If you've decided it's legal for you to do it, you're kind of fair game, are you not?
Unless, of course, someone has the delusion that they're special because they say so. In which case you'll just act like a petulant child and throw a tantrum.
Yup, every time someone does this.. it's the Russians or the Chinese.
I think Western spy agencies have jumped the shark so much in terms of what they do, that you could plausibly say it's really them doing all of this and doing it as a false-flag operation.
I mean, come on, these clowns have been proven to be spying on the people who are meant to oversee them. They don't give a shit about the law, just their own powers.
You can't come up with a conspiracy theory which is paranoid enough these days -- because long-thinkers with massive resources really are doing all of this shit these days.
Hell, breaking into the Whitehouse systems lets you say you need more money for spying to prevent this kind of shit. And then you get the keys to the kingdom.
LOL, no, I do realize it's a valid unit of measure... but when you start having "scores of hectares" it rapidly devolves into one of those "I have no idea of what this unit of measure is supposed to be telling me".
I suspect the majority of people haven't the slightest idea of what a hectare actually is -- I know I don't. It's some multiple of an acre, but not an integer multiple, because that would be complicated.
And then I'm sure you need some non-integer multiple of hectares to become the next meaningless unit of measure.
And it all comes down to furlongs, rods, and other mysterious units of measure nobody has any idea of what they actually mean.
Why, with our revolutionary fly-a-micating devices, which are capable of travelling at dozens of furlongs per fortnight, we will be able to monitor the Aether, and map the location of the peasants houses to within a few rods, thus ensuring we can maximize tithing.
A spokesman for the government was overcome with the vapors at the excitement of it all, and needed to be leeched lest her spleen overtake the rest of her humors and leave her dyspeptic and the evil spirits sway her from her normal temperament.
Off the record, a spokesman was hopeful that the new phrenology module would be available in version III.V, and evil people will be easily spotted from the air, and can then be rounded up for burning at the stake.
Goode Frye was optimistic this would remove the threat of the witches which have been stealing the souls of babies.
The extraordinary lack of self-consciousness is difficult to fathom. It rises to the level of, "Let them eat cake."
I think you've summed it up quite nicely... it's a sense of entitlement, and as long as we keep the unwashed masses ignorant, everything will be just fine.
The oligarchy just needs to keep the suckers in the dark, and they can have anything they want to. And, in exchange for hiding what the government is doing (and can't censor themselves), the government will turn an eye from the shady things the corporations do.
In all honesty, I think the same solution might apply here as did to Marie Antoinette.
Ah, but people will make the counter-claim that a) this isn't the government, it's private industry on private property (sorta), so it's OK, and b) nobody will drag you off in the night(*) so it isn't really censorship.
See what they did there, comrade?
Now get back to work, or you'll be reported to the central authority.
(*) But we may have to do some parallel construction on your ass for having done so. We can't have the citizens getting uppity and thinking they still have a right to exercise free speech and independent thinking.
I can't believe no one is talking about how to hack the site to allow those sort of news articles.
These days, the first rule of hacktivism is you do not talk about hacktivism.
You should totally be a law abiding citizen and not attempt in anyway to punish or otherwise mess with this site. Advocating any form of illegal operation would be a completely bad idea... *wink* *wink*.
As good citizens we should accept that the corporations know what's best for us, and it would be improper to become vigilantes.
No sir, not even a little. Unless you really have to.
In which case, wear a condom, ensure you're wearing clean underwear, and make sure that any packets trace back to China or Russia so they get the blame.
There are lots of Government technical workers, who probably would like to read more tech news but have security clearance related fears.
That's pretty pathetic... if you need to be shielded from the truth in order to maintain your security clearance this is pretty much where we're headed.
The government doesn't want smart, informed people working for them... they want clueless idiots who will keep their head down and simply not become aware of the kinds of things their jobs lead to.
Papers please, comrade. Do not ask questions, just obey.
It's OK, everything is still shiny... look, we have pretty buttons, and widgets, and apps... why no, we've never heard of spying or net neutrality... your government is here to serve you... the corporations are your friends, we're here to help... we've always been at war with East Anglia... War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery.
Fucking Pathetic.
They're basically starting the campaign of disinformation and leaving out the bits of reality which are inconvenient to them.
I sincerely hope people either boycott them, or make damned sure to either pollute their comment boards with the stuff they're hiding, or otherwise publicly shame them.
A "Tech News" site which isn't allowed to discuss some of the most important news about tech going on today is a horrible thing, and do not deserve any support from anybody.
Screw you Verizon. I hope every other tech news site spends time pointing out the crap you're doing and this blows up in your face.
The fact that a supermajority vote can potentially allow Ello to someday run ads still leaves Ello 167% less obnoxious than Facebook.
Sure, it's less obnoxious than Facebook. But, really, what isn't?
But, as many of us pointed out the other day... this promise from Ello is essentially worthless, and therefore not really something you can put any stock in.
It's a vague, empty promise, which isn't legally binding on anybody in any real sense.
So, it's worth about as much as saying "I promise I won't c*m in your mouth".
Well, to put that into perspective... Microsoft used to sit on standards boards, and before the standard was finalized they'd file submarine patents, and do their own implementation which was already not compliant and had proprietary extensions.
So, when Microsoft was doing it, it really was evil... ha ha ha, thanks for telling us how to implement this, now we've patented it, and we're already extending it for our own purposes.
There were a bunch of years where Microsoft never found a standard they couldn't completely fsck up for their own interests.
Microsoft used to do it to shit on the standards process and give themselves something which didn't work with anything else -- because Microsoft didn't want standards to succeed. If it wasn't theirs, it needed to be destroyed.
They hate Christianity because it is part of the American national identity.
Or, you know, because irrational Christian beliefs are just as dangerous as irrational Muslim beliefs because it leaves people trying to define reality according to their own religion. And then they move on to trying to prevent others from having facts which contradict with their beliefs.
So, when the Taliban doesn't want children to be educated because it goes against their beliefs (or so they say)... what is the difference when Christians insist creationism be taught in schools as if there was as much evidence for it as evolution? Do you think the rest of society should accept you r beliefs just because you insist?
Maybe we don't give a damn about Christianity in particular, we just hate stupidity which couches itself as religion denying observable facts about the universe?
I'm pretty sure those of us who criticize religions for making claims about the physical world would pretty much say the same thing about any religion which says things which aren't supported by evidence?
In university I had a physics professor who was a Jesuit priest. He was awesome, smart, funny, kind, and had a firm grasp of how the physical world around us existed. I had no problem with the fact that he was a Christian.
But, a person claiming the world is only 6000 years old and that evolution never happened? I'm afraid I have to conclude that person is an idiot. And I wouldn't care if you're a Christian, Muslin, Jew, or a Hindu.
So, get over your complex of feeling persecuted because of being a Christian.. it could be your own stupidity which draws our ire, and not the specifics of your religion.
Calling a proposition "ridiculous" in no way refutes it. It sounds like you're emoting frustration at not knowing how to engage in a debate on the topic.
If you wish to engage a religious person into a debate on the relative merits of creationism versus evolution, please, be my guest.
The problem is there is no credible physical evidence to support creationism. None whatsoever, it doesn't exist.
And by the time you are claiming the Earth is 6000 years old, and that evolution is a lie, and that the dinosaur fossils where put there to test your faith... you are outside reason, logic, discourse, debate, or anything called science.
Which leaves you with sophistry, begging the question, logical shell games, and loudly reiterating that you believe it so it's a valid position.
In other words, not what we would call "rational" from a reasoned discourse and science perspective. If you have no actual evidence for your claims, your claims aren't as equally valid as those of people who actually do have evidence you refuse to see.
Sorry, but it's not my job to frame the question in such a way as you get to pretend to be rational and with a valid point or evidence.
The existence of the Bible is in no way actually evidence for anything in the Bible. Treating it like it is just panders to a set of people who like to think their belief somehow equates to facts.
So, when they're willing to offer facts, or actually engage in a reasoned debate... maybe we'll consider it. Until such time, I'm afraid I'll stick with irrational, and exhibiting signs of fantasy and wishful thinking.
Autodriving is a protection against accidents caused by human error.
If that is the rationale, then the car needs to be 100% automated, under all circumstances, with all liability going to whoever made the damned thing.
Many of us have been saying for quite some time... if we're liable for the actions of a robot, or the automated car is suddenly going to transfer control back to you to solve the problem... these things will continue to be nothing more than novelties.
If you expect me to be driving in an automated car, I shouldn't reasonably need to be even awake, because any failover to human more or less needs to assume it isn't possible to do that safely.
And why the hell would I pay insurance on my car if it's not being operated by me? You think I'd take the liability over for Google? Why would I do that?
So, if it isn't 100% automated 100% of the time... it's a half-ass solution which is going to have corner cases in which bad things will happen, and whoever made it will act like it was your fault.
Done properly, the auto insurance industry goes out of business with autonomous cars. Done improperly, there's still the illusion that the meat-sock which should essentially be a passenger is responsible.
In which case, the meat-sock might as well drive their own car.
There is no such thing as "scientific discourse" between a scientist who says "evolution happened and I can prove it, and the Earth is 4+ billion years old" and the shrieking idiot who says "Yarg! Evolution is a lie and the Earth is 6000 years old".
Or, are you saying that the crazy homeless guy on the street may in fact be making a valid point and we should give him equal time?
Sorry, but the religious people who deny science have neither science nor evidence on their hand. So treating them like you need to make room for them in "scientific discourse" is bullshit.
Want to engage them in discourse? Let them talk to the philosophers. They're clearly not willing to listen to the scientists.
You can't silence them with facts and logic, because their beliefs are independent of facts and logic. And pretending otherwise and trying to debate them is utterly pointless... anybody who insists on maintaining that level of ignorance should not be treated as a rational person willing to objectively weigh evidence. Because they're not.
People who say these things are every bit as dangerous as the Taliban, because they insist their beliefs should trump reality. Which means many of them would like to be able to force the rest of us to believe as they do.
And a religion has the "right" to say "OMG, these people are teh evil because they disagree with us". Whereas if the rest of us say "OMG, teh religious people are teh idiots because they're stupid", somehow that's illegal.
Believe whatever you want. But don't pass it off as science. And sure as hell don't do it at a university where actual people are trying to learn actual stuff.
University students, and especially professors, should be capable of understanding opposing viewpoints, and when they disagree, civilly making cogent counter-arguments.
The problem with this statement is it presupposes the need to treat what are essentially ridiculous theories which fly in the face of science as if they were a legitimate opposing viewpoint which should be considered.
This is blatantly denying actual science to prop up your own religious beliefs.
And that is not something you do in a university.
If you want a venue to have your creationist aired, go to your church.
They know deep down that the should be embarrassed in their inability to refute even such seemingly false claims by these creationists. Not because the creationists are right, but because their own skills are so weak.
No, because the creationists are essentially irrational people who simply say "I reject your reality and science and substitute my own hocus pocus".
You can't intellectually refute someone who doesn't actually rely on logic or facts. At all. And giving them the benefit of debating them is pointless.
They have no evidence other than their belief, which is in opposition to observable facts.
You might as well have a reasoned discussion with a two year old.
Facts and logic are completely irrelevant to people who understand neither, and assume that the things they believe hold as much value as things which we can prove.
I can only imagine how terrible of an experience it would be to talk with you about an idea that I was excited about.
So, I'll just keep my idea for an under-the-chin shaving kit to myself.
I don't hate technology merely because it's technology. I hate it when it's pointlessly complicated just because it's technology so some company made up of marketing clowns can use buzzwords to sell a pointless product.
So, if your under-the-chin shaving kit has a GPS, shortwave radio, blinking LED lights, and also functions as a wi-fi hotspot? It's a dumb fscking product.
So, I might have my fridge and my freezer and my washing machine emitting power on the off-beat chance that a device is nearby which needs it? Am I going to be using more power to broadcast it when it's not needed? If so, this is incredibly stupid.
Yay! Let's all spent more for our appliances and pay higher electrical bills so that our fridge could be standing by to charge our cell phones.
Is a frigging charger that had to navigate that we need out fscking applilances just beaming power just in case?
I'm sorry, but the entire idea of this sounds pretty stupid to me.
Oh, but it's fridge 3.0, it's supposed to be connected to the interweb and be a hotspot for my @%$^$# phone. I don't see much value in this product for me.
Now get off my fscking lawn, you kids and your dancy do-dads and whirly-mahoozitzes. This is just technology for the sake of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Possibly no.
It depends. I may know more later.
So, does this or does this not give us the basis for the Heisenberg compensators?
Might quantum stuff me less random and unknowable than we've been told?
And, yes, I don't understand Quantum anything, other than knowing it makes your whites whiter, and has a smooth minty taste.
I'm not sure how you couldn't expect it.
If you've decided it's legal for you to do it, you're kind of fair game, are you not?
Unless, of course, someone has the delusion that they're special because they say so. In which case you'll just act like a petulant child and throw a tantrum.
Yup, every time someone does this .. it's the Russians or the Chinese.
I think Western spy agencies have jumped the shark so much in terms of what they do, that you could plausibly say it's really them doing all of this and doing it as a false-flag operation.
I mean, come on, these clowns have been proven to be spying on the people who are meant to oversee them. They don't give a shit about the law, just their own powers.
You can't come up with a conspiracy theory which is paranoid enough these days -- because long-thinkers with massive resources really are doing all of this shit these days.
Hell, breaking into the Whitehouse systems lets you say you need more money for spying to prevent this kind of shit. And then you get the keys to the kingdom.
LOL, no, I do realize it's a valid unit of measure ... but when you start having "scores of hectares" it rapidly devolves into one of those "I have no idea of what this unit of measure is supposed to be telling me".
I suspect the majority of people haven't the slightest idea of what a hectare actually is -- I know I don't. It's some multiple of an acre, but not an integer multiple, because that would be complicated.
And then I'm sure you need some non-integer multiple of hectares to become the next meaningless unit of measure.
And it all comes down to furlongs, rods, and other mysterious units of measure nobody has any idea of what they actually mean.
Scores of Hectares? Really guys?
Why, with our revolutionary fly-a-micating devices, which are capable of travelling at dozens of furlongs per fortnight, we will be able to monitor the Aether, and map the location of the peasants houses to within a few rods, thus ensuring we can maximize tithing.
A spokesman for the government was overcome with the vapors at the excitement of it all, and needed to be leeched lest her spleen overtake the rest of her humors and leave her dyspeptic and the evil spirits sway her from her normal temperament.
Off the record, a spokesman was hopeful that the new phrenology module would be available in version III.V, and evil people will be easily spotted from the air, and can then be rounded up for burning at the stake.
Goode Frye was optimistic this would remove the threat of the witches which have been stealing the souls of babies.
I think you've summed it up quite nicely ... it's a sense of entitlement, and as long as we keep the unwashed masses ignorant, everything will be just fine.
The oligarchy just needs to keep the suckers in the dark, and they can have anything they want to. And, in exchange for hiding what the government is doing (and can't censor themselves), the government will turn an eye from the shady things the corporations do.
In all honesty, I think the same solution might apply here as did to Marie Antoinette.
Ah, but people will make the counter-claim that a) this isn't the government, it's private industry on private property (sorta), so it's OK, and b) nobody will drag you off in the night(*) so it isn't really censorship.
See what they did there, comrade?
Now get back to work, or you'll be reported to the central authority.
(*) But we may have to do some parallel construction on your ass for having done so. We can't have the citizens getting uppity and thinking they still have a right to exercise free speech and independent thinking.
These days, the first rule of hacktivism is you do not talk about hacktivism.
You should totally be a law abiding citizen and not attempt in anyway to punish or otherwise mess with this site. Advocating any form of illegal operation would be a completely bad idea ... *wink* *wink*.
As good citizens we should accept that the corporations know what's best for us, and it would be improper to become vigilantes.
No sir, not even a little. Unless you really have to.
In which case, wear a condom, ensure you're wearing clean underwear, and make sure that any packets trace back to China or Russia so they get the blame.
Oh, fuck it ... burn it to the ground, boys.
That's pretty pathetic ... if you need to be shielded from the truth in order to maintain your security clearance this is pretty much where we're headed.
The government doesn't want smart, informed people working for them ... they want clueless idiots who will keep their head down and simply not become aware of the kinds of things their jobs lead to.
Papers please, comrade. Do not ask questions, just obey.
Obedience will be rewarded. All Hail Hydra!
The point at which you have less of your adult left in it than you've already lived.
Anything before that and you're stuck with that realization for a long time.
Now, get off my damned lawn, and go enjoy your dystopian future, suckers.
It's OK, everything is still shiny ... look, we have pretty buttons, and widgets, and apps ... why no, we've never heard of spying or net neutrality ... your government is here to serve you ... the corporations are your friends, we're here to help... we've always been at war with East Anglia ... War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery.
Fucking Pathetic.
They're basically starting the campaign of disinformation and leaving out the bits of reality which are inconvenient to them.
I sincerely hope people either boycott them, or make damned sure to either pollute their comment boards with the stuff they're hiding, or otherwise publicly shame them.
A "Tech News" site which isn't allowed to discuss some of the most important news about tech going on today is a horrible thing, and do not deserve any support from anybody.
Screw you Verizon. I hope every other tech news site spends time pointing out the crap you're doing and this blows up in your face.
Sure, it's less obnoxious than Facebook. But, really, what isn't?
But, as many of us pointed out the other day ... this promise from Ello is essentially worthless, and therefore not really something you can put any stock in.
It's a vague, empty promise, which isn't legally binding on anybody in any real sense.
So, it's worth about as much as saying "I promise I won't c*m in your mouth".
You've read and regurgitated many of the points which were made in the article about this last week, and which were made by many of us.
I'm awfully glad we have you to read through the discussions and save ourselves from doing it.
Seriously, since when do we have someone whose job it is to read and summarize discussions? Are you getting paid for this shit?
If I can exclude timothy, then why the hell can't I exclude "stories" from Bennett? Because, really ... he adds nothing of value here.
We've become the fscking Bennet Haselton show lately, and it's pathetic and means the "editors" are even more lazy and useless than before.
Are you drunk, or trolling?
My 2TB drives wouldn't have worked with a 32-bit OS, because they can see count past 4GB.
My machine with 8GB of RAM, also wouldn't work on an 32-bit OS, for the same reason.
The ability to have files over 4GB, also can't be done in a 32-bit OS. I have HD video files which are bigger than a 32-bit OS could address.
My 2GB VM running as a guest machine? No way I'd be able to do that on a 32-bit host.
Those servers I have at work with 32GB or RAM, again, not something you do on 32-bit machines.
So, what the hell are you running which in no way benefits from the address space of a 64-bit machine? Is it steam powered?
Because those of us in the real world are routinely doing things which 32-bit OSs couldn't handle.
LOL ... strictly speaking, that's not "past IE 9 on Windows Vista".
That's "past Vista".
Well, to put that into perspective ... Microsoft used to sit on standards boards, and before the standard was finalized they'd file submarine patents, and do their own implementation which was already not compliant and had proprietary extensions.
So, when Microsoft was doing it, it really was evil ... ha ha ha, thanks for telling us how to implement this, now we've patented it, and we're already extending it for our own purposes.
There were a bunch of years where Microsoft never found a standard they couldn't completely fsck up for their own interests.
Microsoft used to do it to shit on the standards process and give themselves something which didn't work with anything else -- because Microsoft didn't want standards to succeed. If it wasn't theirs, it needed to be destroyed.
Or, you know, because irrational Christian beliefs are just as dangerous as irrational Muslim beliefs because it leaves people trying to define reality according to their own religion. And then they move on to trying to prevent others from having facts which contradict with their beliefs.
So, when the Taliban doesn't want children to be educated because it goes against their beliefs (or so they say) ... what is the difference when Christians insist creationism be taught in schools as if there was as much evidence for it as evolution? Do you think the rest of society should accept you r beliefs just because you insist?
Maybe we don't give a damn about Christianity in particular, we just hate stupidity which couches itself as religion denying observable facts about the universe?
I'm pretty sure those of us who criticize religions for making claims about the physical world would pretty much say the same thing about any religion which says things which aren't supported by evidence?
In university I had a physics professor who was a Jesuit priest. He was awesome, smart, funny, kind, and had a firm grasp of how the physical world around us existed. I had no problem with the fact that he was a Christian.
But, a person claiming the world is only 6000 years old and that evolution never happened? I'm afraid I have to conclude that person is an idiot. And I wouldn't care if you're a Christian, Muslin, Jew, or a Hindu.
So, get over your complex of feeling persecuted because of being a Christian .. it could be your own stupidity which draws our ire, and not the specifics of your religion.
If you wish to engage a religious person into a debate on the relative merits of creationism versus evolution, please, be my guest.
The problem is there is no credible physical evidence to support creationism. None whatsoever, it doesn't exist.
And by the time you are claiming the Earth is 6000 years old, and that evolution is a lie, and that the dinosaur fossils where put there to test your faith ... you are outside reason, logic, discourse, debate, or anything called science.
Which leaves you with sophistry, begging the question, logical shell games, and loudly reiterating that you believe it so it's a valid position.
In other words, not what we would call "rational" from a reasoned discourse and science perspective. If you have no actual evidence for your claims, your claims aren't as equally valid as those of people who actually do have evidence you refuse to see.
Sorry, but it's not my job to frame the question in such a way as you get to pretend to be rational and with a valid point or evidence.
The existence of the Bible is in no way actually evidence for anything in the Bible. Treating it like it is just panders to a set of people who like to think their belief somehow equates to facts.
So, when they're willing to offer facts, or actually engage in a reasoned debate ... maybe we'll consider it. Until such time, I'm afraid I'll stick with irrational, and exhibiting signs of fantasy and wishful thinking.
Or, just drooling idiots for short.
If that is the rationale, then the car needs to be 100% automated, under all circumstances, with all liability going to whoever made the damned thing.
Many of us have been saying for quite some time ... if we're liable for the actions of a robot, or the automated car is suddenly going to transfer control back to you to solve the problem ... these things will continue to be nothing more than novelties.
If you expect me to be driving in an automated car, I shouldn't reasonably need to be even awake, because any failover to human more or less needs to assume it isn't possible to do that safely.
And why the hell would I pay insurance on my car if it's not being operated by me? You think I'd take the liability over for Google? Why would I do that?
So, if it isn't 100% automated 100% of the time ... it's a half-ass solution which is going to have corner cases in which bad things will happen, and whoever made it will act like it was your fault.
Done properly, the auto insurance industry goes out of business with autonomous cars. Done improperly, there's still the illusion that the meat-sock which should essentially be a passenger is responsible.
In which case, the meat-sock might as well drive their own car.
There is no such thing as "scientific discourse" between a scientist who says "evolution happened and I can prove it, and the Earth is 4+ billion years old" and the shrieking idiot who says "Yarg! Evolution is a lie and the Earth is 6000 years old".
Or, are you saying that the crazy homeless guy on the street may in fact be making a valid point and we should give him equal time?
Sorry, but the religious people who deny science have neither science nor evidence on their hand. So treating them like you need to make room for them in "scientific discourse" is bullshit.
Want to engage them in discourse? Let them talk to the philosophers. They're clearly not willing to listen to the scientists.
You can't silence them with facts and logic, because their beliefs are independent of facts and logic. And pretending otherwise and trying to debate them is utterly pointless ... anybody who insists on maintaining that level of ignorance should not be treated as a rational person willing to objectively weigh evidence. Because they're not.
People who say these things are every bit as dangerous as the Taliban, because they insist their beliefs should trump reality. Which means many of them would like to be able to force the rest of us to believe as they do.
And a religion has the "right" to say "OMG, these people are teh evil because they disagree with us". Whereas if the rest of us say "OMG, teh religious people are teh idiots because they're stupid", somehow that's illegal.
Believe whatever you want. But don't pass it off as science. And sure as hell don't do it at a university where actual people are trying to learn actual stuff.
The problem with this statement is it presupposes the need to treat what are essentially ridiculous theories which fly in the face of science as if they were a legitimate opposing viewpoint which should be considered.
This is blatantly denying actual science to prop up your own religious beliefs.
And that is not something you do in a university.
If you want a venue to have your creationist aired, go to your church.
No, because the creationists are essentially irrational people who simply say "I reject your reality and science and substitute my own hocus pocus".
You can't intellectually refute someone who doesn't actually rely on logic or facts. At all. And giving them the benefit of debating them is pointless.
They have no evidence other than their belief, which is in opposition to observable facts.
You might as well have a reasoned discussion with a two year old.
Facts and logic are completely irrelevant to people who understand neither, and assume that the things they believe hold as much value as things which we can prove.
And, as an added benefit, we might give evolution a kick start into our next phase of existence.
I've always felt we could use an least one more limb.
I don't hate technology merely because it's technology. I hate it when it's pointlessly complicated just because it's technology so some company made up of marketing clowns can use buzzwords to sell a pointless product.
So, if your under-the-chin shaving kit has a GPS, shortwave radio, blinking LED lights, and also functions as a wi-fi hotspot? It's a dumb fscking product.
So, I might have my fridge and my freezer and my washing machine emitting power on the off-beat chance that a device is nearby which needs it? Am I going to be using more power to broadcast it when it's not needed? If so, this is incredibly stupid.
Yay! Let's all spent more for our appliances and pay higher electrical bills so that our fridge could be standing by to charge our cell phones.
Is a frigging charger that had to navigate that we need out fscking applilances just beaming power just in case?
I'm sorry, but the entire idea of this sounds pretty stupid to me.
Oh, but it's fridge 3.0, it's supposed to be connected to the interweb and be a hotspot for my @%$^$# phone. I don't see much value in this product for me.
Now get off my fscking lawn, you kids and your dancy do-dads and whirly-mahoozitzes. This is just technology for the sake of it.