the total US population. Compared to the margins by which Florida is lost and won in the presidential elections, it's quite large.
Most of these exiles and their descendants are vehemently opposed to the communist regime in Cuba. I have been shocked at the passion of rather rational people for the subject. But when you consider what they went through, it is understandable. These people not only would vote against anyone suggesting to take down the embargo, but they also wield influence way out of proportion to their numbers. Many politicians, celebrities, and community leaders would work to hinder any politician who wants to normalize ties to Cuba.
Well, at least I believe so. The thing is, so do American politicians, and they will not dare stir trouble and lose Florida.
I worked with a guy whose wife left him with their three month old son, and disappeared for six years. Then she married, took the kid, and he had to pay child support. Then she got kicked out by her new husband and sent the eight year old kid on a bus from Texas to California, without calling Dan until the bus was about to arrive, so I had to cover for him.
So far so good. The kicker is that she successfully got custody AGAIN a few years later. And my friend tried to fight it in court in fucking Louisiana, and lost.
So you are completely full of shit to say that a father has any chance to get custody unless there is something truly wrong with the mother, and even then, it's a slim chance.
Slashdot Mirror
I would certainly kick people out of my property if I disapprove of what they are doing. I have not had to do it for a T-shirt or tie, but I can imagine T-shirts and ties that would piss me off enough.
I am also very much OK with a bar/restaurant's owner/manager kicking out people they do not like. Depending on their reasons, I will be more or less likely to patronize their establishment.
In my book, it does not matter whether you are using a Google Glass, a phone, or a hand-held camera. If it looks as if you are filming people who have made it clear they do not want to be filmed, you have to be prepared to deal with the repercussions. If you are on the property of someone who will not allow it, you may be asked to leave. If you are in a place where you cannot defend yourself, you may see your toy in pieces.
The modified Turning test:
One human judge, who knows that he is dealing with one human test subject and one computer test subject. The judge talks to the computer and the human for five minutes, then tries to guess which is the human. If the judge guesses incorrectly, both he and human subject get whipped for five minutes.
I bet you that if you were to test the program from the article my way, you would not get anywhere close to 30% of judges guessing incorrectly. If you restrict your judges and test subjects to non-masochists with an IQ above 90, you probably could not break 10%, either.
Arghh.. "I hope she does not have the bad taste to use it when I am hosting a party at my house."
No need for violence.
Three days ago, I had my first experience with a Glasshole.
I was in a bar at the edge of Chino's industrial park. Most of the patrons were people who stopped for a few beers after work. At some point a few people in their thirties showed up, and one of them was wearing Google Glass. His girlfriend or whatever kept a running commentary on the bar, the dartboard action, and how they were going to see "The Edge of Tomorrow."
At some point one of the other patrons got pissed off and asked the Glasshole to get rid of his toy. Before the situation could escalate, the barmaid stepped from behind the bar and told the guy he would have to leave unless he removed the glasses. He started to say something about having paid for the drinks, but at some point realized that he was getting really dirty looks from almost everyone, and got lost.
I fully expect that as Google Glass and similar devices become more popular, some places will welcome them, and other won't. As far as I am concerned, this is how things should be. I certainly know which kind of bars/restaurants/clubs I'll choose to patronize.
It's no different from Thad Starner at MIT back in the 90s. He got asked to leave quite a few parties, but he was also welcomed by many. I didn't particularly enjoy meeting him in E14 after pulling an all-nighter and feeling/looking like shit, but at least I knew that no one was looking at his feed.
Now that storage is cheap, and processing is becoming much cheaper, I am even more leery of being recorded in some specific situations. A friend of mine has the device, and I hope she has the bad taste to use it when I am hosting a party at my house.
What kind of nonsense is this?
The original article makes it absolutely clear that she is able to communicate. The only person who should decide whether she will live like this or be unplugged is the woman herself.
That was "should". In the real world, the costs of keeping her alive matter. But suggesting to unplug a human being who can think and communicate is in no way different from advocating murder.
Hale and happy as I am today, I think that I would like to be unplugged in her situation. But I may feel very different if I actually were in the state she's in.
So, try to help the original poster and his sister with their predicament, and please keep your sociopathic tenancies to yourself.
1) Name one.
The term "Spinoff" was coined to describe exactly this. NASA publishes a list, which was up to 1500 last time I checked... but I guess your Google is broken.
So, I'll just mention something I learned last week, when I had some Teflon-coated fiberglass installed. The contractor mentioned it was developed by NASA for astronauts' suits, and I checked it - he was right.
2) Sounds an awful lot like circular reasoning... like a religion!
"Do this, and you may have a result similar to what has as has occurred 1500 times for NASA, and innumerable times for other people (Viagra, aspirin, porcelain) ..."
May I inquire which religion you are referring to, so that I hurry up and join?
Well, your post does deserve a counter-argument, if not a down-vote, and not for the misused vocabulary, either.
First of all, I can't really get very upset over 1.5 billions, because the US government is spending a lot more on things I like a lot less. But we do have a set of laws that govern how money is collected, allocated and spent, and if there's a country that does better by me on all three, I'm not aware of it.
Second, I actually personally know two different groups of people who hope to hitch their projects on this horse. One of their projects has immediate applications to alleviating the frequency shortage that the US is experiencing, and the other may end up with some interesting applications for jet engines, which may eventually trickle down to civilian aviation. So just because the rover is a near copy, there's no reason to expect that there are not a number of significant improvements along for the ride (or on the ground)
Third, space exploration has had unexpected benefits, and the thing about unexpected benefits is that you can't tell what they are before hand. This goes for all branches of research, and if we had anyone who does not like a specific 'useless' project stop it, you'd be probably arguing that urine is perfectly fine for tanning hides, thank you.
And fourth, the people who are going to get those 1.5 billions are scientists/engineers/technicians in the existing facilities of entities which already have their claws deep inside the hide of the US government. This money will go on buying votes and influence, one way or another - best politicians money can buy, and all that. So it may as well go to Boeing/JPL for a flight to Mars, rather to be spent of 'clean' coal and pushing corn into everything you can think of.
They ask. They hear something from their friends and colleagues, and retain a garbled version ranging from "OMG, everything Microsoft needs to be erased!" to "Go to this website and it will fix your IE". If you are lucky, they call you before they try to do something astoundingly stupid.
I'm the IT director for a aftermarket auto-manufacturer, and we keep our Internet facing network and our production/POS/ERP networks physically separate. Each of our Internet facing PCs has IE, and a crippled version of Chrome (same idea as Iron) installed.
A few nights ago, I ran a script that stored everyone's IE bookmarks in a backup, and overwrote them with a list of less than a twenty bookmarks, including the company's website, the banking sites for scanning checks, the website that stores our scanned invoices... you get the idea.
I sent an email instructing them to use IE only for the sites for which there is a bookmark, and use the crippled Chrome for everything else. Last night I restored the bookmarks, and while I was at it, checked a few histories here and there. People seem to have complied with the instructions. I saw only one clear violation, and it was work related, to a website that I may have added to the bookmarks, if I had thought of it.
Today, according to my assistant, there have been three calls from people who did not get their bookmarks back, and a few from people who did not know about bookmarks before, and now want the 'official list' back.
All in all, I'm glad how it went.
If I thought that I needed a gun at home, I would have a good, reliable gun. (It would probably be a newer CZ with a similar grip to my old one - not that there aren't better guns, but because familiarity is more important that subtle differences in performance)
If I didn't think I need a gun at home, I'd have no gun at home. (Which is the case right now)
In no case would I have an expensive, gimmicky contraption like the iP1 at home, nor I would I recommend anyone gets it - I do not think that the watch is any more useful a control than a key for the trigger lock, and kids have defeated these to shoot themselves before.
This said, feel free to get one, and feel good about it. Chances are, you will benefit from the positive emotions, and will never be harmed from the decreased reliability.
Secondly, places like Chicago and Manhattan, while not able to make it explicitly illegal to own a handgun, have made it practically near-impossible.
I wish you were right. That they they have done, is made it near-impossible to legally own a handgun. Not the same thing.
A good gun is a fairly simple machine, I agree with you there. But I would not go as far as assuming that the gun we're talking about is a good one, or a simple one.
If I had somehow agreed to design something like this, and, for some unfathomable reason, had avoiding positive failure as the highest priority, I would not go for something as tested and true as a firing pin.
No, I would have specialized ammunition, that can be only fired when some kind of electronic challenge-response has taken place. Hell, the ammunition would be paired with the watch, the gun would be only be supplying the power for the communications, to truly insure a logistic nightmare and at least three points of failure! Sounds like an abomination to you? You must not have dealt with enough upper management yet, and I am told politicians are even worse :-)
By the way, the Armatix in question uses electronic magazine disconnection. Sure, there still may be a simple mechanical way to insure the gun fires reliably, and you may be able to figure it out in two hours. But I would rather find a way to reliably and cheaply unlock any gun of that model. Once you have physical possession of two guns, it should be possible.
Of course, the manufacturers could have made it very hard to get at the electronics... but that would increase the price of the gun and possible repairs... of course, $400 is already an awful lot for a rather crappy .22L
For a long time I thought of myself as a gun enthusiast. I kept my old Army service CZ for decades, and I kept replacing the barrel, as I was firing thousands upon thousands of rounds to 'keep my hand'.
Then I got married, and now my gun stays at the range, where we go and fire it once in a blue moon. Now that I think about it, I have not touched it since last August.
I live in a much nicer community than the one in which I used to live, and really do not think that my gun would be much extra protection over my swords and bows. (Not that they would be much protection, either) Furthermore, a few months ago, agun owner 20 miles away, in San Bernadino, got killed when he interrupted a home invasion (by unarmed people) He got two, the third strangled him. So three people dead, one in jail for life (I hope) ... which probably would not have happened if he had not had a gun.
All of this said, I cannot imagine for the fuck of it a situation where I would want a fucking piece of shit that only fires if I am wearing a watch. I do not sleep with my watch, and I am not replacing my watch with another, for any reason. This is a stupid gimmick that will eventually screw a legitimate owner up. And I bet that if you give me two of these guns, the associated watches, and leave me alone with my PC, in my office at the plant, I'll have the gun 'unlocked' within a week.
The guy who wrote the summary failed to read the fucking article, or lacked comprehension. Par for the course.
Your comprehension of this article seems to be very different from mine.
The smell of males seems to make other mammals feel endangered, and in this state, they feel less pain. This is similar to how people under great stress (for other reasons than being in the presence of He-man) will ignore the pain from even serious injuries.
Now, if your goal is to make sure people around you are less bothered by pain, sure, share your smell with everyone. But if you would like to keep stress levels around you down, you should suppress your smell. It all depends on what your goal is.
As for those who 'cannot handle that information', you'd be surprised how often people confused those who cannot handle something, with those who are actually thinking over what they just learned, and considering the implications. There are times where inaction is worse than the the worst action. In the modern world, such situations are few and far between.
Can you explain what exactly you think is "bias"?
If an institution accepts a higher percentage of Asians than the percentage in the US population (or amongst the applicants, or the amongst the qualified applicants?), is that a bias that needs to be corrected?
If an institution accepts a lower percentage of males than the percentage in the US population, is that a bias that needs to be corrected?
If an institution accepts a higher percentage of Alumni relatives?
If an institution accepts a lower percentage of people with Down syndrome?
If an institution accepts a higher percentage of people who were interested in a particular subject in high school?
What about correlation and causation amongst the above, as in one gender being more involved in one particular subject, or parents from one race being more likely to steer their progeny towards a particular subject?
There are no easy ways to account for all the obstacles a person encounters before he applies for college. Low income families, broken households, abusive parents, devastating medical conditions, high crime neighborhood, toxic cultural environment, etc, etc, etc...
I know for a fact that some of the people in charge of admission cannot even agree on what the end goal is. Equal chance of success independent on the student's qualifications? Equal chance of success independent of the student's skill in choosing the right family to be born in?
People in the US love to pretend that they are using affirmative action to mitigate the effects of their racist society. Somehow, when you give a middle class, black kid from a two parent family an advantage over a low income, single mother Asian kid, you are striking a blow for social justice... But suggest that Alumni do not get an advantage, and that income is never taken into account during admission (the best schools already do the latter) and you are dirty Commie.
When I lived in France, I would get in my car for two reasons: go to the Cora (big supermarket) once a week, and go on weekend trips around Alsace. During the week, it was public transportation all the way. I didn't know many people who commuted in their cars... the two that did commute did it on gas-sipping motorcycles.
Today I live in California, and drive 34 miles per day to get to work, my wife drives a bit less, in a different direction. Our commutes are shorter than most of the people we know. Comparing California to Alsace, the driving cultures are completely different. My daily commuter is a 24 year old 270hp Toyota Supra, the car I take to see customers a 460hp Volvo (I'm in IT, but I work for an aftermarket auto-manufacturer)
With cars like this, I would be regarded like a wasteful pig by most people I knew in Europe. Amongst the people I know in the US, my cars get good MPG.
I wonder how easy it will be for someone unauthorized to force a cellphone off the air. And how easy it will be to get someone authorized to do it through social engineering.
I just hope that however they implement it, they make sure that emergency calls can still be made.
When I was single and didn't make much money, I used to do my own taxes, on paper, and mail them.
Then I started making more, and started paying a guy recommended by my father to do them for fifty bucks.
Then I got married, and my wife decided that she would file them instead of spending the money, which had gotten to a hundred by then.
Then my wife salary rose, and we went over the cutoff point for using the website she had been using.
So now, I am again doing my taxes on paper, except that I am filing earlier, because my wife gets antsy about it.
Something's wrong with this. :-)
> Goddamn mathematician wasting precious ammunition to have a statistics wank-fest after MY goddamn zombie apocalypse?
Yes, especially because you do not need to waste the shells if you are after an approximation. Get a string, trace a circle. Stretch the string across the circle, through the center, marked when you were tracing it. Measure the diameter string, in shells. Line shells around the circle, bases touching each other. Divide the two numbers, multiply by two, and you will get decent accuracy.
Of course, you will get better accuracy, if you stick 200 or so sticks on the circle's circumference, wrap a string around them, and measure that in shells.
And you can improve on that, by expressing the error for going straight between sticks using Pi, and solving the resulting equation.
But if you are actually able to do math, you can just use one of the series that converge on Pi.
> People are not so that stupid that large numbers are going to stay where there is no food.
You do not seem to understand. Anything that qualifies as Apocalypse is going to disrupt things enough that there will be NO way to get enough food to large metropolitan areas. Hell, who would want to head into the death trap with food?
Nine millions New Yorkers. How far get they get before they cannot get any further? How are they going to share the food they get to? How is the second million going to survive going through where the first million went? They will descend like locusts on the New York state farmers, and it will be a bloodbath...
If you have a functioning farm that can, without an outside supply of fertilizer, feed your family and maybe twenty more people if everyone tightens heir belt, what will you do when a thousand people show up at your door? Feed them your seed reserve? (if you even have that, as opposed to buying your seed from a supplier come planting season)
If only twenty people show up, are you going to feed them on your property without expecting anything in return? Who is going to protect you from people who did not find a nice farmer? What are you going to do if someone amongst your tenants decides that they would rather lord it over everyone else?
Look at any evacuation that has been performed, even recently. Now subtract any aid coming from the outside (because everyone is experiencing the same disaster) No one to bring food, to direct traffic, to set up camp... to set up a bloody port-a-potti.
And then, at some point, someone realizes that there is no functioning law and order anywhere. Sure, hothead Jim will try to bully people alone. Big Bad Bob will get three friends together first, and pick on easier targets, recruiting everyone that's too much trouble to intimidate.
This is all true... But people with a grasp of the history of, well, history, will know that the people most useful to themselves while be the ones (1) with familiarity with whatever weaponry still functions and (2) with a glib tongue to unite likely minded people.
It won't be an apocalypse if we can feed everyone. When we cannot feed everyone, there will be violence. When there is violence, the people will be triaged into three groups:
- the tough and glib (lords)
- the useful professionals (craftsmen)
- the manual laborers, when needed (serfs)
Those who can't cut it as thugs, and do not know something useful will be lucky to be allowed to pick at the dirt and retain enough to feed themselves. In highly populated regions, about one in a hundred will be lucky to be needed as a serf.
This does not apply to regions where the population is sparse enough and the land productive enough so that food is not an issue. But without modern tech, there will not be enough food for the everyone... and big cities will be littered with the dead and dying within a week.
Twenty years ago, I would have tried for lord. Today, I think I may still qualify for 'craftsman'. Twenty years from now, I probably will be a good fit only for 'dead'. So can we not have an Apocalypse, please?
As for South Florida ... you do realize 99% of the people you are referring to are dead now right? Most of the ones you're thinking of would be at least 80 years old, some well over 100. The Cuban exiles really don't matter any more either.
You're living in the 1960s and seem to have missed the evidence of the last 60 years.
Did you miss the part where I repeatedly said "or their descendents"? I am talking from personal experience with not just individuals, but families which have "Castro and Cuba" as a berserk button - my wife's grandmother (still alive) immigrated from Cuba. Two of her sons (not my father in law) still cannot be rational about anything to do with the subject.
By the way, why don't you see how many Miami HIGH profile politicians are descendants of Cuban immigrants... Hell, check the congressmen, while you are at it.
The embargo is a serious problem. With it gone, Cuba would be able to develop one hell of a tourist industry, and replace its aging hotels and a lot of its infrastructure in months. I've been there (as a Bulgarian citizen, in the Cold War days) and as a vacation destination, it has amazing potential.
When I first came to the States, I had a very hard time understanding why the hell the US is still keeping the embargo going. Nowadays, I have a theory.
The US has a rather weird election system. Look it up if you want to know the specifics, but one of its effects is that all of a state's votes go one of the candidates, even if he wins the state with a very slim majority. Thus, the outcome of a presidential election may change if you flip just few thousands of votes in a few contested states.
One of these contested states is Florida, which is home to a a relatively small population of Cuban exiles and their descendants. Small, that is, compared to the total US population. Compared to the margins by which Florida is lost and won in the presidential elections, it's quite large.
Most of these exiles and their descendants are vehemently opposed to the communist regime in Cuba. I have been shocked at the passion of rather rational people for the subject. But when you consider what they went through, it is understandable. These people not only would vote against anyone suggesting to take down the embargo, but they also wield influence way out of proportion to their numbers. Many politicians, celebrities, and community leaders would work to hinder any politician who wants to normalize ties to Cuba.
Well, at least I believe so. The thing is, so do American politicians, and they will not dare stir trouble and lose Florida.
In case someone missed the point of the above: Sharia prescribes a death sentence for renouncing Islam. So does the Torah, for renouncing Judaism.
One of these is enforced more often than the other.
What the fuck are you smoking?
I worked with a guy whose wife left him with their three month old son, and disappeared for six years. Then she married, took the kid, and he had to pay child support. Then she got kicked out by her new husband and sent the eight year old kid on a bus from Texas to California, without calling Dan until the bus was about to arrive, so I had to cover for him.
So far so good. The kicker is that she successfully got custody AGAIN a few years later. And my friend tried to fight it in court in fucking Louisiana, and lost.
So you are completely full of shit to say that a father has any chance to get custody unless there is something truly wrong with the mother, and even then, it's a slim chance.