There are still music stores around, they sell CDs, why would you go to Best Buy for that anyway?
However I have been and will continue to be of the opinion that all of you who pay for 'streaming' services are fools. You're encouraging a world where you OWN NOTHING. It's not just media, if you haven't noticed: Barriers to owning a home, and not just financial; things like HOAs making it difficult to impossible for the average person. Car 'leasing' instead of purchasing (and you're still paying for maintenance). Shit companies like Microsoft, pushing 'subscriptions' instead of letting you own a copy of software. And so on. Don't deny it's happening like so many of you deny so many other things that you said would never happen, only to find a few years later they did.
Buddy, I can just hear you thinking the word "cager" as I read your comment. Take it down a notch already. It's not as bad as you think it is, and frankly people who think like you are as likely as not to be contributing to the problems cyclists face as not.
Listen, Euro-friend, now that I have more time to write:
I'm more concerned with people here in the U.S., not Europe. I know damned well that pretty much anywhere in Europe, I'd be treated with orders of magnitude more respect, as a cyclist, than I am here in the U.S.. So I'm really speaking to U.S. readers, not EU readers, okay? By the way anti-cyclist types here in the U.S. don't care if it's EU cyclists or U.S. cyclists, they're haters one way or another.
Exaclty, precisely THIS. Next time use your login instead of being an AC because you're right and should be proud to say what you said, and THANK YOU for you support.
Did he inform the department of transportation and the local LEOs/Highway Patrol for that area that he was going to single-handedly block traffic? Did his actions reflect positively on cyclists, or did it just highlight the predominant American viewpoint that that cyclists are all entitled jerks who think the rules of the road don't apply to them?
These United States was birthed on the principle that Civil Disobedience is The Way To Get Things Done and I support that 9001% (*** FUCK THE POLICE ***) -- but this wasn't Martin Luther King leading thousands of blacks in a march for Civil Rights, it was ONE GUY ON A BIKE protesting something about Net Neutrality, and doing it in a way that, IN MY OPINION makes both Net Neutrality advocates and cyclist alike look like IDIOTS.
I stand behind my words 100% and if you or anybody else doesn't like that then you can shove it up your ass.
You want to organize a Net Neutrality support rally/march? I AM THERE. This jackass? Not so much. DEAL WITH IT.
As an avid cyclist myself, I neither approve of, nor condone the actions of Rob Bliss in this instance. It further damages the already bad reputation of cyclists everywhere, and we cyclists don't need any more bad press.
That having been said: I'm a firm supporter of Net Neutrality, and while there is humor in this stunt, breaking the law and creating a hazardous situation for both himself and the drivers he inconvenienced is not cool at all and just as likely convinced some people who don't even know what Net Neutrality is, that advocates of it are just lunatics. So I say "no thanks!" to this Rob Bliss, he's probably just made matters worse for both cyclists and for the case for Net Neutrality.
I encourage cyclists at every level to obey the same traffic laws that motor vehicles are bound to, and to ride safely in all circumstances. Lead by example.
I also encourage all advocates of Net Neutrality to make themselves heard whenever possible, and to educate those around them who do not understand what's at stake -- but to do it in a reasonable, rational, and lawful manner.
Surprise! We've had software that does that for more than 20 years now; we've just got more RAM and faster processors to power them -- and they still can't be trusted, must be overseen by a human being constantly, because what comes out of them may be absolute nonsense because it's not a MIND, it cannot THINK, it's just software. Doesn't seem to stop people from thinking it's some Godlike intellect though, and that's my core problem with this technology: people are not cautious enough to suit me when it comes to using it.
Listen buddy: We're all NOBODIES, using fake names, on an Internet news discussion forum, posting our OPINONS about things. Real sorry you don't like mine, but this isn't Debate Class, it's not a Court of Law, nothing is being decided here, it's all just WORDS. I don't need to post 'evidence' of anything. If you don't like what I'm saying that's your business, and if other people think what I'm saying makes sense, then I get modded up (which happens all the time for me, by the way). I think this crap they're calling 'AI' is half-baked at best, not really any better than what they had back in the 1990's, and when they've invested MILLIONS into developing this crap, marketing people will say ANYTHING to sell it, so they keep their jobs and their company doesn't go bankrupt. IDGAF how many games of chess or 'Go' or 'Jeopardy' it wins, it's still not what the vast majority of people THINK it is -- and that is my OPINION, like it or not. You want 'proof'? You want 'evidence'? You want a formal 'debate'? Leave me your real name and contact information, and I'll send you my hourly rate. Otherwise I'm here to read news stories and leave my opinion or not, as I see fit, for my own amusement.
Remember TV-B-Gone? Build a similar device that uses ultrasound to turn off Alexa and similar devices. Bonus points: Has more than one button, other buttons produce rogue Alexa requests/commands, but in the ultrasound range, so no one knows how or why Alexa is doing what it's doing. More bonus points: make the 'rogue command' feature user-recordable (i.e. pitch-bends your voice up to the ultrasound range).
What you said, plus this: Trump and his cabinet are corrupt as hell, probably being coerced or collaborating with Putin and Russia, have so many skeletons in their closet that they should open a haunted house, and Trump sees the hammer on it's way to falling on him (in the person of Robert Mueller) and is now desperately flailing about in what will be a futile attempt to avoid the consequences, which in the least will amount to being removed from office, and at most will result in criminal charges. This isn't going to be fun-and-games for anyone or for the country it's going to be BAD, BAD, BAD for the country, but allowing someone like Trump to continue would be worse. As is it'll take decades to repair the damage done to our government, and to the reputation of the United States with it's allies and with the rest of the world. Hell, it might destroy this country entirely. This particular political nuke is already on trajectory and can't be stopped; all that's left for us now is to sit and wait to see what happens.
Canaries were brought into coalmines by coal miners for one reason only: their sensitivity to the lack of oxygen and to toxic gasses; when they fell off the perch in their cage, passed out, miners knew they might be dead in minutes if they didn't evacuate. I find that reference to be rather apt considering that I'm sticking to my guns on this: so-called 'AI' will not live up to the hype and there might well be disaster because of it.
Furthermore you not being able to produce and prove any such credentials as an 'AI scientist' or whatever you claim to be, I am not inclined to take your word for anything; you're not using your real name any more than I am, here. Anything you post here is just your opinion, not credible or authoritative.
Consumers are both lazy and don't give a shit about security or privacy.
Very true. Also, 'bread and circuses'. So long as they're amused and your data collection/spying is not right in front of their face, they don't even think about it.
Oh, you stopped carrying a smartphone because you didn't want to be tracked? What the hell difference does that make when 99.99% of society around you is still carrying one?
It means that the lack of data available on me is lost in the noise of all the data from the mouth-breathing hordes they do have data on. Oh and by the way I've never owned a smartphone and never will, I have a $50 plastic LG dumbphone AT&T gave me for free, I physically disabled the GPS (shorted the antenna to ground), and it's off 95% of the time anyway.
Sorry, but the fight for privacy and security is done. The war is over, and privacy and security lost.
No, you've just stop caring and have given up. Enjoy accepting corporate and government penis into your body cavity, I guess, since that's what you're consenting to now. You can take back at least some of your privacy and data security, but the cost of that is giving up some dubious 'conveniences', and accepting some inconveniences. Just remember this: there was a time, not as long ago as you think it was, where we didn't have all the shiny toys we have now, and we got along in life just fine without them. You can live without them now, too. You just have to be willing to change the way you do things.
Are you being sarcastic? Seriously, who gives a damn about whether it can play some game or other? If you're not being sarcastic, and if that's the 'proof' you're pushing, then it's very weak at best.
I don't agree. I think in the short term we're in for lots of disappointed managerial types who discover that the so-called 'AI' they were sold on isn't anywhere near as capable as they were led to believe, and there'll be some economic disruption from that. In some cases there might even be companies that end up bankrupt because they bought into it so thoroughly that they don't even have the people around to pick up the pieces when things fall apart.
I think if you delved deeper into this you'd find that the same people who are screaming "THE SKY IS FALLING!" also don't understand that so-called 'AI' is not what television, movies, and the media all portray it to be: I'm convinced they think it's walking, talking, thinking, human-like; sentient and self-aware. The reality couldn't hardly be farther from the truth. These 'robots' they're all worried about are very limited, and really can't be trusted. Even the programmers who wrote them can only make educated guesses as to what's going on under the hood. People need to know that these so-called 'AIs' will need to be closely monitored since their output will not necessarily be what you expect, and in many cases leaving them unsupervised may create dangerous situations for humans in the vicinity otherwise.
Management types are part of this problem too. They're not any smarter when it comes to the reality of these so-called 'artificial intelligences', and as a result their expectations are way out of whack from reality, too. Then there's marketing people, and do I really need to explain how far they'll go to make a sale?
Everyone needs to calm down. There also needs to be some realistic, fact-based conversation amongst everyone as to what these so-called 'AIs' are and are not, and what they are and are not capable of, and most important of all: they are not equivalent to (or better than!) a human being in any way, shape, or form and will not be anytime in the forseeable future.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you're looking hard enough.
So, basically, a really crude version of Virtual Light glasses? Interesting.
There are still music stores around, they sell CDs, why would you go to Best Buy for that anyway?
However I have been and will continue to be of the opinion that all of you who pay for 'streaming' services are fools. You're encouraging a world where you OWN NOTHING. It's not just media, if you haven't noticed: Barriers to owning a home, and not just financial; things like HOAs making it difficult to impossible for the average person. Car 'leasing' instead of purchasing (and you're still paying for maintenance). Shit companies like Microsoft, pushing 'subscriptions' instead of letting you own a copy of software. And so on. Don't deny it's happening like so many of you deny so many other things that you said would never happen, only to find a few years later they did.
Post using your actual login instead of as AC and maybe we'll have a real conversation about that, otherwise STFU and GTFO.
You desperately want to use the word 'cager' don't you? Please, chill the fuck out, okay? Not anywhere near as bad as you think it is.
Buddy, I can just hear you thinking the word "cager" as I read your comment. Take it down a notch already. It's not as bad as you think it is, and frankly people who think like you are as likely as not to be contributing to the problems cyclists face as not.
Trollolololo
Go back to 4chan.
Thank you for injecting some intelligence into what's otherwise more-or-less a bunch of knee-jerk reactions from people regarding my post.
Listen, Euro-friend, now that I have more time to write:
I'm more concerned with people here in the U.S., not Europe. I know damned well that pretty much anywhere in Europe, I'd be treated with orders of magnitude more respect, as a cyclist, than I am here in the U.S.. So I'm really speaking to U.S. readers, not EU readers, okay? By the way anti-cyclist types here in the U.S. don't care if it's EU cyclists or U.S. cyclists, they're haters one way or another.
Exaclty, precisely THIS. Next time use your login instead of being an AC because you're right and should be proud to say what you said, and THANK YOU for you support.
Did he inform the department of transportation and the local LEOs/Highway Patrol for that area that he was going to single-handedly block traffic? Did his actions reflect positively on cyclists, or did it just highlight the predominant American viewpoint that that cyclists are all entitled jerks who think the rules of the road don't apply to them?
These United States was birthed on the principle that Civil Disobedience is The Way To Get Things Done and I support that 9001% (*** FUCK THE POLICE ***) -- but this wasn't Martin Luther King leading thousands of blacks in a march for Civil Rights, it was ONE GUY ON A BIKE protesting something about Net Neutrality, and doing it in a way that, IN MY OPINION makes both Net Neutrality advocates and cyclist alike look like IDIOTS.
I stand behind my words 100% and if you or anybody else doesn't like that then you can shove it up your ass.
You want to organize a Net Neutrality support rally/march? I AM THERE. This jackass? Not so much. DEAL WITH IT.
Yeah? I didn't ask for your condemnation or acceptance of my opinions on the matter, either, so how about you shove it?
Sure, and I'd almost wish I lived there. :-)
Oh for fuck's sake don't put words in my mouth and don't be such a fucking jackass.
As an avid cyclist myself, I neither approve of, nor condone the actions of Rob Bliss in this instance. It further damages the already bad reputation of cyclists everywhere, and we cyclists don't need any more bad press.
That having been said: I'm a firm supporter of Net Neutrality, and while there is humor in this stunt, breaking the law and creating a hazardous situation for both himself and the drivers he inconvenienced is not cool at all and just as likely convinced some people who don't even know what Net Neutrality is, that advocates of it are just lunatics. So I say "no thanks!" to this Rob Bliss, he's probably just made matters worse for both cyclists and for the case for Net Neutrality.
I encourage cyclists at every level to obey the same traffic laws that motor vehicles are bound to, and to ride safely in all circumstances. Lead by example.
I also encourage all advocates of Net Neutrality to make themselves heard whenever possible, and to educate those around them who do not understand what's at stake -- but to do it in a reasonable, rational, and lawful manner.
Surprise! We've had software that does that for more than 20 years now; we've just got more RAM and faster processors to power them -- and they still can't be trusted, must be overseen by a human being constantly, because what comes out of them may be absolute nonsense because it's not a MIND, it cannot THINK, it's just software. Doesn't seem to stop people from thinking it's some Godlike intellect though, and that's my core problem with this technology: people are not cautious enough to suit me when it comes to using it.
Listen buddy: We're all NOBODIES, using fake names, on an Internet news discussion forum, posting our OPINONS about things. Real sorry you don't like mine, but this isn't Debate Class, it's not a Court of Law, nothing is being decided here, it's all just WORDS. I don't need to post 'evidence' of anything. If you don't like what I'm saying that's your business, and if other people think what I'm saying makes sense, then I get modded up (which happens all the time for me, by the way). I think this crap they're calling 'AI' is half-baked at best, not really any better than what they had back in the 1990's, and when they've invested MILLIONS into developing this crap, marketing people will say ANYTHING to sell it, so they keep their jobs and their company doesn't go bankrupt. IDGAF how many games of chess or 'Go' or 'Jeopardy' it wins, it's still not what the vast majority of people THINK it is -- and that is my OPINION, like it or not. You want 'proof'? You want 'evidence'? You want a formal 'debate'? Leave me your real name and contact information, and I'll send you my hourly rate. Otherwise I'm here to read news stories and leave my opinion or not, as I see fit, for my own amusement.
Remember TV-B-Gone? Build a similar device that uses ultrasound to turn off Alexa and similar devices.
Bonus points: Has more than one button, other buttons produce rogue Alexa requests/commands, but in the ultrasound range, so no one knows how or why Alexa is doing what it's doing.
More bonus points: make the 'rogue command' feature user-recordable (i.e. pitch-bends your voice up to the ultrasound range).
#3: Leave it unplugged from power unless you're actively using it
#4: Don't buy the goddamned thing in the first place (preferred solution)
What you said, plus this: Trump and his cabinet are corrupt as hell, probably being coerced or collaborating with Putin and Russia, have so many skeletons in their closet that they should open a haunted house, and Trump sees the hammer on it's way to falling on him (in the person of Robert Mueller) and is now desperately flailing about in what will be a futile attempt to avoid the consequences, which in the least will amount to being removed from office, and at most will result in criminal charges. This isn't going to be fun-and-games for anyone or for the country it's going to be BAD, BAD, BAD for the country, but allowing someone like Trump to continue would be worse. As is it'll take decades to repair the damage done to our government, and to the reputation of the United States with it's allies and with the rest of the world. Hell, it might destroy this country entirely. This particular political nuke is already on trajectory and can't be stopped; all that's left for us now is to sit and wait to see what happens.
Canaries were brought into coalmines by coal miners for one reason only: their sensitivity to the lack of oxygen and to toxic gasses; when they fell off the perch in their cage, passed out, miners knew they might be dead in minutes if they didn't evacuate. I find that reference to be rather apt considering that I'm sticking to my guns on this: so-called 'AI' will not live up to the hype and there might well be disaster because of it.
Furthermore you not being able to produce and prove any such credentials as an 'AI scientist' or whatever you claim to be, I am not inclined to take your word for anything; you're not using your real name any more than I am, here. Anything you post here is just your opinion, not credible or authoritative.
Consumers are both lazy and don't give a shit about security or privacy.
Very true. Also, 'bread and circuses'. So long as they're amused and your data collection/spying is not right in front of their face, they don't even think about it.
Oh, you stopped carrying a smartphone because you didn't want to be tracked? What the hell difference does that make when 99.99% of society around you is still carrying one?
It means that the lack of data available on me is lost in the noise of all the data from the mouth-breathing hordes they do have data on. Oh and by the way I've never owned a smartphone and never will, I have a $50 plastic LG dumbphone AT&T gave me for free, I physically disabled the GPS (shorted the antenna to ground), and it's off 95% of the time anyway.
Sorry, but the fight for privacy and security is done. The war is over, and privacy and security lost.
No, you've just stop caring and have given up. Enjoy accepting corporate and government penis into your body cavity, I guess, since that's what you're consenting to now. You can take back at least some of your privacy and data security, but the cost of that is giving up some dubious 'conveniences', and accepting some inconveniences. Just remember this: there was a time, not as long ago as you think it was, where we didn't have all the shiny toys we have now, and we got along in life just fine without them. You can live without them now, too. You just have to be willing to change the way you do things.
Are you being sarcastic? Seriously, who gives a damn about whether it can play some game or other? If you're not being sarcastic, and if that's the 'proof' you're pushing, then it's very weak at best.
I don't agree. I think in the short term we're in for lots of disappointed managerial types who discover that the so-called 'AI' they were sold on isn't anywhere near as capable as they were led to believe, and there'll be some economic disruption from that. In some cases there might even be companies that end up bankrupt because they bought into it so thoroughly that they don't even have the people around to pick up the pieces when things fall apart.
I think if you delved deeper into this you'd find that the same people who are screaming "THE SKY IS FALLING!" also don't understand that so-called 'AI' is not what television, movies, and the media all portray it to be: I'm convinced they think it's walking, talking, thinking, human-like; sentient and self-aware. The reality couldn't hardly be farther from the truth. These 'robots' they're all worried about are very limited, and really can't be trusted. Even the programmers who wrote them can only make educated guesses as to what's going on under the hood. People need to know that these so-called 'AIs' will need to be closely monitored since their output will not necessarily be what you expect, and in many cases leaving them unsupervised may create dangerous situations for humans in the vicinity otherwise.
Management types are part of this problem too. They're not any smarter when it comes to the reality of these so-called 'artificial intelligences', and as a result their expectations are way out of whack from reality, too. Then there's marketing people, and do I really need to explain how far they'll go to make a sale?
Everyone needs to calm down. There also needs to be some realistic, fact-based conversation amongst everyone as to what these so-called 'AIs' are and are not, and what they are and are not capable of, and most important of all: they are not equivalent to (or better than!) a human being in any way, shape, or form and will not be anytime in the forseeable future.