We all have rights that come from God, that cannot be taken away by other humans.
I'm very curious to know what those are, because I can't think of any. Well, except for freedom of thought, but this is more like an ability than right.
Everything else I can think of, is guaranteed by the State (or some other form of social contract) and you can find a place (or point in history) where people don't have this right.
Well, I guess my reply was a little confusing. I was challenging the point that the Bible is the basis for morality, not its influence. On that I agree. And that Jesus Christ is probably the most influential person in the world, whether he is fictional or not.
No, it *is* the Bible. It's the most influential book ever, and it affects you as well, whether you agree with its teachings or not. It's the very basis for Western civilization & morality (though that morality is under attack.)
Thank flying spaghetti monster you are wrong here. If that book would have been a basis for morality, we would see people being executed for things like cheating, saying "fuck god" and more minor shit like this.
*Religion* is getting fit into the ethic norms of the time, not the other way around.
True - on one hand, you have a group of people vociferously claiming conclusive knowledge of a mystical sort that is beyond their abilities to explain - they just know it because it feels right and they haven't seen any contradictions of their beliefs; If you disagree with them, you're written off as nothing more than an ignorant savage.
And on the other hand, you have the Christians, who will do all of that, too, but they'll pray for you while they do it.
[citation needed]
As an atheist I would be very interested in what kind of mystical knowledge I presumably claim I have.
I know there is an option, but I can't find it (given up).
It may be right there, easy to find, but if you are simply unaware of the situation (like with phoning home, for example), then it is still "hidden".
The only acceptable (yet obtrusive) way to handle this is if when you run it for the first time it will pop up a dialog asking you, are you agree to this or that thing and have the option that favors you selected by default. Still, many people won't read the crap (see EULAs), but now nobody can say you were not given a choice.
Unfortunately, the lesson everyone will take from this study is "fuck it, lets just burn gas and forget about it".
Even if electric car is no better for the environment *at this point* it is still a very good step forward, that can help centralize energy production so that it can be then optimized.
The main problem here is that we *will* run out of all fossil fuels and this future is not so distant. Given the fact that there is no viable alternative anywhere on the horizon, people will be *forced* to do this out of necessity, not by choice.
Flying cars? Space ships? Forget about it! The future of transportation is horse and bike.
3. The fact that companies are interested in this number means someone is trying to make it relevant and thus the entire thing is scary as shit.
This can actually work, unfortunately. Look at the credit score, for example. Nobody wants to think/research by themselves, they just want somebody to tell them: this is good, this is bad and take away all responsibility.
Stupid, but before you know you may find yourself wondering, if the sites you are using report to Klout.
My old Philips had 3 weeks of battery life with my usage pattern and it took two pushes of a button (including unlocking) to call pretty much everybody I care about.
They could make the battery life longer if they wanted, but it would make the phone bigger and heavier. Apple chooses the lowest battery life people need, and put whatever size battery it takes to hit that number (if you want more battery life, there are very nice cases with built in batteries). In my opinion, your old Philips device would be better if it needed charging every night. Imagine how much thinner and lighter it would have been? Is it really that hard to plug it in when you get home?
Yep. With the phone I had before, which I had to charge everyday, I used to forget it every other day and was left *without* a phone every other day. I just don't want to think about it everyday. If I had some sort of wireless charging station at home, that authomatically starts charging, even if the phone is in your pocket then yes, I wouldn't worry.
The best thing though was that if I had to go somewhere for a weekend or even longer, I didn't even bother to take the charger with me.
And your two pushes of a button including unlocking sounds unlikely to me.
OK, it wasn't just a push. It was a long press to unlock, long press to speed dial. Still pretty optimal.
All my old phones required two pushes just to unlock, and then a long press on a button (or some similar shortcut) to call someone. With my iPhone, I don't even have to unlock it. I just hold the button down and say the person's name, and it calls them.
Well, I *really* don't want to talk to my phone. Especially saying aloud the names of the people I'm calling. Yeah, I know I'm old fashioned. My old "dumb" phone, had this feature too BTW, so there is nothing new about it. I just never used it.
It's hard not to be on Samsung's side in this. Apple sued first over some totally ridiculous crap.
They are both far from being saints, that's a given. Both phones suck*, but Apple definitely crossed the line of sanity here.
* They both suck *as phones*, when compared to "dumb" phones. My old Philips had 3 weeks of battery life with my usage pattern and it took two pushes of a button (including unlocking) to call pretty much everybody I care about.
It would be interesting to make you compete against Self-Driving car for a Driving License:)
Like, you drive as usual, but in a car with all self-driving sensors and all and then expert compares decisions you made with decisions your car was suggesting at the same time. If you can't beat it, you don't get the license:)
I wonder how insurance companies are going to handle this. My self-driving car hit your self driving car. Who's going to pay? Yeah, my car is at fault, but I wasn't at the wheel and I don't even have a license. What then? What if a collision is due to a bug in software?
I'm afraid that legal obstacles this project faces are more serious than technical.
Slashdot Mirror
We all have rights that come from God, that cannot be taken away by other humans.
I'm very curious to know what those are, because I can't think of any. Well, except for freedom of thought, but this is more like an ability than right.
Everything else I can think of, is guaranteed by the State (or some other form of social contract) and you can find a place (or point in history) where people don't have this right.
What rights did slaves have?
Well, I guess my reply was a little confusing. I was challenging the point that the Bible is the basis for morality, not its influence. On that I agree. And that Jesus Christ is probably the most influential person in the world, whether he is fictional or not.
No, it *is* the Bible. It's the most influential book ever, and it affects you as well, whether you agree with its teachings or not. It's the very basis for Western civilization & morality (though that morality is under attack.)
Thank flying spaghetti monster you are wrong here. If that book would have been a basis for morality, we would see people being executed for things like cheating, saying "fuck god" and more minor shit like this.
*Religion* is getting fit into the ethic norms of the time, not the other way around.
As an atheist, I tend to agree.
Most of the rest is just plain boring.
True - on one hand, you have a group of people vociferously claiming conclusive knowledge of a mystical sort that is beyond their abilities to explain - they just know it because it feels right and they haven't seen any contradictions of their beliefs; If you disagree with them, you're written off as nothing more than an ignorant savage.
And on the other hand, you have the Christians, who will do all of that, too, but they'll pray for you while they do it.
[citation needed]
As an atheist I would be very interested in what kind of mystical knowledge I presumably claim I have.
(And yes, I do understand that this was a joke)
Because business/profit/popularity religion is so much better!
There is a difference between:
It may be right there, easy to find, but if you are simply unaware of the situation (like with phoning home, for example), then it is still "hidden".
The only acceptable (yet obtrusive) way to handle this is if when you run it for the first time it will pop up a dialog asking you, are you agree to this or that thing and have the option that favors you selected by default. Still, many people won't read the crap (see EULAs), but now nobody can say you were not given a choice.
What if you are not even aware of the option? I'd argue that this covers the majority of cases and this is exactly why companies prefer opt-out.
Unfortunately, the lesson everyone will take from this study is "fuck it, lets just burn gas and forget about it".
Even if electric car is no better for the environment *at this point* it is still a very good step forward, that can help centralize energy production so that it can be then optimized.
The main problem here is that we *will* run out of all fossil fuels and this future is not so distant. Given the fact that there is no viable alternative anywhere on the horizon, people will be *forced* to do this out of necessity, not by choice.
Flying cars? Space ships? Forget about it! The future of transportation is horse and bike.
Not that I'm thrilled about it either.
3. The fact that companies are interested in this number means someone is trying to make it relevant and thus the entire thing is scary as shit.
This can actually work, unfortunately. Look at the credit score, for example. Nobody wants to think/research by themselves, they just want somebody to tell them: this is good, this is bad and take away all responsibility.
Stupid, but before you know you may find yourself wondering, if the sites you are using report to Klout.
This "news" is kind of backwards. It would be news if it turned out that it *does* make any sort of sense.
Oh yeah, another thing is that I didn't have any trouble doing it with ONE HAND.
My old Philips had 3 weeks of battery life with my usage pattern and it took two pushes of a button (including unlocking) to call pretty much everybody I care about.
They could make the battery life longer if they wanted, but it would make the phone bigger and heavier. Apple chooses the lowest battery life people need, and put whatever size battery it takes to hit that number (if you want more battery life, there are very nice cases with built in batteries). In my opinion, your old Philips device would be better if it needed charging every night. Imagine how much thinner and lighter it would have been? Is it really that hard to plug it in when you get home?
Yep. With the phone I had before, which I had to charge everyday, I used to forget it every other day and was left *without* a phone every other day. I just don't want to think about it everyday. If I had some sort of wireless charging station at home, that authomatically starts charging, even if the phone is in your pocket then yes, I wouldn't worry.
The best thing though was that if I had to go somewhere for a weekend or even longer, I didn't even bother to take the charger with me.
And your two pushes of a button including unlocking sounds unlikely to me.
OK, it wasn't just a push. It was a long press to unlock, long press to speed dial. Still pretty optimal.
All my old phones required two pushes just to unlock, and then a long press on a button (or some similar shortcut) to call someone. With my iPhone, I don't even have to unlock it. I just hold the button down and say the person's name, and it calls them.
Well, I *really* don't want to talk to my phone. Especially saying aloud the names of the people I'm calling. Yeah, I know I'm old fashioned. My old "dumb" phone, had this feature too BTW, so there is nothing new about it. I just never used it.
It's hard not to be on Samsung's side in this. Apple sued first over some totally ridiculous crap.
They are both far from being saints, that's a given. Both phones suck*, but Apple definitely crossed the line of sanity here.
* They both suck *as phones*, when compared to "dumb" phones. My old Philips had 3 weeks of battery life with my usage pattern and it took two pushes of a button (including unlocking) to call pretty much everybody I care about.
Yeah, after some exercise you get all sweaty and usually need to take a shower and change clothes. What helmet has to do with it?
The problem of helmet not being "fashionable" can be easily solved by a couple of shots for Vogue of Angelina Jolie in a bike helmet.
Good job at proving GP's point.
Whoosh
Another whoosh for the joke in IT Crowd, as they were making the same reference
I don't think it is important whether or not it is good for business. What important is, if it *fair* and good for society.
Sharing some hardware tools with your neighbor may be bad for hardware maker's business, but if somebody says it should be illegal, I'd say fuck you.
Or fucking [a] mor[m]on, i.e. just pointing out that Romney has a healthy sexual relationships with his wife, who is also a mormon. SImple mistake.
You should work as a PR spokesperson for some politician or something :)
Have you ever heard somebody saying things like "people are fucking stupid", "people are morons", etc.?
Do you really think 7B people get upset over this or even care?
It would be interesting to make you compete against Self-Driving car for a Driving License :)
Like, you drive as usual, but in a car with all self-driving sensors and all and then expert compares decisions you made with decisions your car was suggesting at the same time. If you can't beat it, you don't get the license :)
I wonder how insurance companies are going to handle this. My self-driving car hit your self driving car. Who's going to pay? Yeah, my car is at fault, but I wasn't at the wheel and I don't even have a license. What then? What if a collision is due to a bug in software?
I'm afraid that legal obstacles this project faces are more serious than technical.